Chris Doane (Brenda Priddy) has caught the upcoming 2009 Acura TSX being tested right outside of Honda's facility in the US. The new car is only slightly larger than the current TSX, but the big news is the addition of more power under the hood.
The next TSX will come in two versions. The base model will feature a more powerful version of the current 2.4L 4-cylinder with about 20 to 30 more horsepower. The model to get will be the Type-S version of the TSX that will be powered by the same 2.3L turbocharged engine that currently resides in the RDX crossover. In the TSX the 2.3L engine will put out around 260 horsepower. The Type-S version will also employ Acura's SH-AWD system which should eliminate any torque steer.
The next TSX could also eventually have a diesel option, since the Accord is set to get it for 2009.
Expect the new more powerful and aggressively styled TSX to be in showrooms by this time next year.
Click the link below to see the full photos
Full Story: Autoblog
Related Stories:
Honda Accord Tourer Concept Unveiled...It May Hint At the Next Acura TSX?
The Honda Stream Mini-MPV is Coming to the US by 2009
More Photos and Official Specs of the All-New 2009 Honda Fit
Spy Photos of The Next 2009 Acura TSX or is it the Next TL?
Comments (19)
is the TSX the smallest Acura?
Posted by unknown | October 3, 2007 11:24 PM
Posted on October 3, 2007 23:24
Since the RSX is gone, yes TSX is the smallest now.
Posted by A | October 3, 2007 11:57 PM
Posted on October 3, 2007 23:57
Acura finally put some power under the hood so I just hope gas mileage isn't as bad as the RDX.. Styling looks decent too
Posted by Gary | October 4, 2007 3:29 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 03:29
Looks pretty much exactly like what I expected. Now we need some pics of the coupe.
Posted by Darmok | October 4, 2007 8:54 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 08:54
Now if they just dropped the 2.3T into the S2k...
Posted by John | October 4, 2007 9:49 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 09:49
Wait a sec... I thought European and Japanese cars could get more power with smaller engines than American cars do...
It's always amusing to me to see when non American auto makers go with bigger and bigger engines year after year, a concept which the majority of this website is overwhelmingly opposed to (when it comes to American cars anyway).
Why has there been a steady increase in displacement and engine size European and Japanese cars over the years? Lots of V8s popping up in Japanese cars that traditionally only offered I4s and V6s, even the M3 is ditching it's I6 for the much hated V8.
Maybe they understand something that American companies have understood for decades:
There is no replacement for displacement.
Posted by Chris | October 4, 2007 11:02 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 11:02
Maybe you should also be amazed at how many American engines put out less power than their European and Asian counterparts at the same configurations. For example, the latest E92 BMW M3 4.0L V8 produces 420hp. The 2007 Caddy CTS-V 6.0L V8 produces 400hp.
There is no replacement for displacement? More like "there's no replacement for good engineering".
Posted by Jim | October 4, 2007 11:36 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 11:36
hah...BRAVO JIM!!!
Posted by mr.x | October 4, 2007 12:05 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 12:05
The increased mass with the inclusion of the SH-AWD system will pretty much offset, or negate, any of the HP gains with the turbo'd 2.3. I'm reminded of the VW R32.
Also, Acura also offers a CSX in Canada which is actually the smallest Acura and it is no longer just a rebadged Civic (as the old EL's were). It actually has a bigger 2.0L 4.
Posted by lmnop88 | October 4, 2007 12:12 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 12:12
The name of this site is the TORQUE-report isn't it?
Horsepower sells a car, torque actually moves it.
The new M3's (wonderful) V8 does not make anywhere near the amount of torque that the CTS-V's LS6 motor generates. Comparing these engines based on horsepower numbers alone is like comparing apples to oranges.
They have completely different characters - characters that were engineered that way on purpose.
Finally! - the TSX was underpowered when it debuted! How a Honda Accord can have 270hp and this sporty (looking) sedan makes due with 200hp baffles me.
Posted by Greg | October 4, 2007 1:11 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 13:11
Jim:
ok, so if BMW made a 4L engine and a 6L engine with identical engineering, you're saying the 4L would be more powerful?
*smack*
Posted by Chris | October 4, 2007 2:12 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 14:12
You can spin it either way.
"Why does GM need 6L to make the same power BMW does with 4L"
"Why does BMW need 2 more valves per cylinder to make the same power GM does with 2?"
If both are same performance and same MPG, who cares how many valves or liters the engine is.
Would you like 6 eggs or half a dozen eggs?
Would you like coke or pepsi?
Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream?
etc.
Posted by Chris | October 4, 2007 2:17 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 14:17
"For example, the latest E92 BMW M3 4.0L V8 produces 420hp. The 2007 Caddy CTS-V 6.0L V8 produces 400hp. "
That 6.0L V8 was also used in some much lower end cars such as the GTO. It's a much cheaper engine to produce. I'd be willing to bet that the simpler design of the GM engine probably gets you a pretty similar engine weight to the BMW even though the BMW engine is 2.0L smaller displacement.
So what I'm saying are the things to consider are power to weight ratio, cost, packaging, torque curve, reliability, maintainability (easy access to parts and reasonably priced parts), fuel economy, sound, responsiveness (turbo lag/peaky). There are a lot of different paths to the same goal.
I actually think this Acura engine looks pretty good. They should be able to get 300hp or more from a 2.3L turbo I-4 though.
Don't get me wrong, I think the BMW M3 is freakin fantastic. It is going against what a lot of people have been crying about for years though. BMWs cornerstone engine for years has been the 3.0L I-6. The last M3s claim to fame was a high strung I-6 that could match the performance of a Corvette by cranking up the RPMs. They have cracked to the pressure put on by Audi and Mercedes to put a larger V-8 in their small performance model. The M3 would be closer to its heritage if they used an upgraded version of the 335's engine.
We all have the same goal, speed. These are just different ways to get there. Choose your weapon.
Posted by Darmok | October 4, 2007 2:24 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 14:24
I'm thinking it will have to be released with 270hp minimum as the new Honda Accord has 268. I really can't see them letting the Accord hive higher numbers. I know the TSX will be a lower weight yada yada, but they better at least make it 270hp. Didn't Acura say earlier in the year that all cars will have a 300+ hp option?
Posted by Gary | October 4, 2007 10:29 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 22:29
To all those "no replacement for displacement" comments, did you guys not notice that the Type-S is a 2.3 and the standard is a 2.4? How is it that Acura continues to increase displacement?
I know it has a turbo but this kind of disproves the NRFD remarks.
Posted by Gary | October 4, 2007 10:32 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 22:32
I've always felt the TSX needed more power b/c the Accord is right under it in terms of pricing yet it had more HP.
Posted by john | October 4, 2007 11:56 PM
Posted on October 4, 2007 23:56
LOL Chris is an idiot that can't even count. 2.3 is small than 2.4, see Chris, 3<4. You seem like an undedicated union worker who's pissed off that you can't drive a beemer while having a high school education.
Posted by John | October 7, 2007 6:09 PM
Posted on October 7, 2007 18:09
No replacement for displacement, ceteris paribus. NOW do you get it, John? No, I suppose you wouldn't. Oh well.
Posted by Alexvrb | October 9, 2007 10:38 PM
Posted on October 9, 2007 22:38
Yes TSX is the smallest Acura, since no more RSX(the car that i owning right now and love it.
----------------------------------
www.postmyimage.com - Ultimate free picture sharing site.
Posted by PostMyImage.com | October 10, 2007 5:48 PM
Posted on October 10, 2007 17:48