Topic: CD Article: 2006 Acura CSX

[Bullet Blue]

(EDIT: I just want to specify that I know that there is a bigger difference between the Mazda3 and the S40 than there is between the Civic and the CSX... but the principle is the same)

Very true. But the CSX compensates through being much cheaper than the S40.

If you spend a lot of time lurking around Volvo dealerships... you will find that the S40 only shares its styling with other Volvos. The actualy material quality puts the S40 closer to Ford / Mazda territory than the remainder of the Volvo range!

You've obviously never driven one.

[a4_tom]

S40 drives completely differently from Mazda3 and Focus. It still has that Volvo "benign" driving dynamics, although definitely not as sharply focused as 3 and Focus. I was talking about the European 2nd gen. Focus BTW.

[G0dspd]

Going back over the previous 4 pages, two main differences appear to jump out from CSX fans.

1. Power..to me an extra 10 % hp or torque (in a heavier car) is not worth it....really, who drives these cars?  How many end up on real race tracks (not the imaginary ones you fantasize on your way to work in the am).  The base Civic has plenty of real world power..more than adequate for highway passing, even up-hill...if that's not enough for you, you are probably driving like a lunatic or just jealous because your buddy has x more hp in his _____.  One thing I did notice about the last Civic though...VERY prone to cross winds on the highway...to the point it's almost scary.
2. Leather seats, HID headlights and nav systems do not make a luxury vehicle..just ask Hyundai.  Personally, I love heated seats but hate leather seats...too damn cold and slippery in winter and hot and sticky in the summer.  Xenon lights are great but stock lights are much better these days than when DOT regs tried to repress the imports.  I've never used a nav system other than the handheld GPS I installed in my truck 10 years ago.  It's a truck I use 95% on logging roads.  I wouldn't take the time to learn the nav system in the CDX and I don't think most owners would either.  But I don't live in a large city either, I know where I'm going.

My vote is still that it's not worth the $$.  Well...maybe for my grandparents puttering around town and wanting to feel a little extravagent.....

  ... very good post IMO.  (They don't like it when you crush their illusions ... they get testy and very defensive  )

[Shnak]

Of course it's not worth it if every single extra feature you get for the extra money is something you don't want. That's like saying I don't think the MX-5 is worth whatever they sell for because I can't fit in them. 

For someone that wants hints of luxury, performance, fuel economy, reliability, high resale value, and affordable... there isn't much better than the CSX out there...

[FrostyCarbon]

Well....Looky, Looky.
Acura Canada site has lowered the financing and leasing rate for March.
The residual came down as well, used to be 14,xxx.
Now with same kind of money down, the CSX premium auto is a more reasonable $100 more a month over the Civic EX auto and its higher finance rates.

[G0dspd]

Was the CSX selling less than the old EL? 

[locutusx]

Going back over the previous 4 pages, two main differences appear to jump out from CSX fans.

1. Power..to me an extra 10 % hp or torque (in a heavier car) is not worth it....really, who drives these cars?  How many end up on real race tracks (not the imaginary ones you fantasize on your way to work in the am).  The base Civic has plenty of real world power..more than adequate for highway passing, even up-hill...if that's not enough for you, you are probably driving like a lunatic or just jealous because your buddy has x more hp in his _____.  One thing I did notice about the last Civic though...VERY prone to cross winds on the highway...to the point it's almost scary.
2. Leather seats, HID headlights and nav systems do not make a luxury vehicle..just ask Hyundai.  Personally, I love heated seats but hate leather seats...too damn cold and slippery in winter and hot and sticky in the summer.  Xenon lights are great but stock lights are much better these days than when DOT regs tried to repress the imports.  I've never used a nav system other than the handheld GPS I installed in my truck 10 years ago.  It's a truck I use 95% on logging roads.  I wouldn't take the time to learn the nav system in the CDX and I don't think most owners would either.  But I don't live in a large city either, I know where I'm going.

My vote is still that it's not worth the $$.  Well...maybe for my grandparents puttering around town and wanting to feel a little extravagent.....

  ... very good post IMO.  (They don't like it when you crush their illusions ... they get testy and very defensive  )

crushed illusions? maybe it was your illusions which got "crushed", eh...

i did not respond to that point directly, but what was said in his point #1 about torque is a bit irrelevant. his implication is that there's no point to buying the V6 version of any car (which has an i4 standard) since modern-day i4's (Camry, Accord) provide "more than enough passing power, power to get up hills, etc.".

in fact, it means this whole forum is pointless, since nobody needs to buy S2000's, Subaru WRX's, Mustang's, Civic Si's etc. we should all just buy Corolla's and base Civic's. Because we all know they have more than enough passing power and can drive up a hill, and that's all we need, according to him...!

it's such a foolish point, that I'm sitting here chuckling at my desk now... ok, better stop before the boss walks by

[jitsu303]

crushed illusions? maybe it was your illusions which got "crushed", eh...

i did not respond to that point directly, but what was said in his point #1 about torque is a bit irrelevant. his implication is that there's no point to buying the V6 version of any car (which has an i4 standard) since modern-day i4's (Camry, Accord) provide "more than enough passing power, power to get up hills, etc.".

in fact, it means this whole forum is pointless, since nobody needs to buy S2000's, Subaru WRX's, Mustang's, Civic Si's etc. we should all just buy Corolla's and base Civic's. Because we all know they have more than enough passing power and can drive up a hill, and that's all we need, according to him...!

it's such a foolish point, that I'm sitting here chuckling at my desk now... ok, better stop before the boss walks by

Go back and READ what I wrote...I NEVER said anything about V6's...don't know where you dreamt that.  My point is that most people...and I do mean the vast majority, myself included, would NEVER notice a small hp gain in any motor.  You might think you feel a difference between a 1.7l and a 1.8l but if you didn't know you were driving cars with different engines..you would not be able to tell in day to day driving.  Especially the type of day to day driving that CSX owners do.  When was the last time you saw a CSX running cones by an owner?

[wing]

I found the 1.8 in the new civic for VASTLY outperform the 1.7 from the old, the increse in output is about 40hp that is significant.  The old motor felt like it had to be reved to 4000rpm to leave a stop light the new one felt "normal" 2k or so.

[a4_tom]

Was the CSX selling less than the old EL?

The biggest Acura dealer in town has only sold 4 CSXs so far. They said its far less than what previous 2 EL iterations have sold.

[wing]

It was also released at the slowest time of year......  who knows though Honda could not have reduced the rates for nothing.

[Shnak]

Well the CSX does sell at quite a bit of a premium over the Civic... I guess most people that previously bought the EL are not ready to spend the extra 4-5k the CSX now costs... And I can understand that... I would probably opt for the Civic myself as it's one heck of a car as it is, and would serve me just as well as the CSX would... But IMO, for what you get with the CSX, I still think it's a pretty good deal.

[Prius]

Honestly, that extra power that they keep promoting isn't noticeable. I've tested both the CSX Premium (no nav) and the Civic EX. They both feel the same in terms of acceleration and normal driving. The CSX tends to have a peakier torque output whereas the Civic seems to have more torque available < 4,000rpm. That's about it.

[Shnak]

Honestly, that extra power that they keep promoting isn't noticeable. I've tested both the CSX Premium (no nav) and the Civic EX. They both feel the same in terms of acceleration and normal driving. The CSX tends to have a peakier torque output whereas the Civic seems to have more torque available < 4,000rpm. That's about it.

Explain to me how that is possible when the CSX is a bigger engine, and attains its peak HP lower than than the Civic's engine... 

[Seafoam]

I thought the whole idea of the CSX and the EL before it was to get us poor Canadian's into the Acura showroom. Drive the entry level car for a few years then upgrade to TSX or RL etc. So when you compare to Acura's other more expensive offerings this car looks pretty affordable.
When it is compared to the similar civic it doesn't look as affordable does it,or do the  other features  set it apart[more output from engine,paddle shifter,etc.I just saw a Motorweek episode on Speed tonight and they mentioned the 4 door civic SI possibly being produced,that would probably get the 197 hp motor . That would really start a discussion on this topic would it not?

Andrew   

[G0dspd]

crushed illusions? maybe it was your illusions which got "crushed", eh...

i did not respond to that point directly, but what was said in his point #1 about torque is a bit irrelevant. his implication is that there's no point to buying the V6 version of any car (which has an i4 standard) since modern-day i4's (Camry, Accord) provide "more than enough passing power, power to get up hills, etc.".

in fact, it means this whole forum is pointless, since nobody needs to buy S2000's, Subaru WRX's, Mustang's, Civic Si's etc. we should all just buy Corolla's and base Civic's. Because we all know they have more than enough passing power and can drive up a hill, and that's all we need, according to him...!

it's such a foolish point, that I'm sitting here chuckling at my desk now... ok, better stop before the boss walks by

Thanks! ... for proving my point!   You do a little too much "deduction" from a simple statement ... and insulting people doesn't help your case.

[Prius]

Honestly, that extra power that they keep promoting isn't noticeable. I've tested both the CSX Premium (no nav) and the Civic EX. They both feel the same in terms of acceleration and normal driving. The CSX tends to have a peakier torque output whereas the Civic seems to have more torque available < 4,000rpm. That's about it.

Explain to me how that is possible when the CSX is a bigger engine, and attains its peak HP lower than than the Civic's engine... 

How they manage VTEC and I said torque. So what if the hp peak is lower. It isn't directly related, only partially. Why don't you test drive both and then tell me? Both cars were driving around the city and the CSX's lack of torque below 4,000 rpm (i.e. VTEC threshold) is noticeable. Once you get past 4,000rpm, whoosh, the car picks itself up and runs. I suppose a manual transmission would match the engine's output better.

Bigger isn't better. The bigger engine is just to attract buyers (ooh, it has the RSX engine) and it needed the extra power to offset its weight gain.

oh, and I had the same number of people in the both cars if you were wondering.

[G0dspd]

i-VTEC still needs a minimum RPM?  I thought that was the point of the "intelligent".   I know that the old VTEC needed 6000 RPM ... which I always thought was kind of an almost rip-off.  Made it one hell of whiny car anyway ... now we have the S2000 for that! 

EDIT: I believe you ... I'm just curious 

[Prius]

if you're in Canada, go try it out for yourself.

The TSX is similar but not as bad. There's still power before i-VTEC kicks in. I'm sure the new 205hp version is better.

[X10+]

What about Navigation System for $30K? Any ohter car dont give navi for $30k