Engine & Gearbox 2.4 paddles v none paddles

Discussion in '8th Generation (2008-2015) [Acura TSX]' started by pubcrawler, Thursday 28th Mar, 2013.

  1. pubcrawler Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆


    I have tried seraching the forum and "googling" with no real answer...

    Parkers and various other sites state the 2.4 i-VTEC's 0 - 60 times 7.1 (manual) 9.5 (auto)

    Does it make a difference with the paddles or is the time of 9.5s the fastest you will get from an auto box? I am not obsesed with 0-60 speeds but the auto box is actually slower than the 2.0 manual.

    thanks in advance
  2. SpeedyGee Administrator Staff Team

    England Speedy Birmingham
    I doubt it, the paddles simply give you a means to control changing gears up and down.

    The extra weight and gearing are what slows the auto version down.
  3. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    I personally can see a slightly faster 0-60 as going into S mode means holding the gear longer and you can use the entire rev range before the limiter.

    I would see a marginal improvement but no way faster than manual gearbox.
  4. pubcrawler Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Thanks for the replies guys, the reason I am asking is that my current 3 series seems to be a lot quicker but less powerful. Its such a shame about the diffrence, although I fancied a 2.4 I am now weighing up the 2.0 because of this difference, I was happy to absorb the extra fuel cost if it had decent perfomance

    How do the 2.4 owners feel their cars perform?
  5. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    If you are buying an auto for the relaxed driving style then a 2.0 will be fine if you slightly spirited drive then you have to work the 2.0 to get moving.

    The 2.4 is effortless due to the torque, but both are not performance cars better of with a 2.4 manual if you want a smile.

    if you want to have comparable performance to the BMW then you will be disappointed it not a like for like comparison.
  6. richsprint Account Closed. ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    Hi Pubcrawler,

    What BMW are you comparing to?

    I've got a 2.0 petrol auto, its fine crusing and tootling around town, but as Ichiban says, you need to use the paddles and get the revs up to really get moving.

    Typical Honda with i-VTEC variable valve timing, all the power is up high in the rev band, not too much torque.

  7. pubcrawler Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    I have a 320d, I used to have a FN2 I am not looking for something as harsh again but would like a little grunt when needed. I am by no means a boy racer, I appreciate cars both asthetically and engineering wise and Hondas always appeal to me. I would like the auto box as I often do a daily 400 mile trip to Oxford and back for work, I do not want to go down the disel route again as I have had too many issues and read horror stories that I am sure we are all aware of.
  8. richsprint Account Closed. ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    Yeah I used to have a 2001 320d Touring and recently a 2004 325Ci. The Accord is a very different car, but very well built and reliable. The 320d has bitten a few people's fingers with turbo and/or engine failure.

    Guess you have to get out and test drive the 2.0 and 2.4 to see which you prefer. Motorway cruising there is very little in the MPG figures, the 2.0 is better around town. Also look at the road tax costs, there was a revision on the 2.0 auto circa 2009, which moved it down a road tax band just.
  9. pubcrawler Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Yeah gone through a turbo and various other problems in 12 months and 20k miles, won't ever go back to BMW as they Customer service is shocking and really do not give a toss about customers. I have had 3 diesels over the last 5 yrs (serial car changer) more hassle than they are worth IMO. I am looking at the 2.4 with ADAS, there is a nice one with Honda at the mo' slightly over priced, plus they offer ridiculous money for mine in p/x
  10. richsprint Account Closed. ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    The ADAS equipped models are very rare so they do tend to be all the money.

    If you change cars frequently, a big 2.4 petrol engined Accord might not make sense, its likely to depreciate fairly hard, as most people misguidedly want diesels...

    Probably lose something crazy like £2500 a year, depending how many miles you put on it, also the 8th Generation is coming to the end of its life, we're waiting for a 9th Generation announcement or a discontinued in the Uk announcement, CR-V will be the only big Honda etc.