The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online Forums > Acura Announces $25,900 Starting Price for 2013 ILX > > Re: Differences Between Civic Si and ILX 2.4

S600=Dream wrote:
cksi1372 wrote:

Sorry, but respectfully, that's ridiculous. So, you've never had an opinion on a car before driving it? You have no initial reaction to something like the NSX or RLX, I suppose?

99% of the population, including enthusiasts, will have an initial impression and thoughts on a vehicle, especially a new one...yes, based on stats/specs. This car is probably very much like a vehicle already out there...the Civic. Sure there could be some differences in things like NVH/options, but I bet it's not that much different than a drive in a comparable Civic.

My initial reaction, no I haven't driven it, is that it will not do that well and Acura missed the mark here. The model options are weird and make little sense. I don't believe it's what Gen Y wants and is not That distinguished from a Civic...at least enough to get people to move up to it, especially after the Civic gets it's much published "fix" to the interior.

I have the complete opposite opinion of the new RDX and haven't driven that either. I think that will be a home run and is a much more distinguished vehicle than say, the new CRV.

The problem with going down market like Acura has done, is the margins are much tighter and to keep the ILX price down or attractive they had to compromise. Now, that wouldn't have been a problem if it was a more distinguishable vehicle, in the realm of a RSX or CT type vehicle, but it SEEMS to close to a Civic...again, initial reaction on paper. If that's what buyer's see and conclude ( I and many others believe this to be the case), it won't matter a hill of beans because they probably won't drive it anyway.

Here's the thing. It's fine to pass judgement on a car's looks based on it's looks. It's also fine to pass judgement on how cheap things look.

You cannot--I repeat CANNOT--judge a car without driving it.

On paper, a 1990 Miata should be about the worst car ever. It's slower than slow, it's chassis is made out of wet spaghetti and twizzlers, it's got a cheap interior, and it's softly sprung.

That, however, is not the case. Tt's a freaking delight to drive despite the fact that it takes 10 seconds to get to 60 miles an hour and rolls around like a loaf of bread on an airplane. Why? Because despite the fact that it might have 87 horsepower, it sounds and feels like it's got way more, and it's shifter is incredible, it's steering could have a religion based on it, and it's chassis balance (something one could never really seriously subjectively explain to another individual) is unlike anything from 1990 that cost 10 grand new.

One could make a similar argument for the old CRX, or even the Fit and CR-Z, which all look terrible on paper but are genuinely entertaining and great cars. Hell, let's take a look at the NSX which had under 300 horsepower and a tape player in it's interior for it's whole life...must be a piss poor car, right?

You can't put stuff like chassis responsiveness, tactile sense, feeling of engineering integrated-ness (yeah, I made that one up), and ambiance of a car on paper. You just can't, which is why I flat out don't pass judgement on a car until I drive it with my own body in the drivers seat.

I will gladly bag on a car for how it looks, but never how it drives because numbers and glassy eyed auto magazines only give you a lilliputian amount of the truth of a car.