provench

Here are the TSX dynos as done by 2 sources (at the same dyno place by chance, but 2 separate cars):

Iceman

Now we need SteVTEC to interpret them for us. I seem to recall him saying that the TSX's engine should be rated closer to 210 hp in order to produce 169.9 brake hp.

RogerPodacter

I have a question about the torque. At 5,500 RPM the torque starts to drop off. IMO this is where vtec should kick in. Isn't there a way to reprogram the ECU (C'mon handata) to keep that level of torque flat all the way to 6,800 RPM?

TinkySD

we don't need stevtec! Actually im in touch with him frequently. But what you say is true. The tsx is actually cranking more like 210hp and 180lbft of torque.

fdl

Ya, it seems that between 5500 and 6000 is a weak spot for sure. But if we move the vtec engagement to earlier, perhaps we will run out of steam at 6500?

TinkySD

The actual torque curve of the tsx is good and bad news. Good in that it's actually cranking more power than the factory ratings up at 6800rpm with lots of extra torque down low in the rpm range. Bad because the top end leaves a little something to be desired.(top end is key for drag runs)

This is the cause of that nasty vtec dip. It's possibly that in stock trim lowering the vtec point would be a negative thing, which is why companies like hondata usually require the use of a CAI or some other breathing mod to make the change beneficial. (they couple the vtec switch point with other changes in fuel maps to take advantage of more air flow/cooler air) Hondata also makes the i-vtec system more aggresive which is a big reason for it's gains.

If you really want strong top end you are going to have to make some changes that are likely going to decrease torque in the low end a bit. For example changing out the head to a k20a1 or something.

What's going to be very interesting is how the TSX responds to normal bolt on mods. From AEM's first dyno there is a good 5-6 lbft gain across the entire rev band above 3500rpm. Comptech is releasing their headers soon along with exhaust which also should help out the top end. It will be interesting to note how much bottom end will be lost(if any) to realize those gains. I would guess that a 230hp tsx is possible with basic bolt ons.(not including ecu changes) That would require about 150lbft at the wheels at that point in the rev range which is about 15lbft ore at the wheels at that rpm.

TinkySD

nah it doesn't work like that. The problem is that if you make the switch to the more aggresive cams too soon and the air/fuel mixture/vtc setting and everything aren't optimal you could lose a lot of power. That's why ecu tuning companies make several changes to make the car able to make use of the lower vtec engagement point.

TinkySD

Due to popular demand this thread has bene cleaned up... remember keep it on topic(or post in the OT forum!)

gilboman

i would say it is right on to be rated at 200hp at the crank... 15% drivetrain loss is about right on average...210 and some would say Acura is overstating its hp... the torque curve is not bad and Acura could probably get away with claiming 180lb/ft, but still, different dynos from different locations is badly needed to provide confirmation

TinkySD

so far we only have 3. One user(above), one from vtec.net(above) and one from sport compact car..they hit 179hp + 155lbft on a dyno jet...but it's SCC so who knows.

The reason i would believe actually outpus is closer to 210 is that most(vtec.net specifically) are commenting that the tsx is dynoing on average 2-4 hp higher than a rsx-s...all the while with wheels that are one inch larger in diamater and about 12lbs per corner(at least)heavier.

fdl

I can understand why they would underrate the torque (to claim 90% torque at X rpm), but I cant really understand why they would want to underrate horsepower


P.S. Tinky, thanks for the cleanup!

gilboman

what the rsx-s dyno at is largely irrelevent... it may just mean the drivetrain in it is not as efficient and a have higher than average (15%) drivetrain loss.... the way i see it is 200hp -15% drivetrain loss is right on the 170whp the car has been dynoed at.

TinkySD

I'm not going to get into the arguement because i don't know the technical details. But a lot of people claim the -15% rule of thumb isn't entirely accurate. Plus that doesn't account for the readings of 173x and 179 we have seen. Wheel weight/size also do make an impact ona dyno so i don't think that can be totally ignored. Regardless there isn't much of a difference.

gilboman

that is why more dyno's from different locations are needed to verify the acutal avg number the TSX is getting..but from the mag numbers 0-60 and 1/4mile times... 200hp seems about right ...even a bit optimistic for the somewhat slow times the car has been clocked at.

TinkySD

Yup I can't wait until we see so more dynos and time slips. All the slower mag times have been accompanied by fairly high trap speeds(over 90mph) which points to the "touring" tires being a culprit from the launch. WE have had one user to the track and he pulled a 15.5 stock including tires. I'm really interested to see what happens when some people get to the track with summer tires.

SteVTEC

From looking at A LOT of different dynos (this is a hobby of mine), I think 17% is a little more accurate "loss" factor. A 190hp Maxima 5spd dynos at 160 fwhp and that is about 17%. A 222hp Maxima 5spd dynos at about 185 fwhp and that is again 17%. A 260hp Acura CL-S 6spd dynos at around 217 fwhp and that is once again 17%. The "loss" you'll see on a dyno has to do with how much inertial resistance there is on spin-up. If you have big 17" wheels, that will hurt you a little bit more than say lighter 16" wheels. If you have what is basically a 2.0L engine "hail mary" stroked out to 2.4L, that will also create more inertial resistance in the engine. If anything, I would say that the TSX would experience more loss on the dyno than the RSX does, and for those reasons.

I think the TSX is rated pretty accurately in terms of peak horsepower. In reality it looks like it's putting out more like 203-204 hp, but "200" is a nice round and even number and Acura (and Acura buyers) like that.

Torque is a different story, though. It is EASILY putting out more like 175 lb-ft of torque, possibly even 180 lb-ft, and the VTEC.net even believe that. I'm not sure if that was up for debate or not (didn't read the whole thread line-by-line) but just figured I'd offer my $0.02 since I haven't posted since the "switch".

fdl

Welcome Steve, glad you finally made it.

SteVTEC

This is a good point. Since both dynos were done at the same location, that could bring up the question of whether the dyno reads "about average" or if it's skewed.

Coincidentally, a member of Maxima.org just posted up one of their near-stock dynos from awhile back just the other week that just happened to be run on the same dyno as these two TSXs.

Thread: http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=241223
DYNO: http://images.cardomain.com/member_i...8_167_full.jpg

Look familiar?

Anyhow, the results for that car with just intake are about par for the course. Not really any torque gains (the exhaust is what's plugged up, not the intake), but the intake does help at the top-end a bit and was at 165.9 fwhp when 160 fwhp is typical stock. So I think this could help to verify that this particular dyno is in fact putting out typical average numbers and that it isn't skewed.


The "somewhat slow" times are due to partly to the 3200 lb curb weight, but also because of the heavy 17" wheel/tire package holding the car back. This is not a 27xx lb car with lighter 16" rims like the RSX-S is. With much lighter 17's it would be running high-6's to 60 mph and low-15's in the 1/4 mile instead of low-7's and mid-15's. I wish Acura had made 16's standard with 17's available as an accessory.

The other performance barricade with the TSX is the issue that the engine doesn't have enough revs to play with. It has 200hp, but it can't make full use of the 200hp because it doesn't make it until redline and there is no way to keep the revs centered around that point. When you shift to the next gear there is a big drop in power. You run out of revs long before the engine runs out of breathing capacity. I've done some tinkering in CarTest, and the TSX would go bonkers if it had another 1000 revs to play with. But with a 99mm "hail mary" stroke, the piston speeds would be insane and I don't think that will happen. With an 8k redline, it would be running high-6's to 60 and low-15 1/4 mile times even with the heavy 17's

rb1

I'm late to the thread, but I like that second dyno -- first one I have seen that shows the torque profile from 1500-2000 RPM.

I wonder what they are doing differently. The first one didn't register squat much below 2200 or so.

EDIT: One more question. Has anyone actually dyno'd using 91 octane gas instead of 93? Is it possible that there might be a theoretical disadvantage to using higher octane than the engine timing is set for when measuring power (since the additional octane further retards detonation beyond what is optimal?)

TinkySD

rb1: that dyno shop is in california where the highest pump gas you can get is 91 octane. I think it's would be interesting to see a dyno from somewhere else in the country where you can get higher octane.

SteVTEC

Because they weren't at full throttle yet.

At the rate the first one was going, it would have been at about zero lb-ft by 2000rpm, but obviously the engine does produce power below 2k. :P The other one is the same, only they weren't quite at full throttle until about 1700 rpm it looks like. Err....does it really matter though? The autos would be at 2k or above whenever they're on the gas due to the torque converter. With the manual, if you're below 2k and trying to accelerate, just downshift.

I think some 350z guys dynoed on 91 vs 93 gas and the 93 guys were getting a few more ponies. But that's a 24x whp car you're talking about. On a TSX at 170 whp you would be down within the measurement error of the dyno. Probably wouldn't be measurable.

fdl

We need more dynos! I'm curious to see if the car produces any more power, or maybe a slightly better curve after its been worked in. Or maybe some dynos with res removed. Any volunteers Lung...moda...?

Lung Fu Mo Shi

A friend of a friend has a dyno that he uses for Mustangs/Fords. I'm waiting on an answer for his "dyno-days" or a super-good rate. I don't want to pay $75/shot.

I would like to do stock, stock w/o resonator, Injen CAI, Injen CAI in short ram config.

dom

fdl, do you have any idea if there's a dyno somehwere in T.O?
I'd love to dyno my car, even if its just a underpowered automatic.

fdl

yup there are a few places for sure.

dom

Then why not go?

How much is it to have a dyno done?

TinkySD

what I really want to see is a dyno with the a/f readings..usually this costs an extra 10 bucks or so but can give you alot of info on how muh if any gains there are to be had by fuel map tuning.

dom

The dyno man has struck again.....

What are a/f readings? and in English please

Lung Fu Mo Shi

Fuel to Air Ratio readings.

fdl

I've thought about it. I wanna get some more km's on the car first though, and maybe at least have 1 or 2 mods. I'm not sure how much it costs...maybe 100 bucks?

gogozy

i felt octane rating is a fine line, because higher octan allow higher compression but contain less energy, this is why an engine design for low octane fuelled with high octane ends up losing power. if TSX is able to use lower octan fuel 89/90 without retarding, then we may be able to get more hp since it contain more energy than higher one. thus finding the best "suitable" octane is the question... i think 03 v6 accord ecu must have program at premium fuel and then rated the power at regular fuel, so when fuel with premium fuel and ECU pick up no knock and run as best possible setting. my gussing.....

Stokeless_TSX

dont run lower octane gas u will F#$% up ur motor!!!!! 10.5:1 CR is not something to mess with

Stokeless_TSX

dynoing today at 1 pm will get sheet..onlything is i dont know how to attach it so maybe i can email someone and they can put it online for all to see
04 tsx
6sp
custom 2.5 inch mandrel bent exhaust
custom 3in mandrel bent intake
custom coil overs
apexi VAFC II (which isnt hooked up yet but will be once i get the right diagram)
hoping to get 185-190 at the wheels

fdl

Hey cool. Definately post your dyno. Let us know when its all ready and someone will host it for you.

accsuperstar

i think stokeless_tsx is ultra_tsx on clubtsx and on there he posted his numbers as getting 184 whp. but no pic of a dyno

dom

dyno pull 1 179.9hp 151.1 tq
dyno pull 2 184.6hp 148.1 tq

mods include custom cold air intake
custom mandrel bent exhaust 2.5 inch cat back.

Not bad for custom work.

Lung Fu Mo Shi

Not bad. That equates to about

215 to 228hp and 176 to 187tq (est.) at the crank.

Decent improvement. There's most people's "extra 20hp" right there.

kdb141

Ok, can someone please explain what the chart means? I'm no car expert. I had a MB C230, it had 192 HP and 189 torque. I love my TSX but I need to increase my torque b/c I do miss the power. I have heard people talk about turbo charging it, adding an intake and exahust, but I do not know what types are the best for the money. Any specific ideas would be greatly appreciated. If you also know about how much power I would gain by specific additions that would also be great.

Thanks

TinkySD

Here's a pic of the dyno from tsxclub If you don't want it posted send me a PM




Were there any differences between the two runs? on the 180hp run the low end seems so much fatter... also did you have any that run the full rpm range?

Iceman

Dayum! All that from a CAI and a different exhaust system? Maybe we don't need a Hondata flash after all!