DYNO for 2014 Acura RLX Sport Hybrid
03-04-2015, 01:38 PM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
DYNO for 2014 Acura RLX Sport Hybrid
On March 14th the car will be hitting the dyno and we will see what kind of power is getting to the ground. I extracted data from a Vbox device from a performance shop I am friendly with that recorded a power run (Sport Mode running in 4th gear only). Now this is not a true dyno run, but I would guess that the actual data from the dyno will not be arguably different by more than a small standard of deviation. Impressive I think, and it shows why we "beta testers" are so passionate about how this car drives. Having 310 to 360 ft/lbs of torque available at the wheels throughout the rev-range really gives this car escape velocity. Ok I am exaggerating about that, but you understand what I am saying. Looks like Acura has truly under rated the power quotes for the car. Why they did that? Probably for the same reasons that they did not market the car very well. Truly stupid in my opinion. They should be screaming from the rooftops about it.
I have a chart I tried to upload but it will not display properly. I tried it as a picture and it did not work either. The dyno run will be more meaningful when I get that.
I have a chart I tried to upload but it will not display properly. I tried it as a picture and it did not work either. The dyno run will be more meaningful when I get that.
Last edited by RLX-Sport Hybrid; 03-04-2015 at 01:44 PM.
03-04-2015, 01:45 PM
#2
Three Wheelin'
I seem to recall reading something to the effect that, if the RLX had higher torque/HP numbers, it would bump it into a significantly higher insurance rate bracket, so Acura chose to under claim and over perform. I can't recall the source, so it should be treated as nothing more than internet hearsay.
03-04-2015, 01:49 PM
#3
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
I seem to recall reading something to the effect that, if the RLX had higher torque/HP numbers, it would bump it into a significantly higher insurance rate bracket, so Acura chose to under claim and over perform. I can't recall the source, so it should be treated as nothing more than internet hearsay.
03-04-2015, 02:11 PM
#4
Senior Moderator
RLX, I'll PM you my email so we can get your graph up. I'll host it on my Google page for ya.
Hondamore, as for insurance, my Sport Hybrid is as expensive to insure as my CTS-V, which is, shall we say, in a high performance category. Either that, or my CTS-V is ridiculously cheap to insure for what it is.
Hondamore, as for insurance, my Sport Hybrid is as expensive to insure as my CTS-V, which is, shall we say, in a high performance category. Either that, or my CTS-V is ridiculously cheap to insure for what it is.
03-04-2015, 03:53 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
The following 4 users liked this post by neuronbob:
2012wagon (03-06-2015),
George Knighton (03-04-2015),
hondamore (03-04-2015),
victorber (06-05-2016)
03-04-2015, 06:59 PM
#6
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
03-04-2015, 07:52 PM
#7
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
I seem to recall reading something to the effect that, if the RLX had higher torque/HP numbers, it would bump it into a significantly higher insurance rate bracket, so Acura chose to under claim and over perform. I can't recall the source, so it should be treated as nothing more than internet hearsay.
They didn't charge anything extra at all.
So far.
But they mightn't know what they're doing because they challenged the KC2 VIN as invalid, and Acura wrote them to say that it was correct.
Trending Topics
03-04-2015, 08:10 PM
#8
Senior Moderator
I agree and think this is the first Honda product that one can justifiably say is underrated. It's really too bad they are pulling the plug for now (or taking a long pause) in the Sport Hybrid.
Bring on the dyno!
Bring on the dyno!
03-04-2015, 08:13 PM
#9
Yeah, I think they "chose" 370 hp because of the way the gas and electric motors blend power. Since the arrive at peak at different times, they chose a conservative rating. It makes you wonder what the new NSX is 'really' putting out?
03-04-2015, 08:37 PM
#10
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
I figure it could be 429 hp and 421 peak ft/lbs tq for rating purposes. Also I think we have at least 356 ft/lbs tq (gross) across the entire rev-range. But that is a total guess. The dyno will tell the real story. No guessing at that point.
03-04-2015, 09:24 PM
#11
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
I am confused. What is this chart we are looking at here?
03-05-2015, 06:21 AM
#12
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
George, this is a chart I created with the data that the Vbox collected when I had it hooked up to the car a few days ago. It would not spit out the information to a printer for some reason so I copied what I saw on the computer. It was not my computer or Vbox so I can't explain for the technology issue. I did not care since I was only looking for the data. I was told that the Vbox measurements could be different from an official dyno run. The data points I noted are in 500 rpm increments and the dyno run should be much more detailed (as I understand it). I have never done something like this before. I am learning as I go here. Hopefully this explanation is helpful.
03-05-2015, 07:33 AM
#13
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
03-05-2015, 07:36 AM
#14
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Now that I know that the chart is based on a Vbox, it's going to be treated as largely irrelevant by anybody who owns a dyno, unfortunately, and we have to step back away from our previous enthusiasm.
:-)
03-05-2015, 08:25 AM
#15
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
My estimate of 431 US Net HP was based on past experience of parasitic losses on Dynojets with the usual Honda correction, which parasitic losses appeared to be validated as late as the 2011 Dynojet of my 2010 TL 6-6 SH-AWD.
Now that I know that the chart is based on a Vbox, it's going to be treated as largely irrelevant by anybody who owns a dyno, unfortunately, and we have to step back away from our previous enthusiasm.
:-)
Now that I know that the chart is based on a Vbox, it's going to be treated as largely irrelevant by anybody who owns a dyno, unfortunately, and we have to step back away from our previous enthusiasm.
:-)
03-05-2015, 10:05 AM
#16
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Dynapak doesn't totally suck. Some people prefer them because they attach directly to the wheel hubs.
Honda people are most familiar with Dynojet, from the Honda Challenge, HPD and NASA development.
But there's nothing wrong with Dynapak and a lot of people prefer them.
Since they attach to the hubs they're more or less portable, too, and you'll see people even bring them to races and track days to help with tuning under stress.
Honda people are most familiar with Dynojet, from the Honda Challenge, HPD and NASA development.
But there's nothing wrong with Dynapak and a lot of people prefer them.
Since they attach to the hubs they're more or less portable, too, and you'll see people even bring them to races and track days to help with tuning under stress.
The following users liked this post:
RLX-Sport Hybrid (03-05-2015)
03-05-2015, 11:34 AM
#17
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Dynapak doesn't totally suck. Some people prefer them because they attach directly to the wheel hubs.
Honda people are most familiar with Dynojet, from the Honda Challenge, HPD and NASA development.
But there's nothing wrong with Dynapak and a lot of people prefer them.
Since they attach to the hubs they're more or less portable, too, and you'll see people even bring them to races and track days to help with tuning under stress.
Honda people are most familiar with Dynojet, from the Honda Challenge, HPD and NASA development.
But there's nothing wrong with Dynapak and a lot of people prefer them.
Since they attach to the hubs they're more or less portable, too, and you'll see people even bring them to races and track days to help with tuning under stress.
03-05-2015, 12:01 PM
#18
Senior Moderator
That's what we are here for, to help each other. I'm just thankful you are offering the information in the first place. 
The following users liked this post:
RLX-Sport Hybrid (03-05-2015)
03-06-2015, 02:29 PM
#19
Advanced
I seem to recall reading something to the effect that, if the RLX had higher torque/HP numbers, it would bump it into a significantly higher insurance rate bracket, so Acura chose to under claim and over perform. I can't recall the source, so it should be treated as nothing more than internet hearsay.
The 2014 RLX non-hybrid does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds.
The 2014 RLX hybrid does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds.
That's significantly faster than any other Acura except the NSX, and it's even faster than some of the early NSX's. It's not in the class of Bob's CTS-V, but the RLX Hybrid blows by many other "sports sedans".
I attribute a lot of the quickness to the maximum torque at 0 RPM from the electric motors. I think they are rated at a total of 77 HP, but you get the biggest boost from a standing start. Of course, the battery has to be fully charged. :-)
03-06-2015, 04:13 PM
#20
^^ I think what we'd see is that peak horsepower won't tell the whole story. Assuming the gas engine is still making 310 and the combined electric power is 77 hp, they don't state 387 for a reason. Wouldn't it be cool to see a dyno plot where a car made power within 10% of its ultimate peak power from 0-6,000 RPM?
03-06-2015, 08:21 PM
#21
the 1/4 mile time for the RLX seems high compared to the 0 to 60 time
03-06-2015, 08:43 PM
#22
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Here is my quote from another thread:
My numbers on salt covered ice cold roads with VSA wheel spin to 40 mph:
0-60 - 5.03 sec
1/4mile - 13.82 sec @ 106.1mph
I expect it to be better when we have more ideal surface conditions. I would take 1-2 tenths off to 60mph I guess with dry warm roads. Performance rubber might be even better. But that is a total guess.
My numbers on salt covered ice cold roads with VSA wheel spin to 40 mph:
0-60 - 5.03 sec
1/4mile - 13.82 sec @ 106.1mph
I expect it to be better when we have more ideal surface conditions. I would take 1-2 tenths off to 60mph I guess with dry warm roads. Performance rubber might be even better. But that is a total guess.
03-06-2015, 08:48 PM
#23
I was talking about the PAWS 1/4 mile time
03-06-2015, 08:58 PM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-07-2015, 08:13 AM
#25
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Yes, it does. By quite a bit.
But the J Motor RLX was built for America, and I can only guess that it begins to poop out before 100 mph, as a way of getting better torque for city driving, and a concession to its vaunted mpg/horsepower ratio.
But the J Motor RLX was built for America, and I can only guess that it begins to poop out before 100 mph, as a way of getting better torque for city driving, and a concession to its vaunted mpg/horsepower ratio.
03-13-2015, 05:51 AM
#27
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-13-2015, 08:23 AM
#28
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Not in the way that is typically understood, no.
I'm afraid it fooled me, too, until I did a double take and asked some questions.
If that chart were to the wheels, in conventional corrected Dynojet form, then as I said higher up I would not be surprised to learn that they might have very well rated the car at something like 435 US Net Hp.
If you look at where the torque is, however, you'll understand why some of us are maintaining our anecdotal, subjective impression that the car gets to 60 under 5.0 s.
I'm afraid it fooled me, too, until I did a double take and asked some questions.
If that chart were to the wheels, in conventional corrected Dynojet form, then as I said higher up I would not be surprised to learn that they might have very well rated the car at something like 435 US Net Hp.
If you look at where the torque is, however, you'll understand why some of us are maintaining our anecdotal, subjective impression that the car gets to 60 under 5.0 s.
03-13-2015, 12:31 PM
#29
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
If you look here: Acura 0-60 Times & Acura Quarter Mile Times | Acura TL 0-60, Integra, NSX T, MDX, TSX, RDX, RSX & Legend 0 to 60 stats!
The 2014 RLX non-hybrid does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds.
The 2014 RLX hybrid does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds.
That's significantly faster than any other Acura except the NSX, and it's even faster than some of the early NSX's. It's not in the class of Bob's CTS-V, but the RLX Hybrid blows by many other "sports sedans".
I attribute a lot of the quickness to the maximum torque at 0 RPM from the electric motors. I think they are rated at a total of 77 HP, but you get the biggest boost from a standing start. Of course, the battery has to be fully charged. :-)
The 2014 RLX non-hybrid does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds.
The 2014 RLX hybrid does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds.
That's significantly faster than any other Acura except the NSX, and it's even faster than some of the early NSX's. It's not in the class of Bob's CTS-V, but the RLX Hybrid blows by many other "sports sedans".
I attribute a lot of the quickness to the maximum torque at 0 RPM from the electric motors. I think they are rated at a total of 77 HP, but you get the biggest boost from a standing start. Of course, the battery has to be fully charged. :-)
The 1/4 mile time of the RLX non-hybrid is in the 14's:
2014 Acura RLX FWD Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 5.8s
1/4 mile: 14.3s@100mph
2014 Acura RLX First Test - Motor Trend
0-60mph: 5.8s
1/4 mile: 14.3s@98mph
03-14-2015, 12:58 PM
#30
^thanks -that looks more like it should be
03-14-2015, 07:25 PM
#32
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-17-2015, 06:23 PM
#34
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-18-2015, 07:18 AM
#35
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-18-2015, 06:08 PM
#36
^^ Haha, such a tease...maybe this time we'll get to second base?
03-21-2015, 09:07 PM
#37
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
03-21-2015, 10:23 PM
#38
Seriously, I am looking forward to the results. thanks for going the extra mile [ or at least 1/4 mile].
03-22-2015, 06:16 AM
#39
Senior Moderator
I wish I had time to do this. I don't, so I will live vicariously through you on this.
03-22-2015, 08:34 AM
#40
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
I have time, and I know people, but we can't stop debating how to get an accurate reading.
When you analyze the ECM influences and the mechanical connections, you sort of think they never meant for you to do a dyno.
Jeff's dyno of the FWD RLX was complicated, too.
When you analyze the ECM influences and the mechanical connections, you sort of think they never meant for you to do a dyno.
Jeff's dyno of the FWD RLX was complicated, too.