Another way that Acura could increase the performance of the 2.4 L
 

is to put a CVT in the TSX. From what I understand, the CVT in the Audi 1.8T takes about .5 seconds off the 0-60. A CVT might enhance economy too. And, Honda has some expertise with CVTs, having installed them in some of their high milage models.

My only hesitation with this suggestion is that, in a lot of ways, I think Honda finally got the AT right. The AT in my both of my last Hondas shifted kind of rough, and hestiated before downshift. This AT is smooth as butter and always seems to be in the right gear.

Thoughts?

sorry for the noob question. Whats a CVT?

cvt a continuous variable timing, bascially its one gear and it changes and adjusts. its pretty cool and weird driving one. the rpm will stay at one spot but the speed goes up.

i think the DSG is an better system. VW has so much patent on it, no one can make something like it.

CVT is the ideal type of transmition you'd use in order to pull the best potential out of your engine.

It is waay better than any manual, automatic or clutchless gearboxes, because it will let the engine rev up to it's optimal cylinder fill RPM (peak torque) under acceleration, but can also adopt the best rpm for good MPG.

I believe the Audi CVT is patented, and maybe Honda hasn't yet found an alternative route worth putting in widespread production to obtain similar reliability as Audi's. The problem has always been that a CVT wasn't solid enough to mate with higher torque engines than 1.5L 4 cylinder engines.

It seems a CVT is the way to go to gain as much performance as possible out of an engine. Exibit A and B. The new Ford Five Hundred and FreeStyle bth come with CVT's instead of AT's mated to the woefully underpowered 3.0L V6.

CVT (the T stands for Transmission, not Timing BTW) definitely helps both performance and fuel economy, and they give a fun, go-kart like driving feel. However, some people find the seemingly random changes in RPM to be disconcerting.

Sauce is right though, since CVTs use nonmetallic interface materials, they can't stand up to much engine torque and are currently better suited to hybrids. I expect that to change soon though.

Nissan uses some form of CVT for Muranos. If they can, I'm sure Honda can, too.

The 96-99 Honda Civic HX was available with a CVT transmission.

I had a '98 Maxima and it was real similar to CVT. And I test drove the Audi with CVT, it felt really nice and you knew you were getting the most out of your engine...although it kinda felt like an airboat engine...

cvt & performance? man, the only cvt i remember is on a honda civic and that thing was slow as dirt.

cvt = continuosly variable transmission, i think someone already corrected that.

is that the tranny that the car shuts off when it starts then it turns itself on again when you hit the throttle? :dunno:

honda can increase performace of the 2.4L by stop being tree huggers and slap on a big turbo. or just screw the 2.4L and give us a big V8 :pofl:

:werd: And they have no shortage of torque

I haven't driven a CVT, but I wonder if I would like it. I like listening to the engine rev when push it through the gears - if you floor a CVT, you'd only hear it screaming at the redline.

I've driven both the Murano CVT (which, btw, I nearly bought a year ago) and the Audi CVT. It was a little strange at first, because I'm used to feeling the gears shift. But, it was pretty smooth in both vehicles. Of course, those were two very torquey V6s.

I think it is only a matter of time before we start seeing CVTs in more production vehicles, but that could be one solution to the perceived lack of power in the TSX (although, again, that isn't much of an issue to me).

The '98 Maxima had a run-of-the-mill 4 speed AT, not a CVT.

:scratch:

My two cents:

Aside from transmission choices. Honda could EASILY get another 20hp and 10 lbft out of this engine with a retuned intake system. Right now the tsx uses a single runner system which gives it that strong mid range torque. If they went to a dual runner system they woulc make the top end and bottom end stronger giving the engine an even smoother torque curve. They would also be able to drop the vtec point a bit as the motor will be breathing better.

As far as CVT goes I believe for max acceleration you want to the motor to hit it's hosepower peak and stay there. Intuitively you would thinkg torque peak is best, however at the HP peak you can start the CVT at a significaly higher gear ratio which is going to increase your torque amplification to the wheels a lot more than the 10 lbft or so you are gaining at the torque peak of the motor.

Also, cars with high reving/horsepower motors make the best use of CVTs because of their ability to start at a really high gear for torque multiplication. Motors with lower hp and earlier peak torque like the 1.8t make the car feel more civilized but you would expect to get eve more of a performance boost from it. Plus it would sound pretty cool to have your engine screaming at 6800rpm s in vtec the entire time it was floored.

I believe the Audi CVT uses a chain instead of a belt, that's why they can mate it with more powerful engines. :dunno:

Correct! :nod:

I test drove Murano several times before buying a 4runner.. It felt little weird accelerating w/o upshifts.. You just see the RPM shrinking as you gain speed.

I think the main disadvantage of the CVT is that launches can be abrupt (which I found to be a problem in the Audi) and then engine tends to rev a little to high at highway speeds. Otherwise, they work fine.

Of course, we don't know much about the longterm durability of those units.