Did us 6MT owners get ripped off?
#41
Still here
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Plainfield, IN
Age: 47
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: other factors
Originally posted by fdl
Yes, when I am stuck in traffic I wish I had an AT.
Yes, when I am stuck in traffic I wish I had an AT.
When I'm stuck in traffic, I just wish everyone was out of my way
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#42
Registered AssHat
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Age: 46
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: other factors
Originally posted by e_lectro
When I'm stuck in traffic, I just wish everyone was out of my way
When I'm stuck in traffic, I just wish everyone was out of my way
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#43
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fdl
The 6MT also has slightly better weight distribution which may help it a bit in the handling department ... and finally there is the fun to drive factor.
The 6MT also has slightly better weight distribution which may help it a bit in the handling department ... and finally there is the fun to drive factor.
The TSX has something like 60 front 40 rear distribution, no?
One of criticisms of the 3rd gen Accord--the one with the flipup headlights (1986-1989) was its front-heavy weight distribution. The 4th gen Accord--per reviewers--had a more "ideal" 50-50 distribution. I never really understood that.
#44
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Brad
Aside from MT vs AT, do you consider the front-heavy weight distribution to be preferable over a 50-50 weight distribution?
The TSX has something like 60 front 40 rear distribution, no?
One of criticisms of the 3rd gen Accord--the one with the flipup headlights (1986-1989) was its front-heavy weight distribution. The 4th gen Accord--per reviewers--had a more "ideal" 50-50 distribution. I never really understood that.
Aside from MT vs AT, do you consider the front-heavy weight distribution to be preferable over a 50-50 weight distribution?
The TSX has something like 60 front 40 rear distribution, no?
One of criticisms of the 3rd gen Accord--the one with the flipup headlights (1986-1989) was its front-heavy weight distribution. The 4th gen Accord--per reviewers--had a more "ideal" 50-50 distribution. I never really understood that.
Unfortunately with a front-wheel drive layout, 60-40 , or thereabouts, is the best you can get. I'm not sure where you read that the Accord have a 50-50 distribution..because it most certainly never did. It probably didnt even have 60-40...maybe 65-35.
Now on the other hand, if you are stuck in snow, you want as much weigh as possible on your drive wheels. So in that situation you definately want more weight in the front (in a fwd car).
#45
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I recall about reading in some article(s) are the improvements that Honda made in the 4th gen cars compared to the 3rd gen cars. One of them was weight distribution.
I don't know how to readily locate magazine articles from 13-14 years ago, but weight distribution between the 3rd and 4th generation Accords ARE fairly different. I've owned both 3rd and 4th gen Accords, BTW.
Therefore, if you proclaim that my 1990 Accord probably had a 65-35 distribution, then the 3rd gen Accords would have had an even higher ratio. Is that reasonable? What's the limit for FWD cars' front-to-rear weight distribution and still be drivable?
I wish I knew where to look for that info. The local library would be very time consuming... Somewhere on the Web there must be technical specs for older cars. Any ideas?
I don't know how to readily locate magazine articles from 13-14 years ago, but weight distribution between the 3rd and 4th generation Accords ARE fairly different. I've owned both 3rd and 4th gen Accords, BTW.
Therefore, if you proclaim that my 1990 Accord probably had a 65-35 distribution, then the 3rd gen Accords would have had an even higher ratio. Is that reasonable? What's the limit for FWD cars' front-to-rear weight distribution and still be drivable?
I wish I knew where to look for that info. The local library would be very time consuming... Somewhere on the Web there must be technical specs for older cars. Any ideas?
#46
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Brad
What I recall about reading in some article(s) are the improvements that Honda made in the 4th gen cars compared to the 3rd gen cars. One of them was weight distribution.
I don't know how to readily locate magazine articles from 13-14 years ago, but weight distribution between the 3rd and 4th generation Accords ARE fairly different. I've owned both 3rd and 4th gen Accords, BTW.
Therefore, if you proclaim that my 1990 Accord probably had a 65-35 distribution, then the 3rd gen Accords would have had an even higher ratio. Is that reasonable? What's the limit for FWD cars' front-to-rear weight distribution and still be drivable?
I wish I knew where to look for that info. The local library would be very time consuming... Somewhere on the Web there must be technical specs for older cars. Any ideas?
What I recall about reading in some article(s) are the improvements that Honda made in the 4th gen cars compared to the 3rd gen cars. One of them was weight distribution.
I don't know how to readily locate magazine articles from 13-14 years ago, but weight distribution between the 3rd and 4th generation Accords ARE fairly different. I've owned both 3rd and 4th gen Accords, BTW.
Therefore, if you proclaim that my 1990 Accord probably had a 65-35 distribution, then the 3rd gen Accords would have had an even higher ratio. Is that reasonable? What's the limit for FWD cars' front-to-rear weight distribution and still be drivable?
I wish I knew where to look for that info. The local library would be very time consuming... Somewhere on the Web there must be technical specs for older cars. Any ideas?
#47
Just wanted to say I love the sportshift feature in the 5AT... gives me control over my revs and power when I want it on the spot while being smart enough to prevent me from being a total tard and blowing out the engine...
I too am totally surprised that the 5AT was the same price as the 6MT... however, the 6MT is definitely faster because of the gearing, and lighter with the transmission housing being made of magnesium... so I wouldn't think of it as pricing for 6MT vs 5AT as much as pricing for manual transmission with 6 aggressively ratio'd gears housed in lightweight magnesium case vs very nice compromise between daily drivability and performance.
I too am totally surprised that the 5AT was the same price as the 6MT... however, the 6MT is definitely faster because of the gearing, and lighter with the transmission housing being made of magnesium... so I wouldn't think of it as pricing for 6MT vs 5AT as much as pricing for manual transmission with 6 aggressively ratio'd gears housed in lightweight magnesium case vs very nice compromise between daily drivability and performance.
#48
Originally posted by fdl
50-50 is definately better for handling. The car is more balanced and will be more neutral in turns. You want get any excessive understeer (turn too sharply and the nose just plows and slides ahead). So no, I dont consider the front heavy weight distribution to be preferable.
Unfortunately with a front-wheel drive layout, 60-40 , or thereabouts, is the best you can get. I'm not sure where you read that the Accord have a 50-50 distribution..because it most certainly never did. It probably didnt even have 60-40...maybe 65-35.
Now on the other hand, if you are stuck in snow, you want as much weigh as possible on your drive wheels. So in that situation you definately want more weight in the front (in a fwd car).
50-50 is definately better for handling. The car is more balanced and will be more neutral in turns. You want get any excessive understeer (turn too sharply and the nose just plows and slides ahead). So no, I dont consider the front heavy weight distribution to be preferable.
Unfortunately with a front-wheel drive layout, 60-40 , or thereabouts, is the best you can get. I'm not sure where you read that the Accord have a 50-50 distribution..because it most certainly never did. It probably didnt even have 60-40...maybe 65-35.
Now on the other hand, if you are stuck in snow, you want as much weigh as possible on your drive wheels. So in that situation you definately want more weight in the front (in a fwd car).
#49
Originally posted by fdl
When I said 65-35 I was just guessing. In fact I have no idea but fwd cars are usually between 60-40 and 65-35. If your 1990 accord had better thant 60-40 I would be surpised. I'll have to do some digging on this one.
When I said 65-35 I was just guessing. In fact I have no idea but fwd cars are usually between 60-40 and 65-35. If your 1990 accord had better thant 60-40 I would be surpised. I'll have to do some digging on this one.
To get the 50-50 distribution in the BMW 325, they put the battery in the trunk!
![EEK!](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
#50
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by fdl
Its not just performance as defined by 0-60. Its about being connected to your car, its about keeping the revs in the sweet spot, etc. When you want the power its there...and that is more important in 4 cyl cars in general where there is less torque down low. You can just squeeze more out of the engine with the 6MT.
The 6MT also has slightly better weight distribution which may help it a bit in the handling department ... and finally there is the fun to drive factor.
Its not just performance as defined by 0-60. Its about being connected to your car, its about keeping the revs in the sweet spot, etc. When you want the power its there...and that is more important in 4 cyl cars in general where there is less torque down low. You can just squeeze more out of the engine with the 6MT.
The 6MT also has slightly better weight distribution which may help it a bit in the handling department ... and finally there is the fun to drive factor.
The drwabacks obviously are less agressive gearing and the inability to downshift as agressively as you could with a true manual but when I want to hit 7100RPm's and keep it there I havce no probelms doing so.
I think the weight distrubution diff between the Auto and Manual is practically unnoticeable.
fdl what'ya say we line em up some time
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#51
Originally posted by domn
While I agree that you feel more connected to a manual tranny car I still think the Auto TSX lets you remain connected as well through the use of the SportShift.....
While I agree that you feel more connected to a manual tranny car I still think the Auto TSX lets you remain connected as well through the use of the SportShift.....
I'd like to know the results of you vs. fdl
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#52
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by ClutchPerformer
Ah, but the shifter is not the connection........It's the clutch.
I'd like to know the results of you vs. fdl
Ah, but the shifter is not the connection........It's the clutch.
I'd like to know the results of you vs. fdl
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
We all know a manual would win but by how much is my question?
fdl we'll race after I remove the resonator, install a CAI and throttle body, after you put your winter tires on and at about 6PM on a weekday after you just got home with a sore knew from the 401 gridlock
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
What'ya say?
#54
'12 TL (prev '04 TSX 6MT)
Originally posted by fdl
haha ..sure! And how about I carry a few passegers too
haha ..sure! And how about I carry a few passegers too
![Smile](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![EEK!](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
#55
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Count Blah
Heh, speaking of that, I can sure tell the difference when I've got passengers along. Especially because one of my friends who always tends to ride with me is 295 lbs. Add a couple people in the back seat, and it adds about 17% to the weight of the car.
It can still move, just not quite as quick.
Heh, speaking of that, I can sure tell the difference when I've got passengers along. Especially because one of my friends who always tends to ride with me is 295 lbs. Add a couple people in the back seat, and it adds about 17% to the weight of the car.
![EEK!](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
#56
anti-dentite bastard
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rb1
I think 58-42 is about the best I've ever seen for a FWD car. MT FWD cars are very typically 60-40. AT FWD can be anywhere from 62-38 for an I4 to 65-35 or so if there's a 6 upfront in a smaller FWD car.
To get the 50-50 distribution in the BMW 325, they put the battery in the trunk!
I think 58-42 is about the best I've ever seen for a FWD car. MT FWD cars are very typically 60-40. AT FWD can be anywhere from 62-38 for an I4 to 65-35 or so if there's a 6 upfront in a smaller FWD car.
To get the 50-50 distribution in the BMW 325, they put the battery in the trunk!
![EEK!](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
#57
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by wishiwere
Actually the Saab 93ss has a 53/47 weight distribution - that's the most neutral i've ever seen a ff sedan.
Actually the Saab 93ss has a 53/47 weight distribution - that's the most neutral i've ever seen a ff sedan.
Ya...thats amazing and rivals most rwd cars.
#58
Originally posted by wishiwere
Actually the Saab 93ss has a 53/47 weight distribution - that's the most neutral i've ever seen a ff sedan.
Actually the Saab 93ss has a 53/47 weight distribution - that's the most neutral i've ever seen a ff sedan.
And that IS exactly the number that Road & Track Magazine reported!
However, Car and Driver magazine reported 59.8/40.2 F/R in their road test of the 9-3, so I'd have to wonder if the R&T testers forgot to take the 4 bags of concrete mix from Home Depot out of the trunk.
For comparison, Car and Driver has the RWD Mercedes C32 AMG at 53.9/46.1 F/R, worse than the amazing numbers that R&T reports for the Saab.
C/D has the TSX at 59.9/40.1 F/R.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
xsilverhawkx
2G TL Problems & Fixes
5
09-28-2015 06:51 PM