Forbes rated the TSX at a 6.6 secs figure in the 0-60 race. That had my jaw dropped because I think it was Motor Trend when they compared it to the C 230, and I think it was the Audi Im not sure but they said it did 8.1 secs, maybe they had 6 people in the car and couldnt drive a manny tranny but that seemed very unaccurate for a 200hp 2.4l engine but yea thats what I found. And they also compare it to the G35, 325i, C230, and A4 and say its a better buy.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/05/cx_mf_0505test_4.html for that price.

Just check it out.

 

I didn't believe Motor Trend's 8+ seconds when it came out, and I don't believer Forbes's 6.6 either. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

Hmmm, not sure how reliable that is. On page 2 is says

"• The car is quick enough to 60 mph (figure 6.6 seconds), besting times of its rivals from BMW and Audi at least."

When they say "figure" I think they may have just guessed. Besides I doubt Forbes has all the nessesary equipment to properly test cars.

 

That 6.6 figure may come from some early estimates on the car. I believe the first one was from C&D, who estimated 6.6 seconds, and that may be where they are pulling the number from.

 

I was saying to myself thats odd because the RSX-S FP does a 6.6 and thats a hatch and lighter of a car than the TSX but hey I think if you can drive then you can pull it off but you have to be damn good to do that.

 

bullshit, sorry

 

Agreed, but I am sure that will be the new number tossed around on this site now. Hey, the guys from Forbes got a 6.6, it must be true!
Once again, great looking car, great features, great value, great reliability (more than likely), but not a fast car.

 

neither is your 325xi

 

Find a quote of mine where I said it was a fast car, then lip off! My 325xi isn't a fast car either, but it is AWD and it is a lot of fun to drive all year round.

 

Where in the endless threads about the 0-60 times of the TSX did any regular from this forum said their TSX is a fast car? Maybe a noob here or there...but no one said they brought their TSX because it will jump off the line.

 

justin, come on, are you on crack? Almost everyone on this board downplays the magazines times for being too slow.

 

No are you?

Not everyone...and what is really the difference between 7.5 and 8.0 sec anyways. The threads I have read posted by the guys that have been here awhile all say they didn't buy this car because it was fast. They brought it because it offered them the best bang for the buck, refined enough to pay the extra money over the accords and handled well enough to suit their needs. So dude read between the lines.

 

I still say that the real issue with the 0-60 times is what they tell us about the TSX. The TSX simply doesn't "feel" as slow as the times are suggesting. I think the times are correct though, and I think that the TSX is looks bad on paper because it has traction issues at launch. In highway passing speeds, it seems to be competitive with cars that have much larger engines. That is because it has moved off the line, the car is rolling, and you're in the sweep spot in the torque curve.

With stickier tires, I think this car could be much faster.

But, that is just my guess and I admit I don't know as much about this stuff as most of you guys.

 

I could give a rip about 0-60. All I know is that 1st gear kinda sucks, but it goes by fast. 2nd gear is fun, and 3rd is a blast. 4th is fun too but I start feeling the "illegalness" at that point.

All the more fun with an intake.

 

I don't know where you get that from? there may be a few Noobs around who act like the mag numbers are BS and think the TSX is a 6.6 sec car, but the majority of people here don't see things that way so stop stirring things up.

Both fdl and I immediately niped this thread in the butt by saying that number was BS. This thread should have ended there.

 

This car? Wouldn't this be true for all vehicles?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they use an application like cartest to do their estimates....and then didn't include all the extra efective weight from the wheels/tires. If you don't account for it using cartest(it assumes basically a 41lb per corner weight) you get times close to what forbes says.

 

The TSX has special traction issues because it is FWD. I think the heavy wheels, and all season tires are a real issue in this case. I'm also intrigued by Motor Trend's complaints about wheel hop. The TSX is pretty quick when it gets moving, but there seem to be a number of traction-related issues that really disadvantage it in the 0-60 numbers. And, frankly, I do believe the 0-60 numbers published in multiple mags (which are about 8 secs).

 

Why are you guys arguing about 0-60 times? It's pretty pointless, I'm sure if a mag says that they got that time out of the car it is true. I know this may be hard for some of you but, the same person does not drive the cars. You guys got to remember some drivers push their car further than others.

 

0-60 times can be debated over forever but when it comes to automatic trans and manny trans you will find a half second difference. The tires and pavement you test it on have an affect to but 6.6 im not going to lie does sound alittle to extreme but something like 6.9 for a 6 speedster that shifts precisley sounds more reasonable but hey thats just my 2 cents.

 

Did everybody but me miss the "figure 6.6 sec" part of the article


It was a guesstimate, nothing more nothing less.

 

I'm not arguing just speculating how they may have come up with their estimates. Remember c&ds initial estimates? They were also dead on with what car test estimates if you don't include the extra wheel and tire effective weight.

 

Maybe the other magazine's speed tests were conducted with models whose engines were not fully broken-in? Certainly that impacts performance. I would be curious what the odometer readers were. Now that the TSX has been out for several months, maybe Acura has a better stock of broken-in models?

 

I think C&D's tests tend to be over optimistic. They continually get quicker numbers for ALL CARS than is realistic.

 

I think that's probably because they are the most skilled at testing them, Darth. R&T usually has similar numbers.

 

why do these car reviewers tend not to realize the most simple things about the cars that they're testing? eg: forbes says that you can't adjust the temp until the navi sys finishes initializing...bah. then i think it was c&d?? who complained about the audio controls...something about not being able to change stations w/o hitting 3 different buttons.

oh, i dunno...maybe they just don't have time to fool around with stuff. whatever.

 

not all car benefite from sticker tires in turns of 0-60 offline accelleration. if i recall; less torqu car suffer...

oh, perhaps the MAG forgot to mention the test was done on a slope of -10 degree thus TSX was moving just a little faster.

 

:whocares: My guess the majority of people who own these cars are kids. who cares!

 

It's funny, they don't compare the TSX to the IS300 at all... They talk about BMW audis G35 but not the IS300...

There must be something outdate about the IS...

 

Don't forget AUTOMOBILE's comments about the TSX having a LSD.