According to Automobile, the 0-60 time for the TSX is a disappointing 8.1 seconds (that is with a manual - I would have thought the auto could do close to that). They have the IS300 at 7.0 seconds, and the M6 at 7.1, so it is not as if Automobile is overly conservative.

The interesting aspect of the equation is the 30 - 70 times (i.e, passing times), where the TSX wallops the M6 and is also better than the IS300: 8.6 for the TSX, 8.8 for the IS300, and 9.8 for the M6.

This supports what many of you have been saying, once you get the TSX launched, it does Ok. Moreover, the acceleration numbbers that are published in most car reviews probably underestimate the real world driving "feel" fo the TSX. 30 - 70 and 1/4 mile times are much more representative of day-to-day driving then 0-60.

I also am coming to the conclusion that the mod that is going to really improve acceleration is sticky tires. But, that might be another issue....

Thoughts?

 

Very interesting. 2nd and 3rd gear are definately where the power is in the TSX. ...you can feel it. Stickier tires would definately help on the 0-60 ...but could the gearing also be a problem?

 

Everything you've said makes perfect sense, but I still think the 6MT TSX can do much better than 8.1 to 60 and 16.1 through the 1/4 mile. Kurt Bradley has done a 15.5, so if driven right its faster than most mags make it out to be.

And thanks for pointing out those 30-70 times, I completely missed those. If you have the mag with you can you post the 0-100 times between the TSX and M6, IS300?

 

I don't have the mag at work, but will post the numbers when I get home.

 

I'll check myself when I get home, I figured you were at home. Might be a good idea to post those numbers as well though as a comparison. I think I remember seeing the G35 about 7 seconds or so faster to 100 than the TSX.

 

WOW

 

0-100 times...

TSX - 21.1 sec.
IS300 - 18.1 sec.
M6 - 18.7

0-110 times...

TSX - 26.6 sec.
IS300 - 23.0 sec.
M6 - 29.8 sec.

I've got it right in front of me.

 

G-35 hits 100 mph in 14.3 sec. (compared to the TSX's 21.1 sec.)

 

What happened to the M6 in the 0-110 times? It takes the M6 an additional 10 seconds to get from 100 to 110???

 

I found that odd as well. I'm just typing what they printed though.

 

Yup, 6.8 seconds to be exact. Its expected with more than 1 litre more of displacement and 94 lf/ft of tourque more to boot.

 

If it's worth anything...
C&D lists the 6spd TSX with a 7.2sec 0-60 which they said is the same pace as the IS300 and .2 seconds slower than the 325i.

Performance is always going to change depending on the driver but there's quite a discrepency there.

 

But, most published estimates are closer to AUTOMOBILE

ConsumerGuide: 7.9 Seconds
Motor Trend: 7.9 Seconds
Edmunds: 8.3 Seconds
Automobile: 8.1 Seconds

C & D is the only source to actually get a time under 7.5. So, I think Automobile is more realistic here.

 

hmm i wonder why honda hasnt released any official 0-60 times yet...maybe it is around 8secs like most of these mags have published (except for C&D)

 

C&D always have the fastest 0-60 times. They must KILL the cars to get those times...

 

C&D really goes after it in their acceleration tests. Their number is probably repeatable, but you'd have to be at the same elevation and track temperature, and you'd have to be willing to abuse the car to get the absolute best time.

What is more meaningful to me is to compare the performance times of the TSX to the times of other cars tested by the same magazine. If you do that with all the major magazines, you should get a pretty good feel for how the TSX stacks up, and therefore how it will feel in everyday driving.

What I think matters to most people most of the time is how the car feels in its midrange response - what's it like when you toe into it at 20 to 60 to get up to cruising speed or accelerate around another car? The TSX is very responsive in that range.

 

Someone got a 7.6 ... i think it was autoweek. Thats not too shabby. But I think we can all feel this car is sluggish off the line, especially with the stock tires. Where this car shines is once its moving. C&D got a 7.8 second 5-60 time.

 

I've always found 0-60 to be a pointless index anyway. How often do you go from a dead stop to 60? The quater mile times, 5 - 60, and 30 - 70 are a lot more informative.

 

So, what would be a good realistic time 0-60 for an automatic?

 

8 seconds?? are you kidding me?? Are they granny-shifting these cars or what?? If you're going to TEST a car... give it all its got! After all... we are comparing the capabilities and limits of these cars.

 

We've argued about this alot here. THe only way to know for sure would be to test a MT and AT back to back with same driver and conditions.

I'd say the added weight, drivetrain loss, and less agrressive gearing of the 5AT would ABOUT .5 seconds. (+/- .5 seconds )

 

So, what would be a good realistic time 0-60 for an automatic?

 

are these times all for the manual? i know C&D and Motor Trend are...

 

C&D also got a 7.5 0-60 with the Accord Sedan 5 Speed Auto. I agree with onenonlieTSX, if your going to test a car, give it all its got. If your racing, you'd do the same, so whats the difference? We want to know what the car is ultimately cabaple of not what it does if driven semi agressively.

Since that Automobile Mag article was so poorly done we really have no way of knowing if all the published numbers were obtained at the same time on the same day on the same track with the same driver and in the same weather conditions. For all we know those times could have all been obtained seperately and all published together.

If they were all tested together specifically for that article then the TSX numbers are pretty poor when compared to the other cars in that test. The Auto 325 ran 8.1??? (Yes it was an Auto) Theres no way an Auto 325 is as quick as a 6 Sp TSX.....

 

Dude get over it, acceleration is not it's strong point. Stop listening so much to the marketing.

 

I agree with that, but at the same time I think the 8.1 is a little unrealistic. I'm thinking traction is an issue on the launch because of it being fwd + the touring all seasons. the k24a2 is a real departure from normal honda fair if you ask me; this motor with it's peak torque at 2700rpms + slow fall off after 5000rpms seems to be a sacrifice of pure drag race ability for more around town drivability(as witnessed by the good rolling start + passing times) That being said the first 2 gears are very short(shorter than an rsx-s) which means a tsx mt should be getting very good torque amplification. Couple that with the fact the tsx is producing peak torque not far off idle and I'm thinking 0-60 time sshould be a tad better. I guess only time will tell when we get a user with some upgraded rubber to do some testing.

 

Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean it's not true...

Why does everyone buy these cars and expect them to be fast? These are ENTRY LEVEL sport sedans. I have a 325xi and I didn't buy it because it was a rocket, I liked the look, feel & handling. It is not blazing fast, but it is fun. Just have fun and forget about your 0-60 time. Those drivers for the magazines are better drivers than all of you anyway, so the numbers are still lower than what you will get without significant mods & upgrades.

 

I think all of us do about 10-30 times a day at every stoplight and stop-sign.

 

I wouldn't be so fast to make blanket statements. We have one users already who ran a 15.5 @91mpgh, that equates to about a 7.2 0-60 even on the stock rubber. The tsx numbers have been all over the board, and like i said i think it's a bit of a compromise of absolute drag time for better drivability...but sitll 8.1 seems a little slow.

EDIT: fyi drive an auto so obviously 0-60 isn't a huge thing for me either. But I'm always up for a good tech discussion.

 

So, you accelerate from 0-60 at each stop sign, hit the brakes for the next stop sign, and then accelerate to 60 again?

I rarely get above 40 - 45 on larger surface roads. Around my neighborhood, I rarely get above 30 - 35. I almost never shoot up to 60 when I'm not getting on a highway.

 

Oh, well if one user "said" he ran that time then I guess all of the "professional" auto magazines and critics that do this stuff for a living must just be wrong. One TSX forum member vs. 5 sets of published numbers from respected, professional automobile publications... Tough decision

 

I don't live in the City kid, I live in a suburb where there are miles inbetween stop signs.

 

I wouldn't put such faith in "professional" magazine reviewers. Just because they are paid doesn't necessarily mean they are good. We also don't have any information to standardize the numbers they gave for weather etc. If i remember right one magazine got times for the s2000 of like 14.8 in a quartermile. Interesting that many uers can hit 13.9 stock. But I guess they must be wrong since they professionals right? if you are really interested i can dig up dozens of data points showing people at tracks getting better times that maganzines have rated cars at. Wait for users to get time slips which we admitedly don't have yet although i believe kurt 100%. His time matched the best mag tests we have seen so far from c&d. This all comes down to a matter of physics and the motor in the tsx IS capable of propelling it to 60 in 7 seconds flat with some good tires; there is also no doubt it will be able to hit a quarter mile in 15.3 with some good rubber.

 

I personally don't look at the 0-60 times as absolute. Rather, I use them for relative ranking purposes. Yeah, you might be able to improve on the time that Motor Trend got for the TSX. But, you can probalby improve on the time that MT got for the IS300 too. If MT's numbers for the TSX are a lot slower than the numbers for the IS300, I doubt more aggressive tests will change the picture.

So, I don't doubt that the TSX can do 0-60 in faster times than 8 seconds, but I suspect that the relativel ranking of the TSX with regard to the IS300, M6, etc, is consistent with the data presented by the various Car mags.

 

Thanks for calling me "kid" but I'm actually a 41-YO college professor.

Where you live there may be miles between signs and lights and you may reach 60 MPH before having to come to a stop again. However, the point is that is not typical of the driving conditions most of us face. For most of us, 0-60 is not a stat that reflect acceleration needs on a day-to-day basis.

 

Guys, you really need to face the fact that while the TSX is a terrific car, it is not a fast car off the line. Whatever the best time the magazines get is not achievable in real life unless you want to toast your clutch in 5000 miles. And yes, the magazines tend be good at this because they do it a lot.

The obsession that this board has with acceleration times is bizarre and smells like insecurity to me. I have never seen this on any of the other boards I've been on over the years.

It's not enough to compare hp, torque and weight between cars - gearing and traction issues (as well as tons of variables for each run) have a huge impact too. But if you pick the best number and decide that that number MUST be the truth you're just kidding yourselves.

If any TSX owners bought their cars for acceleration off the line reasons *only* then they made a big mistake. They should have bought a Camaro Z28 or Mustang Cobra or another sucky one-trick vehicle like that. If they bought their cars for the design, handling, driveability, value, reliability, exclusivity, practicality etc. etc., then they're probably very happy with them.

TinkySD, try to reread your own posts as if they weren't yours you'll see that you come across as someone refusing to accept facts that are staring you in the face. That's not meant to be a flame, just an observation that when you're close to an issue you can't always be objective.

C.
02 M Coupe - incredible acceleration 0-60, but not a good all round car.

 

Wow, for someone who doesn't indicate their location you seem to know a great deal about how everyone else lives and the driving conditions they face. Must be because you're a college professor

Let me tell you about where I live in Austin, TX. There are tons of roads with 50-60 speed limits that have fairly frequent (sadly ever more frequent) traffic lights on them. I drive these roads every day and good acceleration off the line is useful to me.

If, however, you're right and 0-60 is not a stat that means anything, then why do you seem so concerned that the TSX doesn't do it that well?

C.

 

At this point in my life, I have lived in many different regions of the US: NY city, Washington, D.C., Nashville, Indianapolis, suburban Florida, rural Delaware, and now urban Los Angeles I didn't find a whole lot of 0-60 opportunities between stop signs in any of those towns. I'm not saying it doens't happen, I'm just saying it isn't the most typical situation for most of us. That is why I don't think 0-60 is a great index. Maybe it is different in Austin, but I doubt it.

But, I guess you just know better because people in Austin are so smart.

As for why I am so concerned about why the TSX doesn't do well. Show me where I expressed "concern" about the TSX's acceleration or 0-60 times? I'm simply an enthusiast discussing one aspect of my car.

As for your comments on the board's obsessions with 0-60 times, thanks for your helpful advice. But, I think most of us are car buffs and we're just trying to find reasonable ways of assessing the capabilities of our vehicles. I think it is an issue discussed here at such length because the car is so new and all the data are not in. And, I also think we're all trying to figure out strenghts and weaknesses of the vehicle.

As for TinySD, I've read most of his posts on the topic. I don't think he cares if other cars are faster or slower than his. I think he is just a tech guy trying to figure out the assets and strengths of the TSX. You might find his posts interesting, but the rest of us do. So, don't take this as a flame, but other posters may have interests that differ from your own.

Finally, if you are bored of dicussions on 0-60 times, might I suggest you simply stop reading posts on the subject, rather than offering us your fairly silly editorial comments on the topic?

 

Please point out some specifics. If you frequent this board you would realize that I'm not a person that cares all that much about acc numbers(I drive an auto) and I have always purported that the tsx is not a race car. If any of us wanted that we could buy a much faster car for much less money. It's a good all around performer for a good value as compared to it's competition. I definitely disagree with your statements about acceleration numbers. I've never been on a board and i've frequented many where that wasn't a big discussion. It's just par for the course. From it's inception the tsx has been more or less criticized for it's i4 powerplant so a lot of us get a little fed up when people shortchange the car...not because it's a racecar but because they are uninformed. When taking into account it's actual dynamics(from dyno plots) + gearing and everything else it's got just as much go as a 325 or a4 1.8t or a c230 or an 9-3 arc. AGain i'm not flaming either but if you could point out some statements where i said something that wasn't factual in basis i'd be more than willing to listen.


EDIT: I just reread my 3 posts and honestly I just don't see how you think i'm being "blind" about the issues. I was very fair in all my assesments and I'm willing to bet I am more knowledgeable about the TSX mechanically that most of the poeple that post here. That's not a flame either just a statement. As i've said over and over we do need some timeslips before we really know what the car can do. But that doesn't change the fact that i've been doing this kind of analysis for cars for years so I have a pretty good idea of what i'm talking about.

 

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I wasn't trying to make blanket statements at all, unlike you. So I wasn't trying to suggest that I know better - just that you don't either.

You really do have a high opinion of yourself. I live in Austin, yet you seem to think you know what the roads are like here and I don't. Incredible.

C.