I think you misunderstood me/I failed to be clear. I wasn't criticizing your posts in general (I know you are a moderator and respected poster here) just the one immediately preceding my post where you seemed to feel that one owner's report of their 1/4 mile time had more credibility than a whole slew of magazine tests. Any rational analysis of a range of reported numbers would normally lead one to take a mean or average value rather than an unusually high or low one. As more data arrives, that average will improve, but to me your statement (as I read it) that the owner's time was more likely to be accurate (because it agreed with your gut feel?) than several magazine tests seems a little unrealistic to me.

Also the tires issue - magazines test cars in stock form. Sure if you make improvements to stock, that will change the results, but then the same is true for all the other cars they test, so how does that prove anything.

C.

 

But, perhaps TinySD is simply trying to figure out why some mags have slower times than private drivers. That might give some important clues as to how the TSX works, and what might or might not allow drivers to make improvements.

 

It's not that I have a high opinion of myself. I just have a low opinion of you.

Now, might I politely suggest you take your ego and sarcasm elsewhere and allow the other posters here to get back on topic? If you would like to insult me further, I suggest you do it via PM and let the thread can back on track.

 

I dont understand how certain people can come in a thread to "crash" tsx enthusiasts discussion about times from 0-60.. we are car enthusiasts even though we dont have a bimmer or a benz... Its not us obsessed with 0-60 times.. its more like others are obsessed in telling us that our car is no 'racecar'..'not fast' ..'not an accord v6 coupe' (to adam) hehe.. or so on. We are discussing the TSX and how to improve and how the magazines may be wrong. Is that a bad thing on a TSX forum?! we know the tsx isnt a drag machine, but cant tsx owners want to go faster?

 

I'll respond to the second statemetn first jsut by saying cars like the is300 and 325 come stock with summer tires which are far grippier and can make quite a difference acceleration wise. You just have to take all that into consideration...also that fact that the tsx with it's fwd platform has extra traction issues means sticky tires will make a proportionally greater difference with it.

I can see where you are coming from however my own personal experience is that "home users" times are more realistic than magainze ones. For example the new mazda rx8...magazines got wonderful times low 14 second quartermile. However ZERO users have been able to duplicate them. Most are getting lower 15 second quarter mile times. Now you before you think this satement falls into the category of the advantage of professional drivers you have to understand that this discrepancy caused a lot of owners to go to dyno shops and get hard data on what their car is putting down. They found a huge horsepower discrepancy so in reality there car was actually running a time appropriate for the given power levels. According to the same kinds of analysis the tsx with optimal grip with stock output should be running low 7s 0-60 and low 15s in teh quartermile. That's not really a subjective statement...it's fact in regards to the technical capabilities of the vehicle.

I absolutely understand not everyone will be able to hit those kind of times and an average driver might only be able to hit 0-60 i 8 seconds... but when people were saying that you have to "face facts even if you don't like them" I thought it would be a good place to interject some good technical data.

 

And, as a reader who is not particularly savy about these issues, I greatly appreciate your comments and hope you will continue to post on the topic. I've certainly learned a lot about the relation between traction and acceleration from your posts.

 

Who on earth do you think you are to say who is allowed to post and who isn't? This website and the forums are for those interested in TSXs. I do not (yet) own a TSX, but I have driven one, ridden in one etc. and my comments are as valid as yours. I felt that the car was somewhat slow off the mark, though there seemed no sluggishness once on the move. My sense was that it was gearing that caused this (an excessively high first), rather than traction as such.

I don't believe I have insulted you, and I do not plan to start. It was not I who felt the need to inform the list of my age and profession as if it mattered. I am here both to learn and to offer like most other people. You will note that while I don't have your or TinkySD's post level, I am not someone who signed up tonight just to start trouble and at least a few of my 89 posts were considered useful by others. I am certainly not crashing a thread or trying to hijack the topic.

C.

 

I've snipped a bunch of what you wrote as I agree with it. You are of course right to say that rwd assists in the off the mark times (look at a Porsche 911 with all the weight in its butt for proof of that). However only the sport package 325i comes with summer tires.

The IS300 (not driven one) has 215hp which gives it an advantage, the 325i feels perky IMO because BMW screws with the gearing (low first) to make it feel that way. People tend to wonder why BMWs have such great acceleration compared to say Audi and it's largely down to gearing.

I would be very interested to see dynos of the TSX by owners. I also plan to go and plug the TSXs gear ratios (from Acura.com) into a calculator to see if that yields any clues. I thought I had done this before for a previous discussion about the Mazda 6 and found that the Mazda had noticeably shorter effective gearing in first which might explain the acceleration times relative to the two cars.

C.

 

Whatever, dude.

Like I said, if you want to contribute to the thread, welcome aboard. And, you are right, I don't get to tell you you can't be here - just like you don't get to tell other poster what topics they should discuss. Don't disrupt the thread. If posters want to talk about acceleration, 0-60 times, etc, and you don't find that of interest - you don't have to participate. In the meantime, your editorial comments, and sarcastic attitude, are not welcome.

And, not that it is any of your concern whatsoever, but I "listed" my age and profession not because I thought it mattered, but because the other poster refered to me as "kid" and seemed to have me confused with another younger poster. The very fact that you felt the need to raise my profession as part of the conversation in two to three seperate posts only illustrates the problem with your attitude. You seem to feel that you have the right to make editorial comments about the quality of other's posts.

As for the slowness of the mark, isn't that the point? I started this thread not because I was "concerned" about the 0-60 times of the TSX (as you claimed) but because I was interested in some of the findings. It is of interest to me that the 0-60 times are poor, and the 30 - 70 times are fairly impressive. I think that tells us something important about the car, and I was curious as to what other posters thought.

Also, not that this is any of your buisness either, but I find the power and acceleration in the TSX to be fine overall. Its not a rocket ship - but so what. It is more than fast enough for me and I couldn't give a rat's butt if the G35 and other vehicles go quicker. I could have easily have afforded lots of vehicles that are faster than the TSX, but that wasn't what I wanted or needed. In the meantime. I just want to gain a better understanding of my own car.

 

OK, Darth here's my contribution. What you're seeing in these tests is a car (TSX) with a fairly high first gear, and less power than the Mazda6 and IS300 get beaten in off the mark tests, which rely heavily on first and second gear performance.

The Mazda6 and IS300 have 5 speed boxes (for now) and so their gears are more spread out than the closer ratios of the 6 speed TSX. Hence, the in gear acceleration times (probably relying on 3rd) are better in the TSX than the other two. That might also be what makes the TSX more competitive in the 1/4 mile as 4th gear for the TSX is probably lower than that of the others.

As to whether traction is an issue in everyday driving that is easily determined. Do TSX owners typically find as they are accelerating from a stop that they are either activating the traction control system, or spinning the front wheels if TC is off? If so, then wider, grippier tires would improve matters, but you'll never overcome the gearing and power disadvantage if that's the issue here (as I believe it is).

C.

 

There you go!

That is a thoughtful and informed analysis.

I never get my wheels spinning, and I never seen the VSA activate. So, that argues against my traction theory.

I think your comments make good sense and reasonable take on the numbers.

 

MT users definitley report traction issues in first gear. At any point they can hammer the throttle and get wheelspin.

Remember when looking at gear ratios you have to look at the gear itself and the final drive ratio.(the cog on the drive axel) to get the effective gear ratio you have to multiply those two together.

Here is a comparison of the 2001 325 and tsx..i'm not sure if the 325 has different gear rations now but i'm pretty sure that's a negative.
First the tsx
gear gear x final drive(4.76)
3.267 15.55
1.880 8.95
1.355 6.45
1.02 4.855
.83
.66



Now the 325
Gear gear x final (3.15)
4.23 13.3245
2.52 7.938
1.66 5.229
1.24 3.906
1



As you can see the tsx is more aggresively geared through the first 2 gears(0-60) the others used for the quarter mile. Actualy torque output of the tsx and and 325 are similar as well as hp numbers, however the tsx peaks in torque much earlier than the 325. This is actually a hinderance as it keeps the tsx out of peak torque on full acceleration runs. That's why i said earlier the tsx motor as it is stock is a compromise on full acceleration for drivability. It oculd be returned to give more power in the upper rpm range which would greatly increase performance numbers but it would be much more chore to drive daily.

 

Here is a link to a tsx dyno from one or our use

 

here's a 2001 325 dyno stock and slightly modded.


Max Power Base 159.5 HP @ 6500 RPM
Test 166.9 HP @ 6250 RPM
Change 7.4 HP -250 RPM
Max Torque Base 146.7 ft-lbs @ 3500 RPM
Test 155.5 ft-lbs @ 4750 RPM
Change 8.8 ft-lbs 1250 RPM

 

OK, good stuff. I'm doing the same thing using an effective gearing calculator. Based on the TSXs final drive and gear ratios, and stock tire sizes, based on a 7000rpm limit (I know peak power is at 6800) it doesn't QUITE hit 60 in second at 7000rpm. That causes an extra shift to third that may well be dinging the time from the magazine's perspective.

Looking at the 325, if you can hit 6500rpm in the 325 (as indicated by your dyno chart) then it can JUST hit 60 in second gear. The second to third shift in any car is not the fastest one and the bulk of a second could be lost here.

Looking at the TSX dyno, assuming drivetrain loss of 17% it is right at 200hp.

You're right about the TSX not having high gearing, but depending on the methodology of the testers it could be that it's too low (requiring the extra shift) to make for good 0-60 times. If you did the European thing of doing 0-62 (100kmh) that would even the playing field a little in this comparison as they'd both require the extra shift.

I completely don't trust speedometer readout as a test of this, but if anyone thinks they're getting a genuine 60 in second I'd be interested to hear. Also curious to know what your motor sounds like at that kind of rpm

Seems to me Acura could've easily massaged their 0-60 time with different tire sizes, higher rev limiter or something small and saved us all a bunch of hassle.

C.

 

Not true, BMW's come standard with all-season tires, you have to add the sports package to get the summer rubber.

 

You know , I was thinking this same thing. The extra shift would explain the variation between C&D 7.2 and other mags 8.0. But I dont think this is the case. IN fact Edmunds specifically stated that they pushed the car well past redline in their tests and they only managed about an 8.0 second pass. I dont think its the extra shift.

 

I would be very interested in seing 0-70 times between the TSX and the world. Like Chrisalbert said, everyone would need to shift to third gear.

One more note, it's funny, it's the first Honda I ever drive that seems to be more powerfull at lower rpm than at near redline... Kind of feel funny. It's more driveable but feels less aggressive. I beleive that the average Joe appreciate more this setting. You are less tempted to redline the engine (the kick is not there).

just my 2 cents

 

I agree. For me, 0-40 mph is far more important. Every day I make a right turn from a stop sign into heavy traffic, and I need the acceleration to move into any open gaps.

Unfortunately, I don't think the 0-40 times of the TSX would be relatively better than those for the other cars mentioned here.

 

This whole paragraph is BS, you cannot change or modify one vehicle and compare it to the stock numbers on another vehicle and call it a fair comparison. And my point about the professional magazine testing process still carries 100x more weight than any random TSX owners numbers at their local track. If you believe everything you hear, then I just ran a 6.8, 0-60 in my BMW X5. I know 100% of the magazines say it's over 8 seconds, but I must just be a better driver.
This is what these people do for a living, they do have a way of standardizing the numbers becuase they test 50 cars a year in the same fashion, often side by side. Sure the TSX would do better with mods and better tires, but then again, what vehicle wouldn't.
I used to have a Kawasaki Ninja ZX-7R that had an advertised 0-60 of 2.9 but I promise you I couldn't do that, even after 2 years because I am not a professional driver/rider. So compared to that, no car ever feels fast to me. You want speed, go buy a crotch-rocket and you will learn what speed is all about.

 

BD - you're missing part of the point: there are a few posters to this board that actually have credibility (which you do not have, nor do I for that matter). the poster tinkysd is talking about is one such poster. the more of these kinds of posters report their time on this board and others, the more data we have. tinky is pointing out (correct me if I'm wrong), that with more data it is likely that the "average" will indeed be lower than these magazines may have gotten - which does not mean that the data is bad or that the magazines are wrong, just that there is more data.

 

And how did he earn this level of credibility? He said he races cars? He throws a lot of track numbers around? He is really, really into racing cars and so he picked up a TSX? No one that is really serious about racing would ever buy a front wheel drive car looking for performance. I'm sorry, but I am just a little more critical of where I get my information. I trust the guys who test cars for a living, just like I trusted the eye Dr. when I got my laser vision correction. You seek the pros in their specific field, because that is what they do best.

 

you know im almost convinced the throttle by wire system does not open the throttle all the way in 1st gear. and another thing i dont get about the K motor. i drove an RSX and it seemed to build and increase in power with the revs just like the old VTEC's did. i wish someone could
A. verify that under full acceleration the throttle is actually open all the way to WOT
B. verify it is the same under all load conditions.
c. if in fact improvements can be made to the torque in the top end area that hondata would hurry up with a reprogram.
i love the car but after owning a prelude type SH and a acura TL which are almost identical in proformance i cant understand how a 2.4L engine from Honda doesnt pull as hard as the 2.2L VTEC i had in my lude. i guarentee you the lude would walk the TSX.
the TSX definitly had torque and lots of it down low but with all the varied timing of the cam you would think honda could figure out how to extract a little more top end to this motor.
i guess in a way im asking to have my cake and eat it too.
im not complainging mind you. i love the TSX i just wish the high rpm range was a little more aggresive like the old VTEC engines were.

 

Hmm. Credibility earned by honest, helpful, truthful posts over a long period of time from as far as I know, including from the "other site". You have a valid point on trusting experts - I was not suggesting otherwise. I was merely pointing out that 1) experts can be wrong, and 2) experts are still only a few data points out of many possible and, as such, provide a good baseline, but that line may shift as more data becomes available over a longer period of time.

What, you wouldn't let me use a pen laser to operate on you? Sheesh. So demanding! :-)

 

I have to say that, over the years, I've come to trust the consumer oriented mags (like Consumer Reports, and ConsumerGuide) more than Motor Trend et al. Those sources typically test the car in the way that real world drivers will use it, and they are fairly unbiased. For that reason, I do trust the number ConsumerGuide published - 7.9 seconds. Now, that may seem disappointed but the IS300 was only 7.3 and the M6 was 7.5. I do think the TSX is a bit slower than those cars, but I don't think the difference is large.

 

ever heard of an integra type R?

 

Great Thread........

 

Arent the prelude and TSX numbers almost exactly the same??? I definately dont think the prelude would "walk" the TSX.

 

Cool. I'm not the oldest one on the board... (40)

 

You thought you were the oldest at 40? There are quite a few guys in their 50's here.

 

I don't want to get in a flame war but the following points comprise my entire arguement.

1) stock tsx is a nearly identical weight to it's competition like the 325
2) the tsx cranks similar peak hp and tq numbers to the 325. The 325 has a meatier mid range which is better for acceleration runs. The tsx has better low end for drivability.
3) the TSX is geared more aggresivlely than the 325. That means you are getting more effective torque at the wheels of the car.
4) The tsx is FWD and has traction problems because of it, especially with the stock all season tires.

So my point is a car that ways the same, is outputing similar power figurse(with the noted worse midrange) and is more aggresively geared isn't going to be a second slower to 60 if traction isn't a problem. Personally I've never seen a 325 tested in a magazine that wasn't a sports model with summer tires.

So where are all my bs statements? Just because I don't put much faith in mag drivers you think I'm uninformed or ignorant?

 

Sigh.

Honda's specification for the peak TSX torque is 166 lb-ft at 4600 RPM. You guys are fixated on that brief dyno bump at 2700 RPM and have used it to justify all sorts of statements (car is significantly underrated, actual torque is 180, etc.) when from a practical sense it might help with some around-town driving but the 166 figure is more representative of the cars performance. For barely 10% of the span between 2500 and 5000 RPM does the TSX exceed the rating and it does that a low RPM. Honda knows that bump is there but quotes the other figure because it is more meaningful and pull at higher RPM is what Honda likes to tout.

(VW does similar things, quoting torque over over a range for its turbo models rather than a single peak figure that exceeds the quote by more than 10% at some RPM values.)

Also, the 325 is going have a boatload of torque between 1000 and 2000 RPM that is absent from the TSX simply because you're comparing a 4 to a 6 and that's the nature of their torque curves. There will thus be more AREA under the 325 torque and HP curves, and that is basically why it is faster.

 

Bunk. My buddy drives around all day long in his 325 at 1500 RPM and it pulls hard at that engine speed.

You simply can't make such claims based on different dyno's. Take a dyno of the TSX and 325 on the same dyno (or at least the same type of dyno) and I doubt you'd see the TSX torque curve spend much time above the 325's shy of the 325's torque peak.

 

I don't want to get into an argument here but just as TinkySD can't make claims based on different dynos, you simply can't "debunk" other people claims based on your "buddy's" experience...sorry.

 

But for magazine testing (the context in which TinkySD's comment was made) BMW routinely supplies cars with the sports package. C&D mentioned this in a fairly recent article.

 

According to the dyno i posted above it stays between 175-180lbft from 2700rpm to 5000rpm. It's definitely got more torque thatn what is rated. And i have no qualm admitting the tsx will have less torque between 1-2k rpm, but in acceleration runs this is meaningless. The gearing is going to keep both cars at least above 4krpm and in the tsx as high as 5500.

Admitedly low end means different things to different people. I forget you are the guy who likes to drive at 1500rpm Put it this way if you compare 2000 -3000rpm the tsx is putting down just as much torque. Actually I'll ammend that again...because there can be some variances betwee dynos although they should be minimal. The point is the tsx has plenty of torque down low. Is yoru buddies 325 and e36? if os that makes it 2-300lbs lighter than the current generation.

At least as far as i know a car putting out 166lbft at the crank should only be putting about 140 to the wheels with a manual. We even have an AUTO dyno putting down 146lbft peak with an average of more like 142lb ft or so. I would say the torque bump is about 180lbft while the range 2500-5000rpms is more like 175lbft.

 

2003 honda Accord v6 mt....0-60 in 5.9 secs.

 

hahah adam you are a goon! lol. Anyway i hope you guys realize that i don't have any ill feelings here about anyone, just having a level headed tech discussion and hope you guys feel the same.

 

I don't read it that way. It looks like hi-140's crank except for the bump. Assume 12% drivetrain loss for MT and you get high 160's torque. I don't think it is overrated to any significant degree except between 2500 and 3000 RPM. At the Honda-specified torque peak it is within 3% of the quote.

At any rate, you can drive a BMW (or almost any 6 cylinder car) around comfortably at RPM's lower than you guys launch at.

 

That is the BS! These are not a bunch of idoits that get together with a stopwatch and a few orange cones down at the Wal-Mart parking lot.

The fact that although NONE of the professionals in the automotive industry who have tested this car have come forward with the numbers you would "like" to see, you think they are ALL wrong. This isn't one test we are talking about, it is a number of tests. The group that did break 8 seconds probably almost fried the car doing it and I hope that no one here would do that to their new $28,000 purchase just to try and prove that this car is fast. When referring to fast cars, the TSX is not ever going to be a part of that conversation. Either will the 325, IS300, M6, A4, etc. These are not fast cars... If it makes you feel better to say that your TSX is faster than a 325, A4, IS300, 9-3, etc. because of one number you saw on a forum, then go ahead.

I guess we can all 2nd guess those crash test and reliability results too. I haven't seen you step forward and question those. Why? Because the results were positive and you only question the ones you don't like... My BMW's have never had to go to the shop, so I guess JDP was wrong, they are more reliable than Lexus after all!