I still wonder why the K24 in our TSX only has 200HP. The S2000 and Prelude both have smaller engines, much more HP and only about 10-15 lb/ft of TQ less each. Ok, I know the TSX engine was designed for low end power in mind etc, etc but I find it hard to believe that Acura could'nt have made the K24 develope at least 240 to 250HP and 175 lf/ft?

I guess they're saving it for the Type R, Type S orwhatever??

 

As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with BD regarding the mag times we've seen so far. If 5 different mags are all reporting 7.9-8.1, unfortunately that seems to be the average. The car may be able to go quicker, but 7.9-8.0 seems to be the norm here.

With that said, its still a kick ass car that has plenty of pick up after 10 MPH or so.

 

No, it's 2002 325i.

I don't necessarily prefer to drive around at 1500 RPM. But if you find yourself in top gear (both mine and the 325i's are taller than the TSX) at 35-40 mph -- maybe because traffic slowed down or something -- and it still has some pull (my car) or lots of pull (325i), why not? No 4-cylinder Honda I have ever driven has really felt like it was happy being driven at that RPM (although a CL-S would do it very nicely).

 

I completely agree. I suspect the 8 second or so times are reasonably accurate, and I'm still aatisfied.

one of the things this makes me wonder about is potential mods. All the engine mods I've seen talked about on this board and other boards seem to optimize performance at the higher end. What we really need is some way to get the TSX to move more quickly off the line, and I think traction will be the issue there.

But, again, I acknolwedge that I don't understand all the factors involved nearly as well as some of you.

 

Not to be nitpicky, but I've only seen two tests that failed to break 8 seconds 0-60 for the TSX: Edmunds and AUTOMOBILE. ConsumerGuide, C & D, Motor Trend, and others all got under 8 seconds.

And, I'm not sure how you define "fast" but I think all the cars you listed are reasonably fast.

 

I for one definately did NOT fall in love with the TSX because of its 0-60 time. the beauty of the car is how much you get for the money compared to other cars in this price range. In order to get a G35 similiarly equipped it would cost you atleast 32-35k. if 0-60 is all you care about than you should really buy a WRX and then you'll realize you've bought a car with a shitty stereo and a boring interior with no leather and no power seats. In my opinion the TSX is the best buy for the money. Not to mention there was only 15,000 produced for 2004 so it is a rare sight on the road compared to most other cars you see all over the place.

 

You were right up until you mentioned how many were made for 04. About 12,000+ TSX's have already been sold through August. Acura may reach 15,000 units after September sales figures come in and sales will likely reach 20,000+ by the end of 04 and closer to 30,000 by the time the TSX reaches the end of its 1 year of sales next April.

The 15,000 was only a projected sales number for Acura, and they will easily surpass that number. No surprise either.

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

i think it can and here is why, when i got my TL a friend of mine had a 2000 5 speed lude. we have raced several times and i can tell you that when we launch we are stuck side by side so exactly the same speeds i could almost reach out and sign my name on his passenger door.

when we went to the track we ran almost identical times. keep in mind im at 6200 feet above sea level. my best tme in the TL was a 16.30 1/4 his was a 16.39 and for the record we both drove his down the 1/4 mile to see if i could better that time and i couldnt.

at sealevel i have heard the prelude can run about 15.2-3 sec 1/4 stock. i heard one guy ran a TL 15.0 flat in the 1/4 for sake of argument lets say the TL runs about 15.3 roughly. the best time i have seen for a TSX is 15.5 posted here someplace but i think safe to say its probly a little higher than that based on the discussions here.
bottom line i know my TL was faster my seat of the pants tells me that the numbers certainly show it . so yes i say a prelude will walk a TSX not by busslengths im sure but i still dont get how a Honda 2.4L pushing roughly the same weight as a prelude, sporting a 6 speed and i-VTEC having 10 lbs TQ than the prelude and 5 more HP nearly the same redline cant hang with the 2.2 old school VTEC in the lude.

 

Well, the TSX weighs about 200 lbs more than the 5th generation Prelude, which is about 6% more, but it has less than 3% more horsepower, so the power to weight ratio still goes to the 'lude.

Does seem that they would be close though. I don't have gearing figures for the 'lude, but perhaps it's part of the equation. Can the TSX do 60 in 2nd without hitting the redline? Maybe the extra shift is the difference...

 

This wasn't based on my "buddy's" experience, it was based on my experience driving his car.

I've test driven the TSX 3 times and explored the low-end torque thoroughly. 6th gear at 1500 RPM is a dog, especially on a grade.

I've driven my friend's 325i a few times, and 5th gear in that car at 1500 RPM pulls fairly nicely. Now consider that the 325i weighs a hair more and has a taller 5th gear than the TSX 6th gear and draw your own conclusions.

 

I had the first year of the Prelude SH (97) with slightly less horsepower and it definitely hit 60 in second, as the redline was something nuts like 8k.

The buzz in that car from 5250 through 7500 or so was incredible.

C.

 

i agree with you 100% after the vtecengagement the top end of that was nuts. and i still say if you have more displacement and it revs within 500 RPM of the H22A motor i dont get why they cant extract another say 20 hp out of the 2.4L

 

Man you get called away for work all day and miss the fun.... to be honest I never claimed the tsx was a race car...serioiusly i have always had just the oppostie voice on this site. Every TSX owner has to make the decision for themselves how much performance they are happy with. For me, driving an auto tsx has plenty of go. I don't participate in discussiosn like this out of some sort of sense of ego...needing to talk my car up or something. What I do like to share is certain facts I know and misconceptions aobut the tsx when i see them and can give some kind of informative statement to the contrary. The way i've got most of my satements about the stock tsx projections is from an interesting program called cartest 2000 that some of you may have heard of. It's very comprehensive...it's based soley on phsysics, no bias plays into it.

12% driveline loss for an mt is not realistic given my experience. I assume anything with an under 15% loss is just underrated from the factory. I will say that bmw tends to underate their motors hp and torque wise. they also use electric power steering and fans that save some parasitic losses. I'm not the only one to come to the conlusion the tsx is cranking 175-180lbft... same has been said on vtec.net by people who professional dyno tune cars daily. Take that for whatever it's worth.

For some of you the tsx might not have enough torque but there are a few things i can tell you definitively. the k24a2 in the tsx produces more torque than the m6s below 3000rpm and the previous 3.0 in the last generation accord v6.(it out torques that motor below 4000rpm and again above 6000)

 

IMO C&D is the only one smart enough to turn the VSA off.

 

Amen. It is a wonderful little machine that does wonders. Forget acceleration times, and all that crazy stuff. I don't bolt away from stoplights, since I tend to leave that for teenagers in souped up cars. But I do need the power now and then to pass on the interstate and stuff like that. Those obsessed with rapid acceleration should try the muscle cars.

 

Well, I usually see drivetrain loss quoted as a range from 10-15%. Acura builds very well engineered cars, so I don't see why my figure is unreasonable. I see no reason to be pessimistic about drivetrain loss if that produces other figures that seem out of whack. If I did the same with my car, I get 180 lb-ft at the crank which seems very out of kilter with the manufacturer's quote of 155 lb-ft. Curiously, the dyno Acura publishes in their brochure bears little resemblance to the street dyno's we have seen thus far.

Also, there was significant discussion and simulation done before the first instrumented tests. Folks plugged in Acura's "underrated" numbers and predicted that the TSX would be a 7.0 second car, perhaps less. Now that all the tests are out, it's actually 10% slower than this even using Acura's numbers. (Yes, I've read all the excuses -- can't drive, bad tires, FWD traction issues, VSA, etc.).

 

On the BMW lists that I frequent we always use 17% loss. Perhaps it's RWD related. If it isn't 17, that dyno that TinkySD posted the other day shows the TSX as not making 200hp.

I'm not trying to state any facts here, just curious about the drivetrain loss thing. I didn't think it specifically had to do with "engineering" quality.

C.

 

I'm curious as well. I guess I was thinking that such losses vary slightly from car to car (and certainly from an AT to an MT) and as you pointed out even from FWD to RWD. Post crank losses occur primarily in the transmission and differential, yes?

Off to do some more research...

 

I wish i knew all the answers! What I do know is that with honda cars on average 15% driveline loss for mt and 22-25% driveline loss for an automatic. The AT in the tsx seems to only lose aobut 20% which is solid. It puts down similar peak numbers to an m6s auto...peak numbers don't tell teh whole story obviously, but they are interesting.(there are some dynos postedin the performance section under injen intake dyno)

I think we all agree that the tsx makes 200hp. With an acura car such as the cl-s auto you get a 20% decrease in torque output from factory stated 232. I was somewhat assuming you could do the same thing but I could be wrong. Another way to look at the torque situation is to compare the dynos users have to factory. The tsx seems to make the specific HP at the specific RPM, but it has a much fatter low end then spedified....with torque as low as 2700 rpm being higher than the factory rated torque peak. That's rather simplistic analysis, but it is another reason i've felt the tsx puts out more torque than what was specificed from the factory; just like the k24 from the accord rated at 161lbft.

 

Basically, my atitude toward this whole issue is mixed. Ultimately, the question is, how satistifed am I with the power in this car, and the answer is "very." I don't car if the G35 et al. are faster, the TSX meets my needs fine.

However, there are two reason why I issues related to acceleration interesting. First, I get very annoyed when I visit Edmunds and other sites and read how "anemic" the TSX is (as one less informed poster recently claimed at Edmunds) compared to other vehicles. All the available data suggests that the TSX is actually a bit faster than the M6 and IS300 in the mid range, just slower at launch.

A second reason why this is of interest to me is that I just want to understand the car a little better, and see if I can find reasonable ways of improving performance. I would do that with any car I owned. I'm completely convinced that the tires are part of the problem and, for me, all season tires make no sense (I live in Los Angeles).

So, I'll invest in some really sticky summer tires soon, and maybe I'll consider some of the other mods when they become available. But, at the end of the day, I'm pretty happy with the performance of the car and I enjoy discussing acceleration times because I learn so much. I have learned a ton about how cars work from reading some of the comments in this thread, for example.

 

Boy, did I misread you earlier Chris (for which I apologize)! I've really learned a lot from your last few posts. Very thoughtful.

 

It's interesting to see people think that 1st gear is to high in this car when the opposite is true.
Wheel spin is a problem with the 6mt and 1st winds out too fast.
My perspective is they kept 1st gear low to aid in getting the car rolling easily with low torque.
I've noticed that the car really starts to perform once you are in 2nd. Still no vtec but....it does have decent torque lower then
the older Honda design. (Damn, I still miss the vtec though).
Just a guess, but I suspect Honda designed this car to be easy
to drive with a clutch in a world of automatic tranny trained drivers. Hence, a low 1st gear to prevent stall. jmho

 

And since Adam likes talking about Honda 6 cyl times....
C&D 8/98 edition for the NSX...
0-60 in 4.5 sec.
1/4 in 12.9
0-150-0 in 35.9 , in just over 5100 ft.
Hey Adam, how's that Accord at 150?? (Just can't resist.)
Not bad for only 290 hp 3.2 liter now outdated car. (And it's got
Vtec, Oh yaa!)
Not everyone wants an Accord Adam! They are great cars but they don't do it for us like they seem to do it for you.
I got a TSX because it is a great sedan that does 90% of everything well. (And there is always someone faster)
Adam, you are so closed minded most of the time.

 

bullshit my old 3.0CL did it in 7.2sec.... and my TSX feels much faster (6Mt)

 

I had a 3.0CL too and although it had a V6, it still wasn't that fast of a car. The TSX "feels" faster because that 4 has to work a lot harder, you can hear it working it's butt off to get that car moving...

 

I find first gear to be a little too short.

Now imagine if the car had even more power...how messy would hard launches would be with stock rubber?

 

you know i discovered somthing tonight. when i shift hard to 2nd gear i notice the the throttle seems like it dosnt follow my foot on the pedal as fast as im moving the gas pedal.
when i complete my shift i can feel the throttle starting to open even though im already on the floor.
i found with the VSA turned off not only am i now getting 2nd gear chirps but the throttle seems to get to wide open faster and i get a much better shift.
what do you guys think? have you seen this?