IS300 vs. TSX
11-22-2004, 12:11 AM
#81
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
I'll bet anything that IS300 in that test was a 5AT, whereas the 0-60 for the TSX is a 6MT. Not a very fair comparison....
11-22-2004, 03:01 AM
#82
Race Director
Originally Posted by aaronng
i wouldnt wanna race one stock tho if the driver knows what hes doing ( i can e-shift fairly well, and if it werent for city driving everyday, id be in the 6 speed honda or a manual IS )"
Hahahaha!!! EVERYONE can e-shift very well.
Hahahaha!!! EVERYONE can e-shift very well.
11-22-2004, 07:57 AM
#83
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by darth62
I think there is a little one-sideness in the in the discussion here.
There really isn't any denying that the IS300 is simply the faster car. It has more horsepower, more torque, and (because it is real wheel drive) it probably gets all that power to the ground a lot more efficiently. There is some evidence that the two cars might be closer in terms of acceleration at passing speeds (see Automobile magazine). But, the bottom line is that the IS300 has got the TSX beat in terms of power.
And, frankly, in terms of braking, I think the IS300 absolutely kills the TSX.
Handling probably also gives a SLIGHT advantage to the IS300, although that is more of a RWD vs. FWD thing.
The TSX beats the IS300 in lots of other domains though (comfort, interior refinement, looks, fuel economy, refinement). I didn't like the IS300 at all when I went to see it at the Lexus dealer and I think the size is completely impractical. But, I still think the IS300 is the more sporty vehicle overall.
There really isn't any denying that the IS300 is simply the faster car. It has more horsepower, more torque, and (because it is real wheel drive) it probably gets all that power to the ground a lot more efficiently. There is some evidence that the two cars might be closer in terms of acceleration at passing speeds (see Automobile magazine). But, the bottom line is that the IS300 has got the TSX beat in terms of power.
And, frankly, in terms of braking, I think the IS300 absolutely kills the TSX.
Handling probably also gives a SLIGHT advantage to the IS300, although that is more of a RWD vs. FWD thing.
The TSX beats the IS300 in lots of other domains though (comfort, interior refinement, looks, fuel economy, refinement). I didn't like the IS300 at all when I went to see it at the Lexus dealer and I think the size is completely impractical. But, I still think the IS300 is the more sporty vehicle overall.
But those TSX times Linner pulled out
11-22-2004, 11:17 AM
#84
For some reason, IS300 owners just have trouble believing that stock vs stock, MT vs MT, auto vs auto, that both TSX and IS300 are about the same in SLOW-ness. From a stop the IS is also quicker, and the IS300 does FEEL much faster, I'll tell you that. Perception always plays a big part of the game in these types of discussions, esp when you compare a 6 cyl with more torque, and a high reving 4 cyl. you would defintely FEEL faster in the 6 cyl, but in reality and speed-wise, the results can have no relationship to what you feel.
Of course, if you tell them to an IS owner, they'll start saying, it's just a Honda Accord with a 4 cyl and a Acura badge, cheap interior, driving on the wrong set of wheels, and ugly exterior. Perhaps it's the fact that the TSX has a 4 cyl and it's a rebadge euro accord that can compete well with the IS300, that's what's making them bashing on the TSX.
People don't realize that the jdm accord has always been a virtually different car than the US accord (esp since the CL1), tho they share the same name and alot of the same interior design. Even if it is BASED on the US accord (like TL), so what? The US accord handles fairly well, and the keyword is BASED. Platform/engine sharing is done with many makes these days (Audi, BMW, Lexus, just to name a few), but the related cars can be very different in terms of dynamics. and alot of the ppl these days equte RWD with performance, N/A 4 cyl with being weak, which is, imo a bit ignorant.
Of course, if you tell them to an IS owner, they'll start saying, it's just a Honda Accord with a 4 cyl and a Acura badge, cheap interior, driving on the wrong set of wheels, and ugly exterior. Perhaps it's the fact that the TSX has a 4 cyl and it's a rebadge euro accord that can compete well with the IS300, that's what's making them bashing on the TSX.
People don't realize that the jdm accord has always been a virtually different car than the US accord (esp since the CL1), tho they share the same name and alot of the same interior design. Even if it is BASED on the US accord (like TL), so what? The US accord handles fairly well, and the keyword is BASED. Platform/engine sharing is done with many makes these days (Audi, BMW, Lexus, just to name a few), but the related cars can be very different in terms of dynamics. and alot of the ppl these days equte RWD with performance, N/A 4 cyl with being weak, which is, imo a bit ignorant.
11-22-2004, 12:22 PM
#86
My Garage
The thing that bothers me is the whole 4-cyl v. 6-cyl argument. We all know that a 6 is generally more powerful than a 4, but that does not mean a 4 can't be powerful, the S2K will absolutely tear up most cars on the road, can I get an AMEN? 
11-22-2004, 12:25 PM
#88
I'm the Firestarter
Originally Posted by darth62
I'll bet anything that IS300 in that test was a 5AT, whereas the 0-60 for the TSX is a 6MT. Not a very fair comparison....
11-22-2004, 12:34 PM
#90
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by supraken
For some reason, IS300 owners just have trouble believing that stock vs stock, MT vs MT, auto vs auto, that both TSX and IS300 are about the same in SLOW-ness. From a stop the IS is also quicker, and the IS300 does FEEL much faster, I'll tell you that. Perception always plays a big part of the game in these types of discussions, esp when you compare a 6 cyl with more torque, and a high reving 4 cyl. you would defintely FEEL faster in the 6 cyl, but in reality and speed-wise, the results can have no relationship to what you feel.
Of course, if you tell them to an IS owner, they'll start saying, it's just a Honda Accord with a 4 cyl and a Acura badge, cheap interior, driving on the wrong set of wheels, and ugly exterior. Perhaps it's the fact that the TSX has a 4 cyl and it's a rebadge euro accord that can compete well with the IS300, that's what's making them bashing on the TSX.
People don't realize that the jdm accord has always been a virtually different car than the US accord (esp since the CL1), tho they share the same name and alot of the same interior design. Even if it is BASED on the US accord (like TL), so what? The US accord handles fairly well, and the keyword is BASED. Platform/engine sharing is done with many makes these days (Audi, BMW, Lexus, just to name a few), but the related cars can be very different in terms of dynamics. and alot of the ppl these days equte RWD with performance, N/A 4 cyl with being weak, which is, imo a bit ignorant.
Of course, if you tell them to an IS owner, they'll start saying, it's just a Honda Accord with a 4 cyl and a Acura badge, cheap interior, driving on the wrong set of wheels, and ugly exterior. Perhaps it's the fact that the TSX has a 4 cyl and it's a rebadge euro accord that can compete well with the IS300, that's what's making them bashing on the TSX.
People don't realize that the jdm accord has always been a virtually different car than the US accord (esp since the CL1), tho they share the same name and alot of the same interior design. Even if it is BASED on the US accord (like TL), so what? The US accord handles fairly well, and the keyword is BASED. Platform/engine sharing is done with many makes these days (Audi, BMW, Lexus, just to name a few), but the related cars can be very different in terms of dynamics. and alot of the ppl these days equte RWD with performance, N/A 4 cyl with being weak, which is, imo a bit ignorant.
People have difficulty believing that the TSX is as quick as the IS300 because it isn't close to being true. For example, Consumer Reports got 9.2 seconds 0-60 for the TSX Automatic, and about 7.5 seconds for the IS300. Given that the IS300 has got more HP, more torque, and RWD (which tends to get the power to the ground more efficiently than FWD) that is hardly surprising.
And, btw, you can discount CR if you want, but their times are not at all out of line with other sources. Most sources reports IS300 5AT times in the 7.5 second range, and TSX 6MT times in the 8 second range. The few reported 5AT times for the TSX are all > 9 seconds.
The TSX is simply not a fast car. And, the IS300 is not a blazing vehicle either but it is competitive in this class, and the TSX is not.
What you've got with TSX is a wonderfull all around vehicle. It looks great, handles great for a FWD vehicle, is a nearly ideal size, and has a smooth refined powertrain. But, it isn't nearly as quick as the IS300, and that is just reality.
11-22-2004, 12:37 PM
#91
Race Director
Originally Posted by darth62
People have difficulty believing that the TSX is as quick as the IS300 because it isn't close to being true. For example, Consumer Reports got 9.2 seconds 0-60 for the TSX Automatic, and about 7.5 seconds for the IS300. Given that the IS300 has got more HP, more torque, and RWD (which tends to get the power to the ground more efficiently than FWD) that is hardly surprising.
And, btw, you can discount CR if you want, but their times are not at all out of line with other sources. Most sources reports IS300 5AT times in the 7.5 second range, and TSX 6MT times in the 8 second range. The few reported 5AT times for the TSX are all > 9 seconds.
The TSX is simply not a fast car. And, the IS300 is not a blazing vehicle either but it is competitive in this class, and the TSX is not.
What you've got with TSX is a wonderfull all around vehicle. It looks great, handles great for a FWD vehicle, is a nearly ideal size, and has a smooth refined powertrain. But, it isn't nearly as quick as the IS300, and that is just reality.
And, btw, you can discount CR if you want, but their times are not at all out of line with other sources. Most sources reports IS300 5AT times in the 7.5 second range, and TSX 6MT times in the 8 second range. The few reported 5AT times for the TSX are all > 9 seconds.
The TSX is simply not a fast car. And, the IS300 is not a blazing vehicle either but it is competitive in this class, and the TSX is not.
What you've got with TSX is a wonderfull all around vehicle. It looks great, handles great for a FWD vehicle, is a nearly ideal size, and has a smooth refined powertrain. But, it isn't nearly as quick as the IS300, and that is just reality.
11-22-2004, 12:46 PM
#92
Originally Posted by biker
The problem is that people have verified times in the mid 7 s range for the TSX with the 6MT whereas even in this bragging Internet forum type of environment, there's very few folks that claim a lower than mid-7s time for the IS.
It's all about verifiable numbers. I remember when the IS300 came out and people balked at how slow it was, despite posting specs close to a 330i. The TSX has been shown to post 0-60 times on par with the IS so I don't understand why those IS people get all upset.
11-22-2004, 12:57 PM
#93
I'm the Firestarter
I read that thread on IS300.net and there's some real gems in there. Example, following two and a half pages of flaming and trolling:
Now, if I could make one suggestion: Don't visit .net if you aren't into the car! Or have you discovered that all the Honda sites are no where nearly as well put together or civilized.
You sir, are seriously an idiot. Acura exists in the United States as Honda's poor attempt to do what Lexus/Infiniti have done, produce a better car than their cheaper (in price) parent company. Lexus has far exceded the competition of Acura, in fact Lexus has practically put Acura over its knee and spanked it.
Lexus and Infiniti, however, do exist in Europe. Acura does not, all of the Acura cars here are Hondas EVERYWHERE else. Its a joke, why do you have to rebadge your cars only in America? Because Honda has lost its prestige (if it ever had it). Please don't fire back that Lexus does the same thing, because they clearly dont. Lexus cars have a noticable difference than their Toyota counterpart, whether it be in the styling itself, or the interior quality. On the other hand, Acura uses all of the SAME Honda parts, they don't even have a seperate parts list. Its ALL HONDA, INCLUDING THE TRANSMISSIONS.
Lexus and Infiniti, however, do exist in Europe. Acura does not, all of the Acura cars here are Hondas EVERYWHERE else. Its a joke, why do you have to rebadge your cars only in America? Because Honda has lost its prestige (if it ever had it). Please don't fire back that Lexus does the same thing, because they clearly dont. Lexus cars have a noticable difference than their Toyota counterpart, whether it be in the styling itself, or the interior quality. On the other hand, Acura uses all of the SAME Honda parts, they don't even have a seperate parts list. Its ALL HONDA, INCLUDING THE TRANSMISSIONS.
11-22-2004, 01:07 PM
#94
:wtf: are these numbnuts babbling about on that IS forum...
Acura was the first Japanese luxury car brand. Lexus followed, along with Infiniti.
Toyota and Lexus cars share parts just like everyone else that does platform sharing. Same with Nissan and Infiniti.
Acura does not exist outside the US because it doesn't need to. Only the image obsessed American market required the introduction of a luxury car division.
And if this site isn't civilized, then I don't know what is.
Those damn snobs need to get off their soapboxes and rough it with the rest of us normal people.
Acura was the first Japanese luxury car brand. Lexus followed, along with Infiniti.
Toyota and Lexus cars share parts just like everyone else that does platform sharing. Same with Nissan and Infiniti.
Acura does not exist outside the US because it doesn't need to. Only the image obsessed American market required the introduction of a luxury car division.
And if this site isn't civilized, then I don't know what is.
Those damn snobs need to get off their soapboxes and rough it with the rest of us normal people.
11-22-2004, 01:24 PM
#95
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by biker
The problem is that people have verified times in the mid 7 s range for the TSX with the 6MT whereas even in this bragging Internet forum type of environment, there's very few folks that claim a lower than mid-7s time for the IS.
The "verified times" for the TSX in the mid 7's range (as at Car and Driver) are believable - but those are times for the 6MT. Nearly all the published times for the IS300 are with the AT. In other words, conservative estimates of the IS300's time with an AT are usually a few ticks quicker than generous estimates of the TSX's time with a manual. So, I really don't see how anybody could begin to conclude that the TSX is anywhere near as quick as the IS300.
Keep in mind, btw, that I had the opportunity to buy an IS300 myself. I choose the TSX and I'd do it again any day of the week. I love my car. But, I don't think it a fast or particularly powerful car. And, I do think the IS300 is a reasonably fast car, although not near the class leaders.
11-22-2004, 01:39 PM
#96
Senior Moderator
Here's 3 published times for the IS.
Examples.
2002 IS MT 7.2/15.4 @ 90
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
2001 IS AT 7.4/ 15.5 @ 90
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
2001 IS MT 6.8
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
The IS is a quicker car, not by much but quicker regardless. Still not sure how this matters or why we care.
Examples.
2002 IS MT 7.2/15.4 @ 90
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
2001 IS AT 7.4/ 15.5 @ 90
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
2001 IS MT 6.8
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
The IS is a quicker car, not by much but quicker regardless. Still not sure how this matters or why we care.
11-22-2004, 01:49 PM
#97
Not an Ashtray
Domm's point is the bottom line for me. Basically, I couldn't care how fast the IS300 is or is not. That is a small, cramped, ugly car with a tacky interior.
11-22-2004, 03:06 PM
#98
My Garage
From ModernAutoRacer.com. I feel this site to be rather acurate.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Suspension : F - Independent double wishbone
R - Independent double wishbone
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs
Horsepower : 215hp @ 5800 rpm
Torque : 218 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
Redline : 6400 rpm
Top speed : 143 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 7.0 sec(manual), 7.4 sec(auto)
0-¼ mile : 15.3 sec @ 90.2 mph(manual)
60-0 braking distance : 115 ft.
200 ft skidpad : 0.83 g
Curb Weight : 3255-3285 lbs(sedan), 3410 lbs(wagon)
Overall length : 176.6 in.(sedan), 177.0 in.(wagon)
Wheelbase : 105.1 in.
Overall Width : 67.9 in.
Height : 55.5 in.(sedan), 56.7 in.(wagon)
Acura TSX
Engine : 4 cylinder, DOHC, front engine FWD
Displacement : 2,354 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 6-spd manual, 5-spd automanual
Fuel economy : city - 21-22 mpg(estimated)
highway - 29-31 mpg(estimated)
Suspension : F - Independent double wishbone
R - Independent double wishbone
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs
Horsepower : 200 hp @ 6800 rpm
Torque : 166 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Redline : unknown
Top speed : 145 mph
0-60 mph : 7.0 sec.(manual)
0-¼ mile : 15.5 sec @ 90.0 mph(estimated)
60-0 braking distance : 130 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.78 g
Curb Weight : 3250-3350 lbs
Overall length : 183.3 in.
Wheelbase : 105.1 in.
Overall Width : 69.4 in.
Height : 57.3 in.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Suspension : F - Independent double wishbone
R - Independent double wishbone
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs
Horsepower : 215hp @ 5800 rpm
Torque : 218 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
Redline : 6400 rpm
Top speed : 143 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 7.0 sec(manual), 7.4 sec(auto)
0-¼ mile : 15.3 sec @ 90.2 mph(manual)
60-0 braking distance : 115 ft.
200 ft skidpad : 0.83 g
Curb Weight : 3255-3285 lbs(sedan), 3410 lbs(wagon)
Overall length : 176.6 in.(sedan), 177.0 in.(wagon)
Wheelbase : 105.1 in.
Overall Width : 67.9 in.
Height : 55.5 in.(sedan), 56.7 in.(wagon)
Acura TSX
Engine : 4 cylinder, DOHC, front engine FWD
Displacement : 2,354 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 6-spd manual, 5-spd automanual
Fuel economy : city - 21-22 mpg(estimated)
highway - 29-31 mpg(estimated)
Suspension : F - Independent double wishbone
R - Independent double wishbone
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs
Horsepower : 200 hp @ 6800 rpm
Torque : 166 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Redline : unknown
Top speed : 145 mph
0-60 mph : 7.0 sec.(manual)
0-¼ mile : 15.5 sec @ 90.0 mph(estimated)
60-0 braking distance : 130 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.78 g
Curb Weight : 3250-3350 lbs
Overall length : 183.3 in.
Wheelbase : 105.1 in.
Overall Width : 69.4 in.
Height : 57.3 in.
11-22-2004, 03:10 PM
#99
Not an Ashtray
Again, this is sort of flogging a dead horse but:
1) A 0-60 time of 7 seconds for the TSX seems fairly unbelievable to me. Motor Trend and Automobile both got 8 seconds or so, as did Edmunds and Road and Track. I think Edmunds got 8.3 seconds.
2) This site claims that the IS300 5AT does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds. If this is at all true, it stands as a marked contrast to the 9 second times than other sites are reporting for the TSX automatic.
3) Consumer Reports, which tends to give accurate, if a tad conservative estimates, got 9.2 seconds for the TSX 5AT and 7.4 seconds for the IS300. That is a pretty marked difference.
4) I still gotta agree with Domm's point. Who cars how fast the IS300 is or is not anyway?
1) A 0-60 time of 7 seconds for the TSX seems fairly unbelievable to me. Motor Trend and Automobile both got 8 seconds or so, as did Edmunds and Road and Track. I think Edmunds got 8.3 seconds.
2) This site claims that the IS300 5AT does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds. If this is at all true, it stands as a marked contrast to the 9 second times than other sites are reporting for the TSX automatic.
3) Consumer Reports, which tends to give accurate, if a tad conservative estimates, got 9.2 seconds for the TSX 5AT and 7.4 seconds for the IS300. That is a pretty marked difference.
4) I still gotta agree with Domm's point. Who cars how fast the IS300 is or is not anyway?
11-22-2004, 03:14 PM
#100
Instructor
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"quote
From ModernAutoRacer.com. I feel this site to be rather acurate.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Acurate? 6 cylinder with 4 valves per cylinder = 16 valves?
From ModernAutoRacer.com. I feel this site to be rather acurate.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Acurate? 6 cylinder with 4 valves per cylinder = 16 valves?
11-22-2004, 03:16 PM
#101
Drifting
Join Date: May 2004
Location: D.C. area
Age: 46
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bananaairsoft
"quote
From ModernAutoRacer.com. I feel this site to be rather acurate.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Acurate? 6 cylinder with 4 valves per cylinder = 16 valves?
From ModernAutoRacer.com. I feel this site to be rather acurate.
Lexus IS 300
Base price : $29,435
Engine : 6 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,997 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-speed manual, 5-speed automanual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 25 mpg
Acurate? 6 cylinder with 4 valves per cylinder = 16 valves?
11-22-2004, 03:22 PM
#103
Senior Moderator
Lets keep one thing in mind. We have only seen 1 reported 0-60 time for an Automatic TSX and that was from msn and msn Canada no less. So I hardly feel that enough basis to decide the TSX AT is 9 sec 0-60 car.
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
11-22-2004, 03:37 PM
#105
Originally Posted by Belzebutt
I read that thread on IS300.net and there's some real gems in there. Example, following two and a half pages of flaming and trolling:
I can't think of the term, but for a lack of better terms, can we say Identity complications?
I personally don't think Acura is doing as good of a job as getting that luxury/premium brand image (esp with the previous gen CL/TL), but the babbling about Acura=Honda and Lexus=/=Toyota is just bullshit.... but I'll give Lexus the credit for building up its image. They've done a good job, and that's how it got the bunch of snobs into thinking of Lexus so highly. Don't get me wrong, I do think Lexus is the best premium brand from Japan, but it's not as much as some of them think it might be. However when ppl from that forum talk about Lexus quality ... I just don't get them... when the Altezza came out back in 1999, it was thought of as the successor to the AE86, but with 4dr. It was not meant to be a luxury car nor 3series fighter. It was, however, a very well balanced (at least with the 210hp, 2.0l 4 cyl BEAMS engine) FR sports sedan. short overhangs, near ideal weight distribution (49/51 I think), dual VVT-i, 6MT....etc but refinement-wise, it's definitely not up to the Lexus standards anyhow, without judging what 'Lexus-standard' means. Plus I don't think they should be the ones talking about being civilized... they can't accept any fair arguments and comparison with other cars on their boards.
I used to follow the board alot...until alot of the information became kill stories and how their turboed IS can beat all the BMW's and smoked all the Acura's and how bad Hondas and Acura's are, and how they go hunt for civics...
11-22-2004, 03:41 PM
#106
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 39
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I can get around 7.8 seconds in my auto if I use one foot on the brake and the other foot on the gas in sync at the same time and launch good.
BTW about your luxury Lexus comments, everyone in europe laughs at Lexus cars, they think they're for old people or "poseur" cars.
BTW about your luxury Lexus comments, everyone in europe laughs at Lexus cars, they think they're for old people or "poseur" cars.
Originally Posted by domn
Lets keep one thing in mind. We have only seen 1 reported 0-60 time for an Automatic TSX and that was from msn and msn Canada no less. So I hardly feel that enough basis to decide the TSX AT is 9 sec 0-60 car.
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
11-22-2004, 03:42 PM
#107
Instead of relying on 'numbers' from magazines which you may or may not trust, tested by may-or-may-not-be professional drivers,
Why don't we arrange a meet with REAL ppl, get some IS's to participate (both auto and manual), test the heck out of the car, and end this forever going debate?
Why don't we arrange a meet with REAL ppl, get some IS's to participate (both auto and manual), test the heck out of the car, and end this forever going debate?
11-22-2004, 03:42 PM
#108
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by domn
Lets keep one thing in mind. We have only seen 1 reported 0-60 time for an Automatic TSX and that was from msn and msn Canada no less. So I hardly feel that enough basis to decide the TSX AT is 9 sec 0-60 car.
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
I'd like to belive 8.5 or so but until I see some numbers
And if it is a 9.5 sec 0-60 car is hasn't hindered me at all in the 1.5 years I've owned the car so ....
Agree completely with your last point.
11-22-2004, 03:49 PM
#109
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by darth62
Consumer Reports got 9.2 seconds for the TSX automatic in last month's issue. They earlier got 7.4 seconds for the IS300 automatic. Both times are on their website right now.
Different day, drivers, weather, altitude, surface etc.
Having said that the IS AT will still be quicker.
BTW - I'm putting a TSX 0-60/1/4 times thread together for the FAQ as we speak.
11-22-2004, 03:50 PM
#110
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 39
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
They must be launch wrong or something, I swear that the TSX auto isn't 9 seconds. I launch my auto so hard that I can actually make my tires chirp. Before I got my Injen intake I still could achieve times under 9. When I first got the car I took it to a deserted road by an airport at night and did alot of runs with a stopwatch the average time I got before the intake was mid 8's shifting near fuel cut off.
11-22-2004, 03:58 PM
#112
Not an Ashtray
I appreciate what you are all saying. But, my bottom line is basically close to Domm's earlier point. I'm less concerned about the 0-60 times than I am about my actual experience as a driver. When I press the accelerator, I like what happens. And, that is what matters most.
11-22-2004, 04:58 PM
#113
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
Again, this is sort of flogging a dead horse but:
1) A 0-60 time of 7 seconds for the TSX seems fairly unbelievable to me. Motor Trend and Automobile both got 8 seconds or so, as did Edmunds and Road and Track. I think Edmunds got 8.3 seconds.
2) This site claims that the IS300 5AT does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds. If this is at all true, it stands as a marked contrast to the 9 second times than other sites are reporting for the TSX automatic.
3) Consumer Reports, which tends to give accurate, if a tad conservative estimates, got 9.2 seconds for the TSX 5AT and 7.4 seconds for the IS300. That is a pretty marked difference.
4) I still gotta agree with Domm's point. Who cars how fast the IS300 is or is not anyway?
1) A 0-60 time of 7 seconds for the TSX seems fairly unbelievable to me. Motor Trend and Automobile both got 8 seconds or so, as did Edmunds and Road and Track. I think Edmunds got 8.3 seconds.
2) This site claims that the IS300 5AT does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds. If this is at all true, it stands as a marked contrast to the 9 second times than other sites are reporting for the TSX automatic.
3) Consumer Reports, which tends to give accurate, if a tad conservative estimates, got 9.2 seconds for the TSX 5AT and 7.4 seconds for the IS300. That is a pretty marked difference.
4) I still gotta agree with Domm's point. Who cars how fast the IS300 is or is not anyway?
But then my report would be just as subjective as all the rest. Someone higher up in this thread today said it well: The IS may well FEEL faster, and the TSX slower, but in reality they are pretty close.
And forget about the consumer report crappy numbers, it's not a royal secret that a 9.2 for a TSX is achieved by an uber :noob:
11-22-2004, 05:13 PM
#114
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by sauceman
Do I have to go out and hunt for an IS at the tracks and come back with a kill to prove you the TSX can be just as fast, that given such little difference, it would be all about the driver, and not about the car?
But then my report would be just as subjective as all the rest. Someone higher up in this thread today said it well: The IS may well FEEL faster, and the TSX slower, but in reality they are pretty close.
And forget about the consumer report crappy numbers, it's not a royal secret that a 9.2 for a TSX is achieved by an uber :noob:
But then my report would be just as subjective as all the rest. Someone higher up in this thread today said it well: The IS may well FEEL faster, and the TSX slower, but in reality they are pretty close.
And forget about the consumer report crappy numbers, it's not a royal secret that a 9.2 for a TSX is achieved by an uber :noob:
The TSX MANUAL has been tested about between 7.9 and 8.3 seconds in multiple sources. It is not hard to believe that the automatic does about 1 second slower to 60. So, I'd say that 9.2 is quite believable.
You can hunt for an IS at the tracks all you want. But, the bottom line is that you've got two vehicles with similar weight. One has a bigger more powerful engine and a more efficient way of getting power to the ground. Predicting which vehicle will be faster is not rocket science.
11-22-2004, 05:21 PM
#115
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
Its easy to discount numbers when they don't support what you want to find. But, in general, CR's numbers for virtually every other vehicle they've tested map well onto what other sources (like Motor Trend, Edmunds, etc) get. I find it hard to believe that they did something wrong in this specific test. And, those tests were not achieved by a "noob" but rather by trained drivers with state-of-the-art equipment.
The TSX MANUAL has been tested about between 7.9 and 8.3 seconds in multiple sources. It is not hard to believe that the automatic does about 1 second slower to 60. So, I'd say that 9.2 is quite believable.
You can hunt for an IS at the tracks all you want. But, the bottom line is that you've got two vehicles with similar weight. One has a bigger more powerful engine and a more efficient way of getting power to the ground. Predicting which vehicle will be faster is not rocket science.
The TSX MANUAL has been tested about between 7.9 and 8.3 seconds in multiple sources. It is not hard to believe that the automatic does about 1 second slower to 60. So, I'd say that 9.2 is quite believable.
You can hunt for an IS at the tracks all you want. But, the bottom line is that you've got two vehicles with similar weight. One has a bigger more powerful engine and a more efficient way of getting power to the ground. Predicting which vehicle will be faster is not rocket science.
And maybe lame as well for having the balls to publish these numbers while other reviewers do significantly better than him.
Not only your CR numbers are not in the good average, they are the utmost worst numbers. I mean this guy would get his ass whooped by just about any schoolgirl at the tracks on any given day.
11-22-2004, 05:22 PM
#116
Originally Posted by darth62
Its easy to discount numbers when they don't support what you want to find. But, in general, CR's numbers for virtually every other vehicle they've tested map well onto what other sources (like Motor Trend, Edmunds, etc) get. I find it hard to believe that they did something wrong in this specific test. And, those tests were not achieved by a "noob" but rather by trained drivers with state-of-the-art equipment.
The TSX MANUAL has been tested about between 7.9 and 8.3 seconds in multiple sources. It is not hard to believe that the automatic does about 1 second slower to 60. So, I'd say that 9.2 is quite believable.
You can hunt for an IS at the tracks all you want. But, the bottom line is that you've got two vehicles with similar weight. One has a bigger more powerful engine and a more efficient way of getting power to the ground. Predicting which vehicle will be faster is not rocket science.
The TSX MANUAL has been tested about between 7.9 and 8.3 seconds in multiple sources. It is not hard to believe that the automatic does about 1 second slower to 60. So, I'd say that 9.2 is quite believable.
You can hunt for an IS at the tracks all you want. But, the bottom line is that you've got two vehicles with similar weight. One has a bigger more powerful engine and a more efficient way of getting power to the ground. Predicting which vehicle will be faster is not rocket science.
Predicting a winner isn't always as black and white as you would imagine.
11-22-2004, 05:23 PM
#117
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
Ah...but you're failing to take into account gear ratios, clutch slip, tire grip, ambient conditions, etc. etc.
Predicting a winner isn't always as black and white as you would imagine.
Predicting a winner isn't always as black and white as you would imagine.
All good points.
11-22-2004, 05:26 PM
#118
Not an Ashtray
Originally Posted by sauceman
If Dan Martin and myself have both seen very low 7's (even 6.9 for Dan on one occasion), given that neither of us are professional (though Dan has racing school background), then, yes, a car tester doing 9's despite having an automatic is a good candidate to being called a n00b.
And maybe lame as well for having the balls to publish these numbers while other reviewers do significantly better than him.
Not only your CR numbers are not in the good average, they are the utmost worst numbers. I mean this guy would get his ass whooped by just about any schoolgirl at the tracks on any given day.
And maybe lame as well for having the balls to publish these numbers while other reviewers do significantly better than him.
Not only your CR numbers are not in the good average, they are the utmost worst numbers. I mean this guy would get his ass whooped by just about any schoolgirl at the tracks on any given day.
Basically, CR's numbers are quite consistent with Motor Trend, Edmunds, and Automobile. All three sources got 8 seconds or more for the 6MT, which is consistent with a time of 9 seconds for the automatic.
11-22-2004, 05:41 PM
#119
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
Not true. Go take a look at the numbers Domm is posting in the FAQs section. Most sources get 0-60 in the 7.9 to 8.3 range for the TSX 6MT. Given that the AT is geared a bit less aggressively, and is also heavier, a one second difference between the two is hardly unexpected. I'd say that a time of about 9.0 is perfectly in line with other sources.
Basically, CR's numbers are quite consistent with Motor Trend, Edmunds, and Automobile. All three sources got 8 seconds or more for the 6MT, which is consistent with a time of 9 seconds for the automatic.
Basically, CR's numbers are quite consistent with Motor Trend, Edmunds, and Automobile. All three sources got 8 seconds or more for the 6MT, which is consistent with a time of 9 seconds for the automatic.
Acura TSX - I4 2.4L (200 hp) 5A + ABS
0 - 60 Time 9.69
1/4 Mile Time 17.34
1/4 Mile Speed 84.30
Braking 60 - 0 138
That is still a LOT slower than your 9"0. And even then, according to their numbers, they had slightly less than a 1 second margin with the MT (which is still too much anyway: I mean, the AT isn't THAT bad...
)And even then, with a 8.75, they get the worst times by a good margin when you compare it to these sources:
Car & Driver July 2003
0-60 - 7.2
1/4 mile - 15.5
Car and Driver November 2004
0-60 - 7.5
1/4 mile 15.6
Automobile Magazine October 2003
0-60 - 8.1
1/4 mile - 16.1
MotorTrend July 2003
0-60 - 7.9
1/4 mile - 16.0
Edmunds August 2004
0-60 - 8.3
1/4 mile - 16.3
I mean, how can you argue they're still competent when they get
big time? You can't call that consistent!A bunch of girlies I tell you!