tuan209

http://www.motortrend.com/features/s..._0312_coy_bts/

darth62

I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are no 0-60 numbers at this link. However, MT has published two 0-60 times for the TSX. In their intial comparison test (TSX vs. M-B vs. Saab) they got 7.9 seconds. They got 8.1 seconds in the COY issue (which I have on my desk right now) and the 1/4 mile in 89.33.

briny319

darth - there are 0-60 numbers at that link.

"At the track, the four-cylinder Acura TSX ran an 8.6-second 0-60 mph time, a full two-seconds less than the Acura TL. The front-drive TSX sedan is shown here orbiting the 200-ft skidpad pulling 0.79 g, notably 0.02 more than the higher-priced TL. "

larchmont

WHAT????? This has got to be the all-time Exhibit A about how erratic and (sometimes) meaningless 0-60 times are. Not about the TSX, but the TL! They're saying 10.6 for the TL? Ten point f-----g six???

No matter which TL they're talking about, it's ridiculous. But then again, I've never understood all this emphasis on 0-60 times, because they ARE so erratic.

hjd73

Regarding the 8.6 and two seconds less, they may mean that less means slower. That would tie into the stated 6.3 0-60 of the TL Dynamic. It is somewhat like telling someone to turn the air conditioning "down". Does that mean colder or hotter?

Check out page 4 on the Motor Trend . They show a picture of the TSX and call it a TL.

darth62

Ok. Fine. I misread that.

But, the point still stands. I have the MOT COY article right in front of me (from which those numbers are derived). MOT got 8.1 seconds for the TSX and 6.1 seconds for the TL. They did not get 8.6 for the TSX or (as that page implies) 6.6 for the TL. There is a misprint on that page.

Here are MT's exact numbers:

TL 0-60 6.1 1/4 mile 14.44 Skidpad .77
TSX 0-60 8.1 1/4 mile 15.80 Skidpad .79

These numbers are a few ticks south of what they printed in their early comparo. The 8.6 number on that web page is not correct, unless the numbers that the printed in the actual press article are incorrect.

If anybody doesn't believe me, the REAL numbers are page 78 of the COY issue.

Yeah, the TSX is relatively slow. But, not THAT slow.

slats

Yeah, and in April 2003 Motor Trend stated that the 03 Honda Accord 2.4 with an AUTOMATIC ran 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. I find it hard to beleive that the TSX is only .4 seconds faster than an auto accord.
Car and Driver on the other hand claims the TSX will hit 60 in 7.2 seconds, and a manual Accord 2.4 will do it in 7.5. That sounds more realistic.

Slats

TSXautoXer

There is a reason why I don't subscribe to MotorTrend. Check out the description on BMW Z4.
"The BMW Z4 3.0 land shark puts a serious bite on the previous M Roadster's performance reputation, with a 5.5-second 0-60 mph sprint, 0.95 g through the slalom, and 70.3 mph dash through the slalom cones."

"0.95g through slalom", and TSX's 0.79g through 200ft skidpad. Which method did they pick to get max lateral g? I hope they didn't pick slalom's number because that's inaccurate.

TSXautoXer

And check out page 4 of the site, and you'll see a big joke.

darth62

Actually, I do believe that. Don't get me wrong, I think the TSX is a good bit faster than the Accord overall. But, I think the 0-60 times won't capture that. The TSX doesn't have much more torque than the Accord and it is heavier with bigger tires and very heavy wheels. So, I wouldn't be shocked if it moved off the line at about the same speed as an Accord 4-cyl. Now, once they both get moving, it will be a different issue...

I'm really surprised by all the crappy journalism we are seeing. Forbes couldn't figure out how to turn of the HVAC system in the TSX, Automobile described the "a tug from the TSX's LSD" (and, of course, the TSX does not have a LSD), and MT has apparently got a typo on their web page. This is all bush league stuff.

fdl

larch ..i think they mean 2 seconds slower...putting the tl in at 6.6. bas choice of words. also interesting that the tsx pulled vetter skidpad numbers than the TL which gives us some idea of the difference in handling between the 2 cars.

slats

Darth,
Did you mean that you beleive the Accord 4-cyl. 5-speed manual is almost as fast (As I think) or that an Automatic Accord is almost as fast. I'm confused.

Slats

darth62

I think that an Automatic Accord 4-cyl will move off the line about as quick as the Auto TSX. Likewise, I think a manual Accord 4-cyl will move off the line about as fast as a manual TSX. I think once
the two get moving, the TSX will be the far quicker time - and that will show up in quarter mile times, and passing times.

dom

Not Again...................

Jab31169

I think its quite apparent that most of the cars tested have not been though break in and have less that 2500 miles on them. Not to mention the fact most of the tests are done with VSA on. I know I can run between 7.0 to 7.5 0-60. I can run with my roomates Type R....at 60 am at the back of his door. By the time we hit 90 im a couple inches off his rear bumper

fdl

Impressive .. but...

It sounds like you are probably a better driver than your roomate. You guys should switch cars and see what happens.

larchmont

Yeah -- Jab is probably OK behind the wheel.

But it's a lot of things besides that. There's the variables Jab mentioned, also I wonder how much those trials are (not) standardized in other ways too. And, there's MOTIVATION, which, I dunno, may be more important than how good you are behind the wheel. I know I can get times like what Jab said too, even in the AT. But that doesn't mean the TSX relative to other cars is any better than what it's given credit for, because maybe the published times on cars in general are often worse than they deserve to be? Maybe "motivation" is the key. The people doing those "official" trials presumably know how to do it well and presumably they're putting everything into getting the best time possible, but who knows? I do know this: Some of the times we've seen on a a bunch of things have been so bad that the driver would've had to not be trying very hard. The main one that comes to mind is the 8.6 that we saw for the TSX on "30-70" in that notorious "Automobile" article.

dom

Lets see some time slips

larchmont

Bow-wow.

dom

Are you making fun of my dog?

Larch with all due respect and believe me I have respect for the man who would probly leave his wife for a TSX, all the motivation in the world will not get your AT TSX to 60 in 7.0 sec.







Wait, unless your going downhill, which I hope you know does'nt count


Jab are you saying that you were closer to the Type R at 60 than you were at 90? I have trouble understanding.

Jab31169

Hey...who gave you a baseline dyno...the FIRST ONE!! Then one after the intake.....yea.....ME!!

Im actually about to move back to Birmingham after the first of the year. Since there is an actual quarter mile track within 30mins of my place in bham I will get you some slips. The only track around here that I know of is an 1/8th mile that is uphill.

dom

Jab that post was aimed at Larch's 7.0 sec claim in his Auto TSX. Your time's are believable since others have done the same in a MT.

So were you closer to the R at 60 than you were at 90? or vice versa?

Jab31169

Ok...i'll make it simple for ya. The R pulls the whole time....at 60MPH im at the back of his door.....when I hit 90 im a few inches off his rear bumper. Anyone knows that we will not beat a 2600lb car with 195HP.

fdl

Yes for sure, but I'm surprised it was that close. type-r is capable of a 15 flat 1/4 mile..maybe even just under (C&D got a 14.8 I think).

So when I do the math ...

90 mph is close enough to 1/4 mile trap speed so we will go with 1/4 figures.... at which the TSX at LEAST a half second slower than the type-r. Its probably more but I wil give the TSX the benefit of the doubt.

So at 90 mph you are travelling 132 feet per second. ...and if the TSX is a half second slower than the type-r ..that means it will be behind by 66 feet...which is about 4 car lengths behind. Which is why I think you must be a much better driver than him.

dom

Makes sense fdl,. But there is one other factor. Jab has an injen installed which could potentially make some of that back IF the Type R is stock, which is unlikely.

But I'd say Jab is just a better driver.

And yes the ITR has gone 14.8 is mag tests, but apparently can near 14 flat with basic bolt on's and I've seen 14.5 with just an AEM CAI.

But much like the TSX, the ITR is about so much more than going straight.

fdl

I thought his roomate had the CAI as well.

Jab31169

Yes...plus Comptech header.

larchmont

I never said 7.0. And no, I wouldn't leave my wife either.

Jab had said "7.0 to 7.5," and basically I just agreed with it. I said I knew I could do that, and indeed I'm confident about it.

But, forget about me. Let's talk turkey.

I don't think anyone can disagree that there's a lot of variation in the published 0-60 figures for any given car, can they? Would you dispute it? You couldn't, because the numbers are right out there.

And, unless you think the testers are fraudulent, wouldn't you have to say that the most meaningful figure is the BEST one? (Because.... what we're wondering about, I think, is what the car CAN do, so wouldn't that mean the BEST figure that people get?) Well, OK, I can see how you might disagree that it's the most meaningful figure, so let's make it easier......

Aren't we merely arguing whether "7.0-7.5" is a plausible figure for the TSX? Forget about whether it's "the most meaningful figure." Let me remind you -- some testers have indeed gotten results in that range. In fact, if I remember right, THE VERY FIRST published 0-60 figure was in the range -- I think it was 7.2, it was where they compared it to the IS300 and found both cars to be exactly the same -- it was back in May, and it was the thing that made BeingIS300 lose it. I don't remember the exact publication; I think it was either C&D or Motor Trend.

Unless you want to say that figure was fraudulent, why do you keep doubting that such a time is possible?


Edit: Found the reference on the old site. It was the July C&D, which came out in late May. They got 7.2 for the 6MT, 7.7 for the 5AT.

slats

Wow, the same 0-60 as the IS300!? That says a lot for Honda engines. Think about it: a 2.4 four-banger against a 3 liter straight six.

fdl

So many things will affect 0-60, especially in a manual car. How good is the driver? How aggressive was his launch? how good were his shifts? What were the track conditions? How much did he weigh? How many miles on the car? All these variables are going to mean a wide range of results.

I dont think we want to use the BEST time. And I dont think we mostly want to know what the best the car can do is. I think the point of a 0-60 number for reference. It gives us a fairly general sense of how fast a car is ... and is a way to compare the acceleration of different cars. In that sense I think its best just to use averages, this way there is no danger of comparing a really good time from one car..to a very bad time for another and coming to an incorrect conclusion.

gilboman

drive both and see which engine's power curve you would want

phile

Or which transmission you'd rather have.

larchmont

This would actually be an interesting poll, if we felt like it -- which 0-60 figure is of the most interest? I think it's THE BEST POSSIBLE for that car, because that's what tells you what the car can do. FDL thinks it's the average figure. IMO either is reasonable.

But I think the only reasonable benchmark for doubting someone's 0-60 claim is the BEST published figure. If someone's claimed figure is in that range, why would you doubt it?

dom

You dissapoint me Larch because you did'nt read my posts. If you did yuou would have seen this

"Jab that post was aimed at Larch's 7.0 sec claim in his Auto TSX. Your time's are believable since others have done the same in a MT."

I believe the 7 to 7.5 sec claim as others on this board (Kurt, Sauceman) have gone to 60 in 7.x, But I do not believe that an Auto TSX is capable of those numbers. An Auto TSX at best IMO is CAPABLE of a 8.5 sec pass at best and thats streching it IMO.

As for the July C&D's 7.2 sec MT TSX time, they indeed published that number, BUT nowhere in that mag was there any mention or publication of a 7.7 sec 0-60 time for an AUTO TSX, thats plain wrong Larch.

As for what 0-60 time to use? I'd say we can't use any of them. Each test was performed under different circumstances with different drivers in varying weather conditions and different surfaces. All we can say is that the TSX MAY be capable of 7.2 sec 0-60 but your results may vary.

larchmont

All I know is, that's what was posted on our site.

dom

Well someone made a mistake. 7.7 WAS NOT posted in the C&D article. The only mention of an Auto 0-60 time came from a Canadian site, msn.ca and they claimed 0-60 was 9.69 sec and 17.3 in the 1/4 mile. Here's the quote,

"In standing-start acceleration tests, our usual measures (with an accelerometer) produced a 0-100 km/h average of 8.75 seconds with the 6-speed manual gearbox and 9.69 seconds with the 5-speed automatic. The two cars travelled the traditional ¼ mile in 16.70 and 17.34 seconds respectively, with terminal speeds of 140.6 and 135.6 km/h."

And the link

http://autos.en.msn.ca/vip/job.aspx?...=10104&src=vip

Now not even I believe the Auto TSX is that slow, but it at least proves that its almost 1 full second slower than the 6MT.

If anyone else has a published 0-60 time for a Auto TSX, I'd love to see it.


Edit, I should mention that 0-100km's is really 0-62. One other thing is how slow the trap speed for those 1/4 mile runs are. 140.6Km is only 87 MPH and 135.6km is 84.75 MPH. That tells me he was hardly pushing either car.

Jab31169

Auto's are for women and feeble old men :P

larchmont

OK, lemme get this straight. You don't believe the figure for the AT, which means you don't think they did a good job, but you say this "proves" how much slower the AT is?

I bet you don't believe they did a good job on the MT either. So, they just sucked, right? So, how can the figures prove anything, if they sucked? Unless you want to say they sucked about equally on both cars.

Well, people who suck usually aren't very precise or consistent, not even about how much they suck.


If that post about 7.7 for the AT was a mistake, OK. But I tell you, the figure is plausible to me.

Even a little modest.


As you say, "He was hardly pushing either car." That gets back to what I said about "motivation." So, I guess you're saying you agree with me.

dom

Say what you want about the Auto, but the 6 MT is hardly what I would call fast anyway. But thats just me, my definition of fast is at least a 5 sec 0-60 and 13.5 through the 1/4 mile. 5 to 6.5 sec 0-60 and 13.5 to 15 sec 1/4 mile is quick while anything above that is slow. Thats just me.

dom

Larch I edited my post, read it again. I don't think they pushed either car very hard. But there is still almost a 0.9 sec gap to 60 and 0.6 sec through the 1/4 mile. And no I don't agree with you. Sure the AT is quicker than those numbers but by how much? Show me some facts like I've shown you and we'll talk.

I've timed my car 0-60 with my wife who weighs 105 pounds holding the stopwatch. The best I could muster was 9 sec with VSA on. I really don't think I could get anywhere near 8 sec with it off. I use to do the same thing with my wife who was then my girlfriend in my 98 GSR and I would get 6.7 to 7.2 sec so there's my comparison. Are these the bible, no but neither are your supposed numbers.