fdl

Dont know if this has been posted but there is a new Canadian review from MSN Canada. They actually clocked both the 6MT and 5AT. If I'm not mistaken this is the first published times for the 5AT.

Unfortunately, both 6MT and 5AT produced very bad times, and the reviwerer complained there wasnt enough power.

But other than that its a glowing review.

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

donutchow

they can't drive, i can get under 9 seconds in my 1990 mazda mx6 5 speed. i could probably get the TSX around the 7 second range, some magazines got 7.0, right??

fdl

The best published result was C&D with a 7.2.

But the main thing here is that we have finally have a time for the 5AT. If we want we can take a whole second off both these times to compensate for a bad driver. Basically the 5AT is about a second slower than the 6MT.

dabuda

yup, Car&Driver got 7.2 and MotorTrend was 7.9...more details in this 'performance' thread.

http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...=&threadid=751

gilboman

for that 7.2 they must have dumped the clutch at like 6000...but the auto being 8.75 i would trust more... there is no skill to drive an auto..and nobody witih half a brain would do a neutral drop and brake torquing wont help much since the stall speed is like wat 2000rpm? and even that would kill your drivetrain and brakes.

donutchow

anything over 7.2 seems high, it does have 200hp, and the 3 series can do it in 7.0 with less hp, but more torque. what can the rsx S do it in.... 6.6?

fdl

Well, I think a 6000 drop would produce WAY too much wheel spin. Our member that put up a 15.5 1/4 mile dumped at around 4000 I think. Whats really strange is that C&D got a 7.7(or was is 7.8?) second 5-60 rolling start. So I'm really wondering how these guys got such a bad time

justinjsw

You boys just don't know Mr. Gilbo. He gets his jollies out everyday when he sees or points out something negative about Honda.

DjElucid

They need to hire a new driver with some balls to push it!!!!

gilboman

you cant compare BMW times to the TSX...BMW will always get a better launch with RWD and besides BMW's have always done more with less hp...which to bring back an old issue is that BMW ponies are more healthy than Japanese ponies the new 330i goes 0-60 under 6secs with 235hp and 222 torque

fdl

Lets try not to take this thread on a tangent please.

larchmont

The number is completely ridiculous.

I didn't think I was that good a driver -- besides, all you have to do is put down your foot, right?

There is no question that the number is much closer to 7 seconds. I still think I've done it in even less, but I don't expect that to be credible.
(Not even to me.)

fdl

I think with a good driver under the right conditions we could see 8.5 seconds to 60, and 16.5 in the 1/4 mile for the 5AT.

larchmont

I'm gonna bring my stopwatch into the damn car.

Brad

Perhaps those TSX's were not broken in? Now that would seriously impact performance, wouldn't it?

100 km/h is roughly 60 miles per hour, correct?

Otherwise, I cannot believe those numbers. To believe those numbers would mean that my ancient manual shift 130 hp 1990 Accord EX is a match for the automatic shifting 200 hp TSX in a straight line 0-60 mph run. No way! Automatics cannot be that inefficient, can they? If you believe that article, it would be like saying if you have 70 extra hp that you're throwing it away if you have an automatic. That would be very sobering for an AT driver.

Did the article state how many miles--oops, km's--were on the two cars?

fdl

100km is about 62mph. So its a little more which may account for some of the extra time. But the times are definately a little slow.

Also, keep in mind your 130hp accord was probably alot lighter.

larchmont

Or how much gas was in the tank?

I only do my tests on empty.

larchmont

Not to any meaningful degree, FDL. I don't know about the 6MT, but with the 5AT, the acceleration is really flying at that point. The time between 60 and 62 might be a tenth of a second, if that. And what we're bitching about here isn't a tenth of a second.

fdl

I am just thinking it might be more of 1/10th ..if a shift is required between 60 and 62.

TinkySD

these guys suck Kurt has already bettered c&ds time with a 15.5 and estimated 7.2 0-60 in the mt. Hopefully they sucked equally between the AT/MT so we can do some relative comparison. If they did, and you assume kurts time is the best time attainable by a MT stock(unlikely) then you would see a 0-60 for the auto around 8 seconds and the quarter mile in 16.1-.2 That's really not bad at all. We need some users to take their cars to the track and put some more of these reviewers to shame.

vitocorleone

Well, I believe that's about as fast 0-60 as my '96 4AT Integra, which has always been fast enough for me. Considering that that TSX is bigger, heavier, handles as well or better, and is MUCH more luxurious, the TSX 5AT still is at the top of my list.

dom

Those times can be attributed to a bad driver, wheather or surface. Probly alot of each. But the fact remains that the auto was 0.9 seconds slower to 62MPH and 0.6 slower through the quater mile.

Using these numbers in relation to realaistic times gives us the following for the Auto

7.2 + 0.9 = 8.0 Sec
15.5 + 0.6 = 16.0 Sec

The math may not add up but its 62 not 60.

In my mind these are best possible senario numbers for the Auto. Its plenty for me, but I would like to add some more power via minor engine bolt-ons.

PS. Glad to see Gilbo back at his old tricks again.

larchmont

I can't see how you're serious, even though it seems like you are.

As I said, the acceleration of the 5AT is absolutely FLYING at that point.

fdl

I am quite serious. Do you realize how short 1/10 of a second is?

You are flying at 120mph too, but I guarantee you it will take more than 1/10 of a second to get from 120-122.

rzee

Larch, on a 6MT, 2nd gear maxed out at 60mph, to get the extra 2mph, you need an extra shift. 5AT has taller gear, so you can still be in 2nd gear at 62mph.

TinkySD

Interesting note with that car test software me and Stevtec play with for the manual we got 0-60 7.2 and 1/4th 15.5 @ 90(strange eh?) for the auto 16.2(actuall 16. xxx) @ 87 and 0-60 in 8.1. with better tires and lighter wheels that drops significantly.

larchmont

As is often the case, I guess my semantics were understandable only to myself and certain species of monkeys.

I didn't say the car was flying, I said the ACCELERATION was flying.

For those of you who remember any calculus (I don't), I think I mean the second derivative, not the first derivative.
We're not talking about velocity, but about the rate at which the velocity is increasing.

At 120 mph, the CAR is flying, but the acceleration isn't -- the velocity isn't increasing that fast. (I'm guessing; I've never gone that fast. :'( )

Brad

That's funny! No petrol in the tank? Do you push your car downhill to test it?

fdl

Right, a shift in gear plus the time to accelerate 2 mph will take more than 1/10th of a second. Not sure what larch means by "flying"..but the faster you go...the slower you accelerate (once you are i the meat of the powerband).

Lets do some math..just based on accel...we wont even consider a shift. I'll even be optomistic ...lets say the 5AT gets to 60 in 8 seconds...or 80 tenths of a second. If we take the averge acceleration rate over that time (which isnt even accurate because accel rate will actually be decreasing) we get 0.75 mph ever 1/10 of a second. BY this math..which has been very generous....we see it will take just under 3/10ths to get from 60 - 62.

Now take into consideration that 100km/h is actually slightly MORE than 62..and that the cars accel is actually decreasing and you will see it can definately make a difference.

larchmont

Nice method, FDL, but totally incorrect assumption.

The rate of the rise in speed IS NOT decreasing, it's increasing -- at that point, I mean.

Not that I want everyone to get out there and try this but, if you just try it and watch the speedometer, you'll see immediately what I'm talking about.

The hard part is getting started from 0. That's sluggish. But once you get up to about 30, and especially about 50, the acceleration is flying.
Believe me, from 60 to 62 is almost nothing. Try it, and watch close.


BTW: As I've said elsewhere, this takes some skill, although not much.
I just want to be clear that you can't just stick your foot on the floor and hope to get the best number.

fdl

I said the acceleration is decreasing with speed once you are INTO THE MEAT OF THE POWERBAND. So once you hit 4500 rpms or so. The fastest rate of acceleration will be in 1st gear at high rpms. All accel after that will be slower. Regardless...i used an average and it still showed a fair difference. Add in a shift it will be an even bigger difference.

rzee

80 milliseconds is what? .08 second? That's really good!!

donutchow

yeah, 0 to 60 in 80 milliseconds is pretty damn fast! watch out for whiplash! or instant incineration

fdl

Sorry 8000 milliseconds 80 1/10ths of a second. Whats that called?
You know what I mean.

crisco

anyone know what kind of times they got for some of the TSX's competitors?

crisco

FYI, here are the results from the same reviewer (albeit, different day, conditions etc) for the BMW 325xi and 330xi

"My performance log, for the 5-speed manual 325xi (measured with an accelerometer) shows a 0-100 km/h average of 8.35 seconds, while the traditional ¼ mile went by in 16.09 seconds, at 142.4 km/h.

"The manual gearbox-equipped 330xi dispatched the 0-100 test in 7.22 seconds, and it travelled the quarter-mile in 15.22 seconds at 151.3 km/h."

C&D got 5.9 sec for the 02' 330xi manual

Conclusion - these guys have grandma doing their tests

edit - he also got an 8.22 sec for an A4 3.0 6MT

finalheaven

hm thank god they did both the MT and the Auto... if they only posted the auto that would have sucked. I think i am willing to go with 2 facts. #1 they suck at driving. #2 using the ratio provided between the manual and auto and using it to Car and Driver's times... the auto is not bad at all. As long as its below 9 seconds closer to 8 and closer to 16 then 17 i would think thats pretty damn good.

fdl

No doubt they have grandmas doing their tests. I just also think the extra 2.5 mph makes a bit of difference.

Iceman

Leave it to gilbo to dump on the TSX at every opportunity. WTF are you doing here, now that you bought a Beemer?

Bear Trap

From Autoweek for 6 speed ( http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?p..._code=09051638 )

0-60 mph = 7.38 sec
0-62.1 mph (100 kph) = 7.83 sec