New Review- 5AT 0-60 1/4 Times.
08-15-2003, 08:17 AM
#42
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 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...
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...
08-15-2003, 08:35 AM
#44
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 43
Posts: 5,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by finalheaven
hm thank god they did both the MT and the Auto... if they only posted the auto that would have sucked......
hm thank god they did both the MT and the Auto... if they only posted the auto that would have sucked......
I think you're the only one who understood the importance of this article. Guys....it doesn't matter how much these people suck at driving/launching/trying to beat kurt bradley's record times/etc. The main thing to take away from this article is that someone finally tested the MT and AT at the same time, under the same conditions (and presumably with the same driver). So now we know what the effects of the differences in gearing are. These people suck ass at 0-60, but they gave us a great piece of information. This made my day
08-15-2003, 08:48 AM
#45
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by ClutchPerformer
THANK YOU FINALHEAVEN!
I think you're the only one who understood the importance of this article. Guys....it doesn't matter how much these people suck at driving/launching/trying to beat kurt bradley's record times/etc. The main thing to take away from this article is that someone finally tested the MT and AT at the same time, under the same conditions (and presumably with the same driver). So now we know what the effects of the differences in gearing are. These people suck ass at 0-60, but they gave us a great piece of information. This made my day
THANK YOU FINALHEAVEN!
I think you're the only one who understood the importance of this article. Guys....it doesn't matter how much these people suck at driving/launching/trying to beat kurt bradley's record times/etc. The main thing to take away from this article is that someone finally tested the MT and AT at the same time, under the same conditions (and presumably with the same driver). So now we know what the effects of the differences in gearing are. These people suck ass at 0-60, but they gave us a great piece of information. This made my day
08-15-2003, 02:08 PM
#47
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by zircon
100km/hr is 62 mph and it does make a difference. So, you expect longer times to 100 kph than to 60mph. Nevertheless the tester was a gumby.
100km/hr is 62 mph and it does make a difference. So, you expect longer times to 100 kph than to 60mph. Nevertheless the tester was a gumby.
08-15-2003, 10:55 PM
#49
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Bear Trap
0.45 seconds difference according to Autoweek (see previous post).
0.45 seconds difference according to Autoweek (see previous post).
08-15-2003, 11:18 PM
#51
More On
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Larchmont, NY
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ClutchPerformer
....it doesn't matter how much these people suck at driving/launching/trying to beat kurt bradley's record times/etc. The main thing to take away from this article is that someone finally tested the MT and AT at the same time, under the same conditions (and presumably with the same driver). So now we know what the effects of the differences in gearing are. These people suck ass at 0-60, but they gave us a great piece of information......
....it doesn't matter how much these people suck at driving/launching/trying to beat kurt bradley's record times/etc. The main thing to take away from this article is that someone finally tested the MT and AT at the same time, under the same conditions (and presumably with the same driver). So now we know what the effects of the differences in gearing are. These people suck ass at 0-60, but they gave us a great piece of information......
BTW, some related questions:
(1) When they do tests like this, is it JUST ONE DRIVER, or several (and then they average the times)?
(2) Whether it's one driver or more, does each driver get only one shot at it, or is it several trials and they take an average?
Very important. And especially if it's just one driver, and even more especially if it's a sucky driver, any kind of aberration can happen in one trial or a couple of trials.
But regardless, although what you say does seem at first blush to have a scientific ring to it, I don't think it really gives the meaningful comparison that you're looking for.
08-16-2003, 01:53 AM
#52
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by larchmont
I don't think you can conclude this at all. Sucky drivers are also usually inconsistent drivers. You can't assume they sucked equally on the various tests.
BTW, some related questions:
(1) When they do tests like this, is it JUST ONE DRIVER, or several (and then they average the times)?
(2) Whether it's one driver or more, does each driver get only one shot at it, or is it several trials and they take an average?
Very important. And especially if it's just one driver, and even more especially if it's a sucky driver, any kind of aberration can happen in one trial or a couple of trials.
But regardless, although what you say does seem at first blush to have a scientific ring to it, I don't think it really gives the meaningful comparison that you're looking for.
I don't think you can conclude this at all. Sucky drivers are also usually inconsistent drivers. You can't assume they sucked equally on the various tests.
BTW, some related questions:
(1) When they do tests like this, is it JUST ONE DRIVER, or several (and then they average the times)?
(2) Whether it's one driver or more, does each driver get only one shot at it, or is it several trials and they take an average?
Very important. And especially if it's just one driver, and even more especially if it's a sucky driver, any kind of aberration can happen in one trial or a couple of trials.
But regardless, although what you say does seem at first blush to have a scientific ring to it, I don't think it really gives the meaningful comparison that you're looking for.
08-16-2003, 02:05 AM
#53
More On
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Larchmont, NY
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fdl
Larch, I"m not sure why youa re having such a hard time accepting this. The AT being close to a second slower than the MT is consistant with pretty much any other car tested (mt vs at).....I'd say the odds are heavily in favour of the AT truely being slower. I am not sure how this can even be debated anymore.
Larch, I"m not sure why youa re having such a hard time accepting this. The AT being close to a second slower than the MT is consistant with pretty much any other car tested (mt vs at).....I'd say the odds are heavily in favour of the AT truely being slower. I am not sure how this can even be debated anymore.
What I meant before was: You were celebrating the significance of this particular test, in terms of there supposedly finally being a good AT-MT comparison. I was just saying that I disagree that this was any kind of a good test. Because of the limitations of this test that you and many others talked about, plus the extra questions that I raised, I don't think this test adds anything to what we already knew or assumed.
Example: Suppose there's a controversy over whether modern baseballs are livelier than baseballs from 1920. No direct comparison has ever been done, as far as I know. Well, okay. Suppose that I personally get one of each ball, go out to the park, take one swing at each -- and I find that the modern one goes 30% farther. Are you going to conclude anything from that? You shouldn't. You could say the result is completely in line with common sense. But the experiment doesn't add anything to the common sense; it really doesn't tell you anything. The results could be coincidence; in fact, they could easily have come out the opposite.
But if you have Barry Bonds do the test, especially if he takes a number of swings at each, then you've got something.
08-16-2003, 02:16 AM
#54
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by larchmont
I absolutely agree with everything you just said.
What I meant before was: You were celebrating the significance of this particular test, in terms of there supposedly finally being a good AT-MT comparison. I was just saying that I disagree that this was any kind of a good test. Because of the limitations of this test that you and many others talked about, plus the extra questions that I raised, I don't think this test adds anything to what we already knew or assumed.
Example: Suppose there's a controversy over whether modern baseballs are livelier than baseballs from 1920. No direct comparison has ever been done, as far as I know. Well, okay. Suppose that I personally get one of each ball, go out to the park, take one swing at each -- and I find that the modern one goes 30% farther. Are you going to conclude anything from that? You shouldn't. You could say the result is completely in line with common sense. But the experiment doesn't add anything to the common sense; it really doesn't tell you anything. The results could be coincidence; in fact, they could easily have come out the opposite.
But if you have Barry Bonds do the test, especially if he takes a number of swings at each, then you've got something.
I absolutely agree with everything you just said.
What I meant before was: You were celebrating the significance of this particular test, in terms of there supposedly finally being a good AT-MT comparison. I was just saying that I disagree that this was any kind of a good test. Because of the limitations of this test that you and many others talked about, plus the extra questions that I raised, I don't think this test adds anything to what we already knew or assumed.
Example: Suppose there's a controversy over whether modern baseballs are livelier than baseballs from 1920. No direct comparison has ever been done, as far as I know. Well, okay. Suppose that I personally get one of each ball, go out to the park, take one swing at each -- and I find that the modern one goes 30% farther. Are you going to conclude anything from that? You shouldn't. You could say the result is completely in line with common sense. But the experiment doesn't add anything to the common sense; it really doesn't tell you anything. The results could be coincidence; in fact, they could easily have come out the opposite.
But if you have Barry Bonds do the test, especially if he takes a number of swings at each, then you've got something.
But I think it does have SOME significance...If further proves our theory..even if just by a little bit...and is important because its the first time we have had this type of comparison done (Especially by an auto journalist).
I think the best way to settle this..is for us to race. Me with my 6MT, you with your 5AT...line em up...and let em go.
08-16-2003, 02:20 AM
#55
More On
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Larchmont, NY
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fdl
.....I think the best way to settle this..is for us to race. Me with my 6MT, you with your 5AT...line em up...and let em go.
.....I think the best way to settle this..is for us to race. Me with my 6MT, you with your 5AT...line em up...and let em go.
You can get Barry Bonds for yours.
08-16-2003, 09:25 AM
#56
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by STL
It's true RWD cars launch better. Maybe BMW does more with less HP, but Honda does more with less displacement -- a much greater feat!
It's true RWD cars launch better. Maybe BMW does more with less HP, but Honda does more with less displacement -- a much greater feat!
08-16-2003, 09:28 AM
#57
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Iceman
Leave it to gilbo to dump on the TSX at every opportunity. WTF are you doing here, now that you bought a Beemer?
Leave it to gilbo to dump on the TSX at every opportunity. WTF are you doing here, now that you bought a Beemer?
08-16-2003, 11:15 AM
#58
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gilboman
um....NO...if it made some decent torque and had better MPG than 6cylinder cars with similar power than it wouild be nice..but it doesnt... notice how your 2sk has similar mpg figures with a vette.
um....NO...if it made some decent torque and had better MPG than 6cylinder cars with similar power than it wouild be nice..but it doesnt... notice how your 2sk has similar mpg figures with a vette.
As for you trying to claim the Vette gets just as good a milage as the S2000 -- maybe on paper!! LOL I have a friend with a Vette and I can tell you with real world driving the S2000 does get better mileage.
08-16-2003, 11:20 AM
#59
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gilboman
its a Bimmer... i'm here to keep your head out of your arse and remind you that this is a car discussion board and not a fanclub... hence there can be negative aspects discussed about the TSX... you can maybe create your own TSXFAN.com and have only praise and positive QUOTES from magazines on it only.
its a Bimmer... i'm here to keep your head out of your arse and remind you that this is a car discussion board and not a fanclub... hence there can be negative aspects discussed about the TSX... you can maybe create your own TSXFAN.com and have only praise and positive QUOTES from magazines on it only.
08-16-2003, 11:33 AM
#60
More On
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Larchmont, NY
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by STL
......As for you trying to claim the Vette gets just as good a milage as the S2000......
......As for you trying to claim the Vette gets just as good a milage as the S2000......
2sk?????
C'mon gilb, even I don't say "BWM" too much. 
02-17-2004, 04:27 AM
#61
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL
Age: 42
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restriction! Restriction! Restriction!
The TSX has a 2.4 DOHC VTEC.....My prelude swap has a 2.2 DOHC VTEC and pushes out 200 ponies.
I am waiting for a Full exhaust/intake, fuel, ignition and ecu upgrade before even thinking about buying the TSX. Man, I love the car but I would hate to spend the G's to go alot slower then I am now. If I got it I would be buying it for straight luxury and who wants that!? <---- Not meaning to offend anyone with children or high maintenance girlfriends.
I know Mugen released a heap of parts but OUCH! Hmmmmmmmmmmm, spend $27k on a TSX, then another $7,000 to make maybe a 30hp increase to the wheels? And who wants to bottle feed such a pretty, clean, new car? NOT ME!
USED NSX ANYONE!!!!!!?
I think the car is great! I am just pissed off at honda right now. LOL
RESTRICTION! RESTRICTION! RESTRICTION!
The TSX has a 2.4 DOHC VTEC.....My prelude swap has a 2.2 DOHC VTEC and pushes out 200 ponies.
I am waiting for a Full exhaust/intake, fuel, ignition and ecu upgrade before even thinking about buying the TSX. Man, I love the car but I would hate to spend the G's to go alot slower then I am now. If I got it I would be buying it for straight luxury and who wants that!? <---- Not meaning to offend anyone with children or high maintenance girlfriends.
I know Mugen released a heap of parts but OUCH! Hmmmmmmmmmmm, spend $27k on a TSX, then another $7,000 to make maybe a 30hp increase to the wheels? And who wants to bottle feed such a pretty, clean, new car? NOT ME!
USED NSX ANYONE!!!!!!?
I think the car is great! I am just pissed off at honda right now. LOL
RESTRICTION! RESTRICTION! RESTRICTION!
02-18-2004, 10:55 AM
#62
Fahrvergnügen'd
I've seen 6.6 seconds to 60mph in a couple of places ... Among them:
http://www.123carlinks.com/acura_tsx.php
Is that just the manufacturer's estimate?
http://www.123carlinks.com/acura_tsx.php
Is that just the manufacturer's estimate?
02-18-2004, 11:07 AM
#63
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bwhahaha... they got the special version 3.4 liter 18 valve six cylinder engine which produces a respectable 200 horsepower at 6800 rpm and 166 LB-ft of torque at 4500 rpm...
but also the super special edition Aluminum, 3.2-liter, 24-valve, 60-degree V-6 engine
that site is too funny
but also the super special edition Aluminum, 3.2-liter, 24-valve, 60-degree V-6 engine
that site is too funny
02-18-2004, 11:11 AM
#64
Senior Moderator
A 3.2-liter engine with i-VTEC powers the 2004 TSX and generates a respectable 200 horsepower.
Inside the engine compartment of the Acura TSX resides a powerful yet obedient 3.4 liter 18 valve six cylinder engine which produces a respectable 200 horsepower at 6800 rpm and 166 LB-ft of torque at 4500 rpm. All of this power is harnessed in the 2004 TSX by means of variable valve and cam timing controls. 2004 Acura TSX 0-60 is just 6.6 seconds,
I have to agree with Gilbo, thats damn funny. And yes, 6.6 was an estimate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
emailnatec
5G TLX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
29
09-28-2018 04:27 PM
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
