darth62

Maybe one way to do this would be to take conservative estimates for similar vehicles, and extrapolate out.

For example,

Consumer's Review has the Mazda 6 6-cyl manual going 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. They also have the TSX going 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. A difference of .4.

Consumer Reports has the M6 automatic going 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. So, add .4 to that total and you get 8.5 projected 0-60 for the TSX (the automatic in the TSX probably works a little better than the auto in the M6).

Another similar projection: Motor Trend has the TSX manual at 7.9 second and the Saab 9-3 Arc at 8.3 seconds. Both are obviously pretty conservative times but it is noteworthy that the TSX is about as fast as the Saab.

Consumer Reports, in turn, has the Saab Auto at a 0-60 of 8.3 seconds.

At the end of the day, I think the "real" time for the TSX AT is going to be somewhere between 8.3 and 8.7 seconds, about half a second faster than the Accord EX 4-cyl automatic.

fdl

Sounds about right to me

Saintor_RENAMED

Motor Trend reported a 0-60 at 8.5s for an Accord 4 cyl. autom. 5-sp. My guess is that the TSX is not really better.

finalheaven

8.3 - 8.7 sounds just about right.

dom

Considering it weighs about the same yet has 40 more HP it should be a few tenths quicker. Like 0.1 or 0.2. So I guess your right, unless your racing, they are about the same. A few tenths is nothing.

darth62

8.5 for the Accord automatic is a bit optimistic. Consumer Reports had it at 9.0 and most other sources have it in the range of 8.8. I think the TSX will .3 - .5 seconds faster. So, I think 8.5 for the TSX is about right. Maybe a lbit faster, but not much.

larchmont

At least a bit faster, you can take it to the bank.

But remember -- tank has to be empty, you have to be on a diet, and you need the sweet Larchmont air.

TinkySD

If you are willing to accept "car test" as a good estimation.(it nailed the only times we have seen with the MT at the track) it says 8.1 to 60 and 16.2 through the quartermile. If the AT is better than what the car test app assumes(shift time and efficiency) then we might see slightly better times. I'll have STE run it through his newer version of CT.

darth62

You kill me, Larchmont.

darth62

Yeah, but conservative estimates of the MT have it going 0-60 in something like 7.9 seconds. So, 8.1 or 8.2 seems overly optimistic for the AT.

Subjectively, if feels pretty quick to me. I traded in a SOHC VTEC 2.2 Accord EX and it would sometimes stuggle to climb long grades or get on the highway with the A/C on. The TSX never does that.

larchmont

Good!

Do me a favor. Find sometime when your mind has nothing else to do, and you have a clear straightaway ahead of you.
My favorite is coming out of the toll booth, providing it's not attended.

Of course, no incline (or decline, if that's the opposite word). And make sure you're pretty good at counting seconds. (You seem like a dude who is.)

Oh, the tank should be only 1/4 full or less.
Then, do the "larchmont" test. You know, that means not just putting your foot to the floor, of course, but using every ounce of your accumulated experience, following each shift with split second accuracy and touch sensitivity. And get back to us.

I say the speedometer hits 60 easily before you get to "one-thousand-eight."

fdl

LOL. And I thought using a stop watch was bad

chrisalberts

Your numbers may end up about right but your methodology has some flaws. The biggest assumption you make (that might be right or wrong) is that the gearing and final drive are the same between MT and AT and also that they didn't tweak around with the drive by wire system.

That said, unless the driver is willing to really tear up his clutch on every take off, the AT *might* be faster day to day. Of course there are some big variables here too. Most ATs are electronically controlled these days and there is usually some slurring built into the shifting that makes a shift feel smoother - this slows down acceleration. Some ATs let you switch between shift modes, some try to "sense" your driving and do it automatically.

One other issue that makes 0-60 times tricky is the fact that some cars can make it in second gear, while others need to be in third to reach 60. The extra shift, whether auto or manual makes a big difference.

It's always interesting to speculate though.

C.

larchmont

Seriously folks, I was gonna do that, but I realized that working a stopwatch would take away from what you're doing. Not that this is the most challenging task in the world, but you can't have that physical distraction and still get the best time.

You know how in football, when a wide receiver gets behind the secondary and catches a long pass, and then they almost always catch up to him and bring him down? The main reason is that carrying the ball slows you down. It keeps you from running as fast as you can, because it restricts your movement.

Same thing. I'm serious.

TinkySD

take ms. larch along and have her read the speedo over your shoulder!

lshenretty

larch, for God's sake! fdl is right about this. counting one-one-thousand can be way off by the time you get to 60. I'm sure it can be off a half second, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were off a full second. If you get it right, you'll just be lucky. Plus guessing when you hit 60 by watching the speedometer is going to compound it. Even if the speedometer is accurate (that would be a good thread - lots of cars, BMW especially, are off a lot. I think BMWs have a reputation for being optimistic by about 3mph at 60. Mine was off about that much.), you're unlikely to hit it exactly just by looking at it.

Besides, 8 or 8 1/2 seconds to 60 is plenty satisfying. I had an 83 900 Turbo Saab, and the mags were gushing at the fact that it would run 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. And that was with their clutch-dumping techniques. I found the car to be a lot of fun and very satisfying in acceleration.

You could be right, but I think I'm going to keep my money with the guys using electronics to test it.

darth62

I didn't make any of the assumptions you suggest. My only point is that the relative ranking of the TSX 6MT with other MT cars gives us some room to guess about the acceleration of the AT. For example, we know the TSX 6MT is about half a second slower than the Mazda 6 MT. It is also a good bet that the TSX 5AT is also a half a second slower than the M6 AT. So, if we know that the M6 AT does 0-60 in 8.1 seconds (as per consumer reports) that should also give us some room to make guesses regarding the TSX AT.

larchmont

Sure I realize those are the sources of error. I wondered about the accuracy of the speedometer, especially on a split-second basis during rapid acceleration or deceleration, and I have no idea about this.

About counting the seconds, I know it wouldn't be surprising if it was off, and you're being kind in saying maybe it's off only a half-second or a second (although I think I'm more accurate than that; pardon the parenthesis). But even taking that into account, I'm confident about what I've been saying -- unless the speedometer is way inaccurate in that situation.

darth62

I'm sorry, but I've been reading Larchmont's posts every since he bought a TSX. He is far more accurate than an electronic do-dad. Trust me!

fdl

lshenretty...interesting thought on the speedometer acuracy. I have kinda been wondering the same thing. Started a thread on it

http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...&threadid=1745

bic

I know this is a 5AT forum, but I've been thinking along the same lines as chrisalberts. The TSX just can't reach 60 in 2nd gear. My sense is that we're losing .3 to .5 seconds with the 2nd upshift to 3rd gear to reach 60. If so, that would mean a 6.7 to 6.9 0-60 (using C&D's 7.2 time). My 1979 Integra LS 5MT clocked in around 7.5 - 8.0 in most magazines and I know that the TSX is alot faster.

chrisalberts

Unless you investigated all those differences and quantified them, then implicitly you DID make those assumptions.

Plugging the numbers into an effective gearing calculator shows that the MT can reach 60.1 mph at 7100 rpm in 2nd gear. The AT can top 79.9 mph at 7100rpm in 2nd gear.

That tells me that the MT should be substantially quicker to 60 as the gearing on the AT is extremely high and almost certainly blunts the acceleration. This on top of the fact that the AT is 88lbs heavier than the MT.

I'm kind of surprised by how tall the gearing is for the AT - I would imagine it's noticeable when driving.

C.

All opinions subject to change in the light of new evidence.

larchmont

See, everybody? Even darth admits it.

Who ya gonna believe -- those electronic do-dads, or my counting "mississippi's"?


P.S. I'd still love for darth to get out there and try it too.

darth62

To be honest, I don't even understand your point here since I never made any statements regarding the difference between the AT and MT. At no point, for example, did I claim that "the gearing and final drive are the same between MT and AT." I don't even know where you got that or what it has to do with the thread.

The AT should be substantially slower and I never denied that. In fact, the numbers I project have the AT about a second slower from 0-60 than the MT Its possible that the automatic will be more than a second slower, but the limited data that are available (i.e., the recent review at carpoint.com of Canada) suggests that to be a reasonable estimate.

My only comment was that the relative ranking of the manual TSX to the manual Saab 9-3 and manual M6 should be roughly similar to the relative ranking of the automatic verions of those cars. That isn't much of a reach since it holds up with virtually every other model line. If the TSX 6MT is not a whole lot slower than the M6 5MT, the TSX 5AT probably won't be a whole lot slower than the M6 5AT.

So, if the M6 Automatic does 0-60 in the 8.1 range (as per Consumer Reports), and the TSX Automatic is only about half a second slower than the M6 (as is the case in the manual versions of those cars), a projection of about 8.5 seconds 0-60 for the TSX is reasonable. That is also consistent with the limited data we have for the manual TSX (which suggests a 0-60 in the 7.3 - 7.7 second range, about a second quicker to 60 than the 5AT).

So, where are the strong assumptions that you are talking about? Where did I make any conclusions regarding the difference between the 5AT and 6MT whatsoever? You might want to go back and take a look at the original post.

chrisalberts

I did, and I still think you're making some pretty unwarranted leaps of logic.

To assume that the difference between 0-60 times of two MT cars will hold with the AT versions is NOT a good assumption. Sure you're guaranteed to be within a second or so, but so what.

The Mazda 6 AT has very similar gearing to the MT, while the TSX doesn't. You can't correlate two things that are not truly comparable and expect to get even a halfway decent result.

I'm not trying to flame you at all, but I think in the absence of good information, you're making up bad information. I haven't driven an AT TSX, but from looking at the gearing I would think it to be a lot less peppy than the MT.

C.

larchmont

That's what I thought too.

darth62

First of all, keep in mind that were talking about a rough guess. There was nowhere in my post where I made any strong conclusions. I admit that I was only extrapolating.

Second, I'm guessing that you have not had much experience with the AT in the M6 or the TSX (acutally, you admit that you never drove the TSX AT). Put simply, the AT in the M6 is horrible. It shifts slowly, always seems to be in the wrong gear, and absolutely sucks the life out of the engine. That was part of the reason I didn't buy that car. Shift points is one thing, but the logic behind the transmission (when it downshifts and upshifts, how crisply the shifts occur, etc) is also relevant. In contrast, the slushbox in the TSX is about as good as I've ever experienced - with a four banger. If the downgrade in preformance from the M6 manual to the automatic is not at least as signficant as the TSX, I will be shocked.

Third, there are actually some times that are available. Carpoint.CA has a review with 0-100 KPH times for the TSX auto and manual. The difference between the two was .95 seconds. It should be less for 0-60 mph, obviously. That is very consistent with the numbers I projected.

In other words, in actual tests, the TSX 6MT/TSX 5AT difference is about equal to the similar comparison in the Mazda M6 (where, according to ConsumerReview, the difference is about a second). I understand the gearing is more aggressive for the 6MT, but that doens't change the reality that the 5AT is only about 1 second behind the 6MT in 0-60. "Only" 1 second is actually about a 15% difference, which is not trivial. However, the TSX MT/AT comparison seems to be very consistent with the M6 MT/AT comparison. In both cases, the manual is about 15% faster than the AT. So, based on the limited data that we do have, I would say my projections are pretty reasonable.

And, btw, the numbers I guesstimated are pretty close to what has been documented in the less powerful, but slightly lighter, Accord by mutiple sources. Unless you see some reason to believe that the TSX AT is a lot slower than the Accord 4-cyl AT, I'm on pretty strong ground estimating 8.5 seconds for the TSX AT.

My numbers are also very consistent with all the various computer simulations that have been posted on this site and elsewhere.

larchmont

One thing I don't understand:

Not that this debate hasn't been interesting and even fascinating, but:
Why is there so much interest in all these hypotheses and extrapolations, and so little interest in just GETTING OUT THERE AND DOING IT?

I did. A couple of times. And, granted, there are a couple of sources of error. But wouldn't it be more relevant, not to mention more interesting, to JUST DO IT?

And if you do, I bet there'll be some converts to what I'm saying.


P.S. I know y'all don't need me to say this, but: If you do it, of course you need a totally clear path, way ahead of you;
and not just ahead but on both sides. And of course watch out for fuzz.

This has been a public service announcement.

chrisalberts

LOL, good call Larchmont. Why talk about driving when you could be doing it?

Btw, I don't have any problems with fuzz as I shave prior to driving.

C. <-- 0-60 in more like <5 secs from my MT

Actually no problems at all going 0-60 ish in Texas as it's well within the speed limit of a lot of roads around here.

fdl

I will settle for a good g-tech run if anyon has one and a 5AT.

brutus

Lets see I posted something about this a while back and here it is again.... and still no clear answers... I would think that maybe 2 sales guys might of tried an experiement with a manual and auto but I guess not.

The manual should be faster I think that is all agreed, but for those of us that have driven both, we realize that the traditional tendencies for autos to be completely smoked by sticks, would not be the case for the TSX, since it has such a good 5sp sportshift mechanism.

Now someoen at one of theses TSX meets try it out 6sp vx 5sp sortshift... come on do it... do it.... do it.

B.

bic

Agreed, but there is a certain smugness to knowing that everyone else knows that your car is a burner based on magazine 0-60 times. Me, I've been driving for 34 years and am content to enjoy winding it out and enjoying the speed and smoothness. Having said all that, I'll still have to bring the stopwatch out and see what's what.

larchmont

Me too, really. "0-60" never meant anything to me in any literal sense -- it was just a stat that would give me a handle on a car's acceleration, almost without my having any sense of what the number actually pertained to -- kind of an arbitrary "scale from one to ten" or whatever. But from reading this board, I got curious, and I realized that I had in my hands the ability to actually test it out -- and the prospect was exciting. But that isn't the kind of thing I look for in a car, or particularly care about. However I am interested in what a car can DO, and obviously there's a relation.

And regardless of what the actual "times" are, I already know for a fact that this car can do everything I want a car to be able to do. That was also true of my old BMW 320i, when it ran. It was true of my old Legend. It wasn't true of my TL-S.