dom

Manual Transmission

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

MSN Autos.ca
0-62 - 8.75
1/4 mile 16.7

Road & Track October 2004
0-60 - 7.8
1/4 mile - 15.9

Consumer Guide
0-60 - 7.9
1/4 mile - NA




Automatic Transmission

MSN Auto.ca
0-62 - 9.69
1/4 mile - 17.3

Consumer Reports
0-60 - 9.2
1/4 mile- 17.1

Member MasterRSX
1/4 mile - 16.3 (Stock)
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...7&postcount=37

Member Triz08
1/4 Mile - 16.1 (Mods - Hondata, CAI, Comptech Exhaust)
Dzuy ran a 15.7 with his modded 6MT on the same night
http://img217.echo.cx/my.php?image=trizslip7mg.png

If you have a link to other published times please PM me with a link. This includes the latest Consumer Reports test.

dom

Open this up for some comments.

biker

You probably want to make this a closed sticky - it will be whored up for sure.

dom

We'll see. If it gets out of hand I'll lock\delete posts at worse.

Viking

Did anybody ever post pics of their timeslips at the track? I thought I saw one awhile back but could not locate the thread.

Would you consider those times as official and list them in this thread as well. (Disclosing whether the car was stock or modded). Provided that the timeslip provides enough info to verify it was a TSX.

dom

Only with a timeslip. I belive that sauceman pulled a 15.2 1/4 but by posting that without proof we're opening it up to people questioning wheather it happened. Show my a scanned timeslip and it will make the list.

darth62

I'm probably going to hate myself for asking this question, but do these times differ much from the times published by the same sources for the USDM Accord 4-cyl?

dom

From what I recall a 5MT USDM 4 cylinder Accord was published at 7.4 sec in one of the major mags. Not sure I ever saw an AT time.

fdl

I thought the best time published was 7.6 by C&D. and that was alot faster than everyone else got. not sure though

dom

Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Honda Accord Sedan (I-4)
Obtained from MT January, 2003
0-60: 8

1/4 Mile:
16

1/4 Speed:
89

Transmission: Unknown


I think this was a 4 banger as well.

Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Honda Accord LX
Obtained from MT April, 2003
0-60:
8.5

1/4 Mile:
16.4

1/4 Speed:
85

Transmission: Automatic

TSX 'R' US

I still need to get a hold of a scanner to scan in my timeslips...

darth62

I'd be willing to be that the 6MT TSX is quite a bit faster than the 5MT Accord because of the more aggressive gearing. However, with the AT, I'll bet the cars are quite close in 0-60 (although I think the TSX will be far more lively at highway speeds).

Incidently, how does the VSA play into these times? I know for a fact that CR tested the vehicle with the VSA engaged, but C & D tested it without the VSA.

biker

There's not much gearing diff in the first two gears - the only ones that count in 0-60. Torque's about the same and weight is close. The edge goes to the TSX in HP and a few tenths in 0-60 times. You'll get better times with VSA off.

Biker, who could probably eek out an 8s 0-60 out of his 5MT Accord but considers that car abuse.

kurt_bradley

I still laugh at magazines and their shitty times. I remember back when I cut a 15.4@90 when I was stock (even the tires).

sauceman

Yes, I did try and sacn my timeslip, but it was printed so pale it just wouldn't come out, so after a few tried I gave up.

So either you'll take my word for my 15.342 or you don't but you won't get more until I go back next year and get a similar timeslip that's a little darker.

biker

The one fairly big caveat with these times is the elements during testing. I mean Joe Bloe at high altitude in warm weather will not be able to get anywhere close to sauceman type numbers when he tests just above freezing at sea level.

Viking

Did you try photocopying it, and have the photocopier on a darker setting, it sometimes darkens/enhances the original print.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

But if you ever posted that on an IS site, they'd you till you and then they'd have you .

dom

Exactly, each test was done under different weather conditions with different drivers, surfaces and altitudes.

I think it would have been nice for me to include the times of the cars tested alongside the TSX (if applicable) but it would require too much space.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Actually, it might be possible to account for a few of those factors (such as elevation) through mathematical calculation. Might be a lot of work though.

95gt

Automatic Transmission

MSN Auto.ca
0-62 - 9.69
1/4 mile - 17.3

Consumer Reports
0-60 - 9.2
1/4 mile- 17.1




Holy crap that is slow. I had no idea. Want to see a major mags times for the auto just so we can compare to their MT numbers.

TSX 'R' US

I got 16.942 for 1/4 mile in my auto TSX... I still need to find a scanner to scan in my timeslips...

darth62

I appreciate all the comments about variability in testing conditions. That is why I look at these times as relative information, not absolutes. For example, the G35 gets times in the 6.5 second range in nearly every test, the TSX gets times in the 7.5 - 8.0 second range. I think those times give us a sense about how much faster the G35 is, not how fast each vehicle is in an absolute sense.

biker

Hence the reason for not worrying about every tenth. You want to gain a tenth without doing anything - wait for the winter.

sauceman

The times were done at around 20C / 70F at or very near to sea level.

And I haven't thought of photocopies, but it won't happen because when I saw I couldn't do anything with them I threw them in the garbage. Actually, I had them with me when I met up with Dan and domn in August in case they would have wanted to see them, but we didn't get to it, we left the restaurant each our way pretty quickly afterwards.

I hope to get more timeslips next year. hopefully their ink cartridge will be better then.

kurt_bradley

I'm lost...what am I missing here?

biker

Spill over from the IS vs. TSX thread?

Andynolife

that's hella fast my frd .. ~~ i got like 17.3 for 1/4 ~ i think it's cuz my negative camber ~~ i should install my camber kit asap ~

biker

What's the point of even taking the car to the track if it's doing 17s 1/4 times.

outersquare

I have a 03 I4 AT sedan. It ran 16.2@86, altitude corrected is 16.0@87. Only mod is no intake resonator.

TSX 'R' US

fun
curiosity
car meet
paying 10 to watch....might as well pay 15 more to run
racing against a fellow TSXer
test reaction times
finding out that you can only get high 16's/low 17's
..........

TSX 'R' US

Here's my proof...from a dead stop:



I beat MSN Auto & Consumer Reports

yawanfoxboy

i've personally driven an auto tsx and raced against one. they are not 17 second cars. at the very least, high 15 seconds. It hit 60 in less than 8 seconds, and was suprisingly torquey with the 5at. my own car (an automatic domestic... ya ya don't make fun) makes consistant 15.7 runs at the strip. My friend beat me by a carlength at 90mph in his auto tsx. there's no way that they run 17 seconds.

msn and consumer reports usually offer very innacurate numbers.

2.5 second 60' foot generally indicates a very lousy launch. automatics do take a certian technique for launching to get a decent time. they aren't just "stomp and go."

yawanfoxboy

that is, unless my car's engine suddenly decided to take a crap and be lazy last night...

dom

Somebody buy this man a drink

fdl

I think you need to recalibrate your butt-o-meter

dom

fdl

nope, just honest

dom

You can't just let ne have this can you, I don't have much for gods sake

jlukja

My butt-o-meter is happy. From a dead stop at the Wardlow street on ramp to the southbound 405 (traffic control light) I can get up over 75mph before I have to merge. That means I usually have to slow down to merge. Thats all I need.

But on 17sec seeming slow. It doesn't seem that slow.