Buff-Daddy

Here they are, all together to compare... Autoweek, Car & Driver and Motor Trends test results...

Auto Week
2.4 L, I-4, 6 Speed Manual
Skidpad 0.83 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 135.00 ft
Slalom 43.40 mph (490-ft. Slalom)
Full Throttle 73.00 dBA
1/4 Mile 15.60 sec
Idle 39.00 dBA
0-60 7.38 sec
60 mph Cruising 59.00 dBA

Car and Driver Magazine
2.4 L, I-4, 6 Speed Manual
1/4 Mile 15.50 sec (Estimated)
0-60 6.60 sec (Estimated)
Skidpad 0.85 g (300-ft. Skidpad)
Top Speed 133.00 mph
Full Throttle 74.00 dBA
1/4 Mile 15.60 sec
0-50 5.50 sec
Idle 38.00 dBA
70 mph Cruising 67.00 dBA
0-60 7.20 sec
0-70 9.50 sec
70-0 Braking 185.00 ft

Motor Trend Magazine
2.4 L, I-4, 6 Speed Manual
0-60 7.50 sec (Estimated)
60-0 Braking 124.00 ft
Slalom 62.30 mph (600-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 16.00 sec
0-50 5.90 sec
0-60 7.90 sec
0-70 10.30 sec

fdl

OK...i'm editing my post. I just realized that you have both the estimates AND actuals for C&D.


Those 3 mags are the 3 best results that the TSX got. I think thats because they are doing clutch dump hard launchees, while the others were doing "normal" lanuches. Just a guess though.

larchmont

Thanks for putting this together, B-D.

Those 0-60's are better than what most people here seem to be assuming, even the TSX fanatics. (They don't surprise me, of course. )

Still looking for some competent figures for the 5AT.


BTW: Anybody know if there's a track in Westchester (NY) where we can go? How do we find out about tracks in general?

fdl

There are some drag strips listing on this site. I'm not sure which are near you , if any.

http://www.bmwworld.com/racing/tracks/tracks_ny.htm

darth62

Exactly how I see it. When you do a more standard launch (the type an everyday driver does) I think you are looking at 0-60 times in the 8 second range.

Buff-Daddy

Haven't seen any "official" test results on the 5AT, only the 6MT that I posted.

Buff-Daddy

Here is a 4 car comparison. I tried to do this with performance numbers, but they don't let you. Notice the IS300 has 4" LESS rear seat leg room! OUCH!

http://autos.yahoo.com/compare/compa...3005speedsedan

larchmont

Thanks, FDL!

None of those are near here. I guess I'll just have to keep doing my "informal" runs, and expect y'all to take my word for it, like you have been.

I see there are at least 3 kinds of surfaces: Clay, asphalt, and dirt. What's the usual standard?? (Asphalt, I imagine?)
And I guess the surface is yet another variable that can affect the result?

dom

Are you saying my Stopwatch runs of 9 sec with my AT should'nt be treated as the official AT numbers

By the way here's the times msn.ca got for an Auto and MT TSX. I know Larch loves these times.

"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.

Passing exposure times, from 80 top 120 km/h, were 7.9 seconds on kickdown with the automatic and 6.63 seconds in 3rd gear with the 6-speed manual (and 7.84 seconds in 4th), with only the driver on board. The TSX longs for additional muscle in the middle of the powerband, and on top."

calbear2k1

Why is a canadian site running a quarter mile? Shouldn't they be doing a 400 meter run?

Also, is there anything to compare those 80-120 passing runs with? They seem a lot more useful than Car and drivers 'top gear acceleration', which is the most worthless stat I've seen.

illmeltxwithyou

Actually forbes gave the 0-60 time a 6.6.




http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/05/cx_mf_0505test_2.html

dom

Forbes did no such thing. If you read the article you would have seen it said "FIGURE 6.6 sec" This does not indicate they acheived 6.6. This is how false information gets spread around.

illmeltxwithyou

I'm sure its from a number of test drives they came up with a number they came close to. They wouldn't just throw out any number. It's really not that important it honestly matters on the driver. and driving cond.

Buff-Daddy

EXACTLY! Perfect example!

dom

We'll settle this Forbes issue shortly. I've e-mailed the writer, Micheal Frank and he'll hopefully let us know if that was a intrumented test or simply an educated guess.


Remember, C&D estimated the 0-60 time to be 6.6 seconds as well. There's no harm in guessing, but there is a harm is using those numbers as fact.

fdl

I think you are really in denial. That number did not come from any test drive, it was an estimate. Its funny that C&D got the exact same estimate. Perhaps they used the same software (cartest?) and made incorrect assumtions about weight of car and/or weight of wheels. I think the origional estimates stevtec did with cartest produced 0-60 times of high 6's ... but he had the wrong wheel weigh input. I gotta find that old thread..

fdl

OK , I found the cartest thread, but its on the old site. I'll post 4 key posts from that thread, including the last one where wheel weight was considered. I also think these numbers are with no one in the car.

http://www.clubtsx.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=1137

CarTest2000 Projections: Acura TSX

I'll show some other cars as well just for relative comparison.

0-60, 1/4 mile

04 Acura TSX 5AT: 8.3, 16.4 @ 87
02 Accord V6 4AT: 7.9, 16.2 @ 86
03 Mazda 6s 5AT: 7.2, 15.8 @ 89
04 Acura TSX 6MT: 6.9, 15.4 @ 91
03 Mazda 6s 5MT: 6.8, 15.2 @ 92
03 Accord V6 5AT: 6.6, 15.1 @ 93
99 Maxima 5MT: 6.4, 15.0 @ 92
03 Accord V6 6MT: 5.8, 14.5 @ 97


The results you see here may be off from what you've seen in the mags but should still be pretty close. The advantage is that since these are all simulations, it ensures that the playing field is level and that all other variables are held constant (weather conditions, traction, driver weight, shift speeds, etc)


In case you're wondering what the hell happened to the TSX automatic, here's the deal. The car weighs the same 3300lb as the 02 Accord V6, yet it has almost 30 lb-ft less torque, and no more horsepower. In addition to that, the gearing on the SportShift TSX is ridiculously tall and very ECONOMY oriented. So the 98-02 Accord V6 is a faster car than the TSX automatic is, which is disappointing.

Here is what the TSX would look like with the J30A4 on premium , though. (Note to TSX guys, the J30A4 is the engine in the *new* Accord V6: 240hp/212tq on 87 octane, 250hp/222tq on premium). And I even added an extra 100lb to the car to account for the extra engine weight. Also adjusted the final drive ratios to account for the slightly lower rev ceiling.

TSX 6MT w/J30A4: 5.7, 14.4 @ 97 (hauling!!! )
TSX 5AT w/J30A4: 7.0, 15.3 @ 93 (much better, but still hobbled by tall gearing)

Shia...if Honda made that (with 6spd ) I would buy it in a heartbeat.



================================================== ===========

Estimated Performance w/average 2.35s 60' Time

0-60: 6.77s
1/4 mile: 15.32 @ 90.38 mph

In reality, I would not expect most drivers to be able to get anything better than a 2.4-2.5s 60' time and hence would run typically up to three-tenths slower. On the otherhand, an unusually skilled driver at a good track that can get an awesome launch of 2.2s 60' should be able to run about a 15.0. So this would be the run-down.

60' Time (Launch) vs 1/4 mile ET

2.20 => 15.0
2.30 => 15.2
2.35 => 15.3
2.40 => 15.4
2.50 => 15.6


================================================== ======================


TSX TORQUE ROCKS!




This is EXACTLY what I was hoping to see. The extra 10 lb-ft of torque or so over rated numbers that the engine is putting out all through the rev range is exactly what this 3200 lb car needs to keep it moving. Now consider that the gearing is shorter from being able to rev higher and FORGET about the Mazda 6!

Still not a V6, though. But it's certainly one HELL of a 4-banger - good enough that I could actually consider buying one now. I plugged this dyno into CarTest2000 and have some updated numbers. Assuming a person could pull a 2.35s 60' time and can shift the car very well, here is what you could expect...

CarTest2000 Estimates w/Dynojet Dyno

0-60: 6.65s
1/4 mile: 15.23 @ 90.93


That is DAMN impressive for an NA 4-banger.


I will be honest and say that I was looking forward to lighting up some TSX's in my 5spd Maxima, but the extra torque that is lurking in this K24 engine makes all the difference in the world. The race would be too close to call, so I will definitely not be sleeping if I run into one.

This dyno news definitely places the TSX much higher on my "potential future cars" list.

================================================== ========

UPDATE Regarding Wheel/Tire Weight

OMFG...49 lb is crazy for a 170-180-ish TQ motor.


This will put a big damper on performance vs my previous stock projections.


0-60 in 6.6s now becomes 7.0 with wheel weight compensation.
1/4 mile in 15.2 @ 90 now becomes 15.5 @ 89 with wheel weight compensation.

To confirm, that's pretty close to C&D's numbers.


I thought that Acura would have at least put some lighter weight 17's on this car, but I guess not considering the price point. These rims are just as heavy as the TL-S rims, only that motor has 232 lb-ft of torque to spin them with, not 170ish

jcg878

Would you trust Forbes over a car magazine such as any of the 3 listed ones? How about trusting Auto Week for financial advice? :o

bob shiftright

About trusting car magazines and car manufacturers about car test results..... Maybe it's time to bring up the famous Car and Driver road test of the Pontiac GTO in March, 1964 which reported an amazing 0-60 time of 4.6 and a 1/4 mile time of 13.1. The test car had a few minor covert "improvements" one of which was the substitution of a modified 421cid Super Duty motor for the stock 389cid.

http://www.web-cars.com/gto/cdGTO.html

http://www.contes.com/ccvmore.htm

But of course this is 2003 and nobody would even THINK of doing anything like that today.


One of the reasons I trust the Consumer Reports results is that they actually BUY the cars they test and they buy them incognito to avoid all of this.

Buff-Daddy

Yeah, those are totally different human beings over there, none of them could possibly be bribed, bought or paid off to say anything other than the 100% truth. We welcome you back to reality whenver you are ready to return.

bob shiftright

Since the Consumer Reports 0-60 times are invariably far WORSE than any of the other published figures, I doubt they get bribed very often. Since they report relatively conservative figures and since they get to PAY for any clutches and transmissions that they trash I'll trust them to report figures that might reflect the results that I could get from a car driven on the street that I have to pay to replace clutches and transmissions on.

So how do YOU think Car and Driver obtained their reported 0-60 time of 5.3 seconds on the 210hp Subaru Forester XT they tested? The XT Forester is pretty tightly geared but 5.3 seconds??? As with the '64 Pontiac GTO it must be their excellent driving skills and if you believe that I know of this bridge in Brooklyn that might make an excellent real estate investment....

Buff-Daddy

I knew I was going to have to explain this to you...

I wasn't referring specifically to the TSX, I was referring to the fact that there are good/honest and bad/dishonest people everywhere. No one publication or organization is 100% pure or free from corruption...

illmeltxwithyou

My God people. You guys are taking this way to far! Honestly who cares they are all going to be alittle different. You guys are all speculating over 0-60 times. None of you can prove the right time because they are never the SAME so SHUT UP!:whocares:

Buff-Daddy

And you are?