Motohip

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sell a year old car, but a new one, and not car or be financially drained... *sigh*

EDIT: I over heard this idiot at Circuit Schitty and the guy was buying a computer (or just looking at them). He made a comment about how technology (especially computers) get old quick and compared it to cars. He says, "It's like buying cars...you don't keep the same one every year, you buy a new one." IS THIS NOT THE STUPIDEST GUY EVER??? Maybe he leases???

CarbonGray Earl

Interesting, thanks for the insight. However, having owned 2 MT cars for 12 years before owning the TSX, I would trust my own experience with 2 cars that can better answer this argument: A E36 BMW 325is and an integra LS non-vtec- a I6 vs a I4, both manual. I can tell you that torque differences are absolutely not "much more apparent" with MT and do not correlate with fun-to-drive or pep. The integra, was in fact, much more fun to drive and had LESS torque. Downshifting wasn't always necessary when getting up to speed. OTOH, the BMW had an more torque and excellent mid-range in the typical Germanic fashion, however it was not as eager, peppier, or fun-to-drive as the Integra. The bimmer was definitely geared longer and took a longer time getting through the rev range, thus it was a little less fun to drive. Both were similarly quick, but gearing was more important than torque for the TSX.

"Pep" was your actual intial argument for why torque is important, not fun-to-drive. In fact, you equated "pep" as important to "conservative driving" in your initial post. I dont quite understand where or how you are now bring fun-to-drive came into this, it isn't consistent with your point. Does Fun-to-drive = Pep = Torque? Or as in your initial post, Conservative Driving = Pep = Torque? Or do you consider Conserviative Driving = Fun? Of course, as you said you wanted pep, as opposed to being faster, so Im guessing conservative driving IS fun for you?

Getting back to answering your main point, torque is not the only determinant of acceleration, "pep", or power. Nor is it the only correlate of "fun-to-drive" or even conservative driving. The TSX is not anemic. It has pep and is fun-to-drive, due to a good mix of gearing, torque, and a willingness to rev.

acn684

i want to sell in 2008 too, see if i can get a 6mt by then.

Dirk Diggs

Or get something that doesn't look like a rental/fleet car with balls...

...like this:

http://forums.autoweek.com/servlet/J...0957/stang.jpg

MMMMmmmmmmm...that sounds good...I'll have that!

Diggs

rb1

Let's see -- your going to compare a 3200 lb BMW with car that weighs 2600 lbs? Now there is an apples to apples comparison. :gheylaugh:

Incidentally, torque, and ONLY torque determines acceleration. Didn't you take physics?

Acceleration = Force / mass

Give me the weight, wheel size, and gearing (so I can compute wheel torque) of a car, and I'll compute it's acceleration exactly. If you give me power, I first have to figure out what torque that corresponds to before I can easily do that same computation.

Explain to me how my car is almost 2 seconds quicker than the TSX from 50-70 mph (without downshifting), despite having 50 few horsepower? Or how I'll out accelerate a TSX gear for gear until about 4500 RPM or so? Torque. Sure, the TSX will beat me in a race because I have to shift into the next gear sooner -- the TSX makes more power only because it sustains it's torque higher into the RPM range, but how much time do you spend in the RPM stratosphere on a day to day basis?

Unless you are keeping the RPM's up (meaning staying in a shorter gear), the car with the better torque/weight ratio will feel more responsive. Most people like a car that surges forward when they step on the gas, as opposed to having to pick a lower gear.

I don't find the TSX to be particularly anemic except on the highway, but everytime I've driven one and gotten back in my own car, I've felt like I was in the more responsive car (evidently, just how you felt in your Integras)

6SpeedTA95

But the transmission in the TSX begs to be shifted into another gear and the motor begs for rev's like a vegas hooker begs for attention

wiz

Well I'll probably get rid of my TSX sometime this year (I'll have had it for 3+ years). That is the normal turnaround on cars for me, but this next time I might keep it a bit longer. I am probably going to go for the TL with navi and AT. I'm getting tired of shifting the 6 speed in the TSX in rush hour (hour commute each way in Atlanta) and I also need a car that's a bit bigger than the TSX. Those are my reasons...

grendel

I've had my '05 TSX for a little over 6 months now and I've driven it about 13k miles on cross-country trips. I'm undecided how long I'll keep it. The cars I've kept the longest are the cars that were the most fun to drive and had the most "character/personality". My favorite cars weren't even "good" cars, by most definitions. If I sell the TSX, it certainly won't be because something more powerful comes along. Some people think they have to have 300hp for a car to be "fun". Those people must be suffering from chronic testosterone poisoning IMO and have probably never driven a Spitfire MkIV, with about 70 hp. Now that's fun.

The TSX is a fantastic car. Perfect in almost every way and reliable to boot. However, I'm still waiting for it to exhibit some endearing personality. Can a car be too perfect to love? I'm in the process of buying a new Volvo V50T5 that I'll be picking up in Sweden next month. I'll live with both cars for awhile and see which one comes out on top.

GIBSON6594

Be careful when you buy a TL, expect the SH-AWD version to come out in 07 or 08

Zasker1

Its interesting to see the words STI and EVO again and again, they may be fast cars but they have crap interiors, a harsh ride and terrible gas mileage, I can see these as a second weekend driver but I would never want to own one as a commuter car. I think the TSX is an excellent cross between sophistication and speed. I must also say that at 30years old I am stunned at how many people on this form that are under the age of 24 yet seem to have unlimited finances for mods and M3’s, is this just rich parents or are people that are 21 years of age getting 60k jobs?

TinkyWinky

strippers make an awesome salary.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Well, TSXs seems to appeal to a particular audience. That audience just happens to include a few of us younger folks with particular financial means.

Zasker1

I am not questioning the TSX buyers, I am curious about the folks that bought a 29k car and are already looking at M3's which is more like a 50-60k car.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Would it help put things in perspective if I said that I have toyed with the idea of acquiring a previously owned 996 Carrera Cab from a friend who has told me he's probably going to get rid of it in a year or so?

CKcentral

I got a 2004 TSX used. Thats how i afforded it. Traded in my old car and put 5k down.

rb1

Yes, it does -- it's actually one of the best manual gear boxes out there.

CarbonGray Earl

Haha, physics - f=ma. Trust me, I've taken way past that and have the post-grad degrees to prove it. Taking into account torque or force across the rev range, its the area under the curve that matters most.

If torque and only torque matters, lets race in the same exact car, except you start in 5th, and I start in first and climb up from there (cmon, I know your mind is more open than that right?) Gearing, more specifically gear ratios do matter, or else you wouldn't need it for the acceleration curves you want to draw up. I can tell you too, that gear ratios matter as much as torque, as we keep making cars with more and more gears.

Okay, lets cut to the chase - after looking at your all of your comments on torque, gearing, acceleration, etc, it seems conservative driving (no shifting) is most important to you. Not that thats a bad thing....just a difference in driving styles. I don't mind shifting at all, but the K24, of all Honda 4s, hardly needs it as much as you make it out to need.

Just to point out...
-You've said the TSX is faster than your car though it has more torquey engine, given gearing.
-You've pointed out that torque, "pep" or responsiveness while remaining in the same gear is most important to you.
-You're exception to every argument for the TSX is that you have to shift to get power or keep the car in the higher revs (don't ever drive a Ferrari if you don't like that).
-You've pointed out the TSX is anemic on highway, because you don't want to shift. How many gears does your car have? In the TSX, 6th, is a cruising gear, downshifting to fifth, and even staying there might help.

So I'll end my discussion with you here, I can see this really comes down to a difference in opinion - feeling that the TSX is anemic depends on yoiur definition of what you enjoy as a driver. I obviously think its wrong to paint the TSX that way, and reiterate that its mix of torque and gearing are important that just torque alone....you obviously disagree and I'll just keep it at that.

rb1

I'm gonna stop right there, because I've made it quite from the beginning in my posts that I'm talking about torque at the wheels (which takes into account all the gearing), and that also the weight of the car must be considered.

Per my first post in this topic:

I also discussed that my car (just an example) is slightly lighter than the TSX, has comparable crank torque until you get way up into the RPM range, and also has slightly shorter gearing.

I don't know what the magic RPM point is (probably somewhere around 5000 RPM), but this means more pull -- sometimes significantly so -- than the TSX in every gear until this RPM reached.

The extra pull that is available most the time (versus requiring a downshift) adds to the fun factor.

Pull = Fun

TSX Pull = Fun if running high into the RPM range and get to use the lower gear while other cars have to shift to keep up (at which point the actually is point more torque to the wheels because of gearing), slightly anemic otherwise.

There are much better examples. For instance, the new VW 2.0T has roughly the same power as the TSX (a few hp less actually at 197 hp), but about 40 lb-ft more torque (207 lb-ft vs. 166), and comparable gearing. Weeeeeeee! (But too bad it's not as reliable)

Black_6spd

I'm pretty sure you'll need a little more than simply those inputs for exact acceleration.

And I don't think you'll be using A=F/M

Looking at the direction you were headed, looks like you were going to work through angular acceleration and translate it into linear acceleration. You're going to need alot more data before you 'easily' compute it.

Wind? Wind vector? Rolling resistance? V1? V2?

<--- Sorry, just being a dynamics smart ass....