fdl

If honda could have put more ponies under the hood of the TSX by getting the accord v6 engine in there, or some other similar method, would you have rather they did this? Lets assume the handling would suffer, and assume the price would remain the same.

darth62

I would argue that the Accord V6 engine is more desirable than the K24 in the TSX or the 3.2 in the TL. It give performance that is on par with the TL but is optimized to run on regular fuel.

That said, I love the handling on the TSX and I'm more than satisfied with the power (but, gimme better brakes - please!).

jcg878

Not if it was a 1:1 ratio of performance lost to power gained. Now it was 1:5 or something... that would be worth it.

dom

In a word.....YES.

TinkySD

Not for me. I bought this car knowing it asn't a powerhouse but it's extremely fun to drive. If I wanted something quicker I could have had it but I liked the whole package the tsx presented. Not that i'm against a little modding here and there to get some more power.

dom

I bought the TSX not only because I loved the entire package, but because there were'nt that many other choices for me. The TSX is a great blend but it can definently use more power.

I am the only one not that all impressed with the K24 in the TSX. I mean Honda has 1.8L engines that make 195HP and 2.0L engines that make 200 and 240HP respectively. Why should I be impressed with a 2.4L that makes 200. I know, I know it has more tourque and its available earlier etc, etc. But Honda I think has the technological know how to get 225 -240Hp out of this thing yet keep the same tourque numbers. The only reason I think they held back may have been fuel consumption.

Does anyone know how our TSX compares acceleration wise with the 2.0L Euro R?

EDIT: I get the feeling fdl feels the same way or at least yearns for some more power or he would'nt have started this thread?

dabuda

Yes for me, simply because handling mods are usually cheaper than power mods...new springs, shocks, and sway bars vs intake, header, exhaust, and turbo, etc :P not to mention worrying about passing emissions with the perf upgrades...

provench

This is exactly my thought as well ... I would rather have a stock engine that is faster and reliable from factory and make the handling better within reason. So in short for me ... I think I would make the sacrifice of handling for power, but then I would try to get the handling back also

bob shiftright

I'd like to have my cake and eat it, too.... so if Honda cares, my choice would be a turbocharger, as found on the new Accord CDTi diesel... except on the gasoline version.

I don't think the V6 will fit. It should weigh considerably more than the I4, however.

fdl

You can never, ever, ever have enough power. So of course I would want more. But if it came at the expense of unbalancing the car, or sacrificing the handling....it would be a tough call.

dom

Can someone explain to me how MB fits a V8 a V8 with a SuperCharger and a V12 in the FRONT of most of there cars without affecting weight Balance? I realize the cars are initially designed to accept the larger engines and I also realize that the tranny positioned in the back will help even out the weight. But your telling me Honda could'nt find a way to fit the 3.0L V6 into the TSX without affecting weight Balance? I have a really hard time beliving this or the Euro Accord was poorly designed or poorly planned out IMO.

I bet Acura Exec's were screaming when they were told they were only getting a 4 Banger.

fdl

The way I see it, the Euro Accord was designed mainly for the European market, where a V6 would not really be an option. The fact that Acura was going to try and sell 20,000 units in NA did not justify the design cost to compensate or include a bigger V6 engine. But if the TSX sells well here, which it is, I am sure we will see a bigger engine in the TSX. Then it will be worth their while to design. Only problem is it probably wont be untill the the next redesign, which is 4 or 5 years away(??).

Lung Fu Mo Shi

In a word, no. I use the full power of the TSX, but I don't really desire it to be faster. The handling is dynamite and is what really gives me my thrills.

I'm bumping the HP up by a few mods (intake, headers, exhaust, Hondata, etc.) to make close to 240hp. That's just a perfect number without adding to the front end weight.

dom

- Intake - $250
- Exhaust -$750
- Headers - $500
- Hondata - $650
Total - $2,150 plus installation (if needed) $3,000

So we have to spend an extra $3,000 to get that added power and there's no guarantee (its very unlikely IMO) that thsoe mods will give you 40HP.

I'm sure we could have had the 3.0 V6 for about or less than $3,000.

Canadians please add $1,200 to the above total.

junk5681

I don't think it needs 2 more cylinders, it just needs a turbo. Mitsu evo makes 270 hp from 2 liters, dodge srt4 makes 250 hp from 2.4 liters. Pray for turbos.

mrdoug

I'm not sure I completely get how adding more power would subtract from handling (I guess more weight is the suggestion), but....I like the handling a lot, so it would really depend on how much handling would be lost in return for how much added power. If it would affect the handling a lot, I'd say no, because the handling is one of the best things about the car, and the power is generally more than adequate, at least for me.

dom

Honda does'nt do Turbo's, never have, never will. Its just not their way. What Honda does do is make great engines, I'm just not so sure that teh K24 is one of their great engines.

Then again, would we even be having this conversation if the TSX weighed 2900 lbs as opposed to 3230? I don't think the TSX is the right application for the K24. I would love to see a I5 or I6 from Honda, I really would.

AKay

Well Domm, maybe the wieght in the TSX is an issue but the K24 is an awesome Motor and trust me it will be a very disireable engine soon.
In an older issue with an interview with the chief engineer at honda he says the k24a2 in the TSX is his best engine yet.
That to me says a whole lot. He says its better then the f series motor found in the s2k. In the newest issue of honda tuning you see a civic si with a k24 swap pushing 293whp with a supercharger. And you also see an rsx s pushing about 270.
The tuning has just begun with the K series engine i believe the hardest part in the tuning for the TSX will be the drive by wire. we may not see true potentials in the TSX untill a piggy back computer and an ECU upgrade from Hondata or whomever.
AKay

dom

I have no doubt the K24 will be a very tuneable engine. But at what cost? I'd rather get 250HP (when using high Octane) form a 3.0 V6 with a full factory warranty for the extra $2,500 or so. Its really a no brainer IMO.

But now that I already have the TSX, the aftermarket will have to be the solution to the power woes.

darth62

Is it true, however, that Hondata applications tend to be restricted to vehicles with manual trannys? most of the TSXes sold in American are automatic, and will not be able to use there upgrades. That is why I'm not all that confident we'll see anything.

Visorboy

No way, the handling was what sold me on the TSX
I would not want to sacrifice the fun in the handling that I get from it now.

I'm sure that Honda will not have a problem getting more ponies out of the K24, but it will be on the next release or on a Type-R/S version.
If horsepower is what you want, I would say get the TL! It will give you the power and the fun, and it comes like that from factory...maybe this was Acura strategy all along...put a gap filler in place. And besides, they are just testing the water right now, and with how successful the TSX sales has been, there are definitely better things to come.

just my 2 cents...

TinkySD

the only problem domn is that a tsx with the v6 would way within 100lbs of the tl. from most estimates. Probably around the same as the current generation tl.(figure a 200lbs difference) No matter how well you tune the suspension it will never handle as well as a lighter car. I think a 220hp varitant of the k24 would really make a strong difference. The current gen k24a2 with it's limited top end really drags down the drag numbers. If it could be retuned for more top end with less torque down low it would be much quicker..but worse to drive on a daily basis.

AKay

Oh most definately I think next years TSX's will either come higher HP stock or have a type s,r,x,g or whatever version with better brakes and better power numbers.
And i still feel very confident in the k24a2 being the premier engine for tuning within a few years. Not now, and yes it would be expensive but definately within a few.
Thats why im keeping the TSX as my project car which may undergo many different changes and tunes and plan on getting another car as my daily driver come jan 2005. Whatever is new at that time that catches my eye.
AKay

fdl

I seriously doubt we will see higher hp stock next year. Maybe MY2006.

AKay

Acura needs to bridge a bigger gap between the RSX-s and the TSX.
Price wise your looking at 6-8k difference. Something along the 220hp line looks promising as the rumors on the TL coming out with a Type s or a soon is a popular rumor re-talked about in the latest issue of Honda tuning.
And like one of the above said 240hp on regular gas for the V6 in the accord. and 200hp with 91 octane just doesnt add up. With the Euro Accord Type R being 220 i dont see why not unless it has something to do with emissions?? In truth all of us on this site are test specimans to see if the TSX would be welcomed here, now that it is and they have gotten the jump of releaser MY2004 in Mar/April of 03 as opposed to sept/oct, why not?
I know alot of people who own 03/04 accords whose only legs to stand on are 240hp. Acura if your out there bridge the gap a lil and if you can make a 4 banger with 240 for the s2000 juice up a k24a3 with 220hp. I could be just rambling but the 200hp is a hot topic.
AKay

Dan Martin

I think the car is great the way it is and I think Acura did made the best possible compromises to make the car what it is. Consider this:

1) Lower Weight
We would have to sacrifice options like power seats and moon roof to get the weight down so that's probably not going to happen.

2) V6 vs. I4
Even $2500 would make this car a little too expensive for it's target market. Granted it would be nice as an option for those who want it. But what would this do to the cost of the I4 base model? It would no doubt increase because they would now be producing less of these engines.

3) FWD vs. AWD vs. RWD
FWD is definitely the cheaper of the 3 alternatives. Honda doesn't have a readily available AWD system (correct me if I'm wrong) and I don't think they would be able to recover their development costs with the TSX. RWD probably wouldn't add that much to the over all cost but the only platform that would translate well would probably be the S2000. Maybe this is an avenue that Acura should have investigated further.

4) Supercharger/Turbo
Never going to happen. Honda is all about the high compression, naturally aspirated engines. They would really have to step in to a new direction if they went that route and quite honestly I wouldn't have a lot of faith in a boosted engine from a manufacturer that has never offered one before.

Quite frankly I don't think the TSX needs any of these things. Is there a market for them? Absolutely. Am I part of that market? No and I think the majority of TSX owners aren't either. Don't forget that this forum is going to be heavily biased towards the enthusiasts and more is always better but for the other 90% of TSX owners I'm sure they're more than happy with the car the way it is.

Lung Fu Mo Shi

But then again, since the motor is now making 214 at the crank with just an intake, that's $18/hp. Headers, Exhaust, etc. may not be needed or desired, and it's personaly preference. If Hondata adds another 15hp for $595 (based on RSX non-group buy price), That's now $26/hp. and still puts you at 230hp at the crank.

Once we add lightweight rims to the picture, say moderate of 3.5pound savings per wheel, 2.6% inertial force decrease, but let's add it to "power feel", we now have an extra 8hp for a grand total of 238. I'd say that's good enough.

Assuming we use 3/4s of the (expensive $400) rims for power and the other half for grip (wider):

$250+$595+$1200 = $2045 = $53.81/hp cost for something that looks and sounds different than stock and even has improved handling and no installation charges.

Consequently, the rims are the largest $/hp number. If you leave them off, you get an additional 30hp (est.) for <$900. Good deal if you ask me.

EDIT: I also forgot to take into account the OEM wheels sale. They should fetch ~$600 for rim and tire, although I have seen them go for as low as $350 on eBay.

sauceman

I would like to say Amen to what Dan just wrote.

I would also like to add to Domn, and others who wished to see 220-240hp in the K24A2 or any other version of the K24, most likely it would not happen.

There is a major obstacle for this: Long stroke. In any engine, 99mm of stroke is a hell of a long stroke to play with, and this is what cripples the K24 at high RPMs. I don't believe that unless using a forged crank (which may be already used in the K24A2), and serious racing parts that Honda will risk inducing higher revs on that engine while retaining durability.

A certain amount of things could be done, but at other expenses:

1. Achieving 220hp on the K24A2 is possible, but that would mean, with a stock bottom the max power would be situated between 7300-7500 rpms, depending on the extra lbs-ft more agressive cams, ECU mapping and free-flowing intake/exhaust would liberate. It would most certainly mean a significant loss of driveability in the lower revs. Usually more agressive cams make less low end power. Same with exhausts.

Also consider this: If the maximum power was to be situated at 7300rpm, with the cutoff at 7400, this would mean that max torque would be somewhere between 5700 and 6200rpm, meaning that every shift would drop you below the powerband. There is a remedy to this, and it is called shorter gears. But it would make the TSX less of a highway cruiser.

2. Say Honda does create a K24B with a more agressive cam, a more agressive fuel map, exhaust/intake, and other subtleties, this will mean the TSX will no longer be a LEV2 compliant car.

And though most of us are not at all concerned by environment with our cars, It is one of the 2 top priorities at Honda. This is where I can very well imagine the truth in what the Honda engineer says. From an engineering standpoint, creating an engine with such high rpms, with good hp and tq figures for a four, and still having it meet up with strict LEV2 emissions standards is a feat in itself. It is even more a feat when you consider that this same engine can achieve over 36mpg.

3. You can get to 240hp easily, and this is by going the FI way. No way, not gonna happen at Honda. And even if it did, then again, the K24T would not be close to dreaming of being LEV2 compliant.

4. Honda could use 11.5:1 pistons, which would virtually be at the limit of what NA could handle with the quality of gas we have here, and we would be approaching 212-215hp. This would not be impossible, but would be a downside in that we would no longer be able to fill up on the occasion with 87. It would have to be a minimum of 93, and even then, in places like Texas, it could get risky.

5. This, to me is probably the most viable way of getting the TSX up to 230-240 hp, and not impossible the way I see it: Using a K22. Destroke the engine to 93mm, and with the same technology, you have a platform for creating a 8300-8500rpm screamer. Torque, under similar specs as the K24A2, or even with higher 11.5:1 pistons would be perched at around 160lb-ft at 5500rpm to 164lb-ft at 6200rpm, with a top hp figure of around 230hp at 7800rpm or 240hp at 8100 rpm. With the actual gearing, it could be a possibility. Could they make it LEV2 compliant? I don't know. One thing I know for sure, there would be some loss of driveability, but the pleasure factor would be absolutely way up there just the sheer fun of screaming all the way to 8500.

Will it happen? honestly I don't know. TSX was originally marketed for the mid-aged man who clings to sport cars. But this type of furious TSX would be adressed to people in their mid 20's but certainly with a price tag more in the mid 30K's US.

My

sauceman

14 hp for an intake is very optimistic IMO, but if you have dyno charts to prove it, I'd love to see them.

As for the lightweight rims, lightweight =fragile, and I'm not sure Acura would be too happy to have a bunch of dented rims come back on warranty. Anyways, those gains don't show on paper, so it's not marketable. It will only show on a test-drive, but then again, it's a seat-of-the-pants thing that 80% of the people will never notice.

ClutchPerformer

Easy. They mount the engines longidudinally. Besides the S2000, I haven't seen a longitudinal Honda engine since my mom's '94 Legend.

It wasn't poorly designed. It was designed just fine (and it was designed way before they made the decision to bring it to North America). Europeans don't care nearly as much about V-6es as we do, so why bother?

mrdoug

Could someone please explain to this ignoramus what "drive by wire" is, and its perceived advantages/disadvantages relative to other methods? Thanks.

Dan Martin

Instead of the throttle pedal connecting via a cable to the throttle body, the pedal conects to the computer which determines how much throttle to give the engine. The main benefit is better control with the VSA.

The main disadvantage is that you lose a little bit of that directly connected feeling that you get with the conventional throttle. In otherwords there can be some lag with DBW.

ClutchPerformer

Before, there was a physical link (a steel cable) between your gas pedal and the actual throttle butterfly that lets air in your engine. With a DBW system, there is no such link. There's a sensor linked to your gas pedal that tells the ECU about pedal position, rate of change of pedal position, etc. And the ECU looks at its operation map and decides how to actually move the throttle butterfly in response to what it thinks you want the engine to do. I'm pretty sure the butterfly is moved by a small electric motor--not exactly sure, though. I don't see what else it would be...

Advantages are:

1. You don't get mechanical "backlash" inherent in any physical system (i.e. when you change directions it changes instantly instead of taking some time to let out the "slack" in the system).

2. You can make the system nonlinear. Usually a cable setup simply creates a throttle opening directly proportional to your pedal position. With a DBW, the system can for example sense that you're stomping on the gas from the rate of change measurement and give you full throttle before your pedal hits the floor (Mercedes is doing this with their brakes now--that's a good idea).

Disadvantages:

1. In our particular system, it makes the throttle "knife-edged". You probably notice a jerkiness when you let go of/get back on the gas fairly quickly (especially in low gears--try letting off the gas in 1st at 3500 RPM). It's a consequence of the system acting too fast for it's own good. The backlash in a cable throttle linkage makes that disappear.

2. Throttle could do unexpected things if you're not used to it. For example, I don't like how our engine revs fall (during a shift) at different rates under different conditions. It's confusing sometimes and I lose smoothness and/or I'm forced to stare at the tach (which is bad).

That's all I can think of offhand. I actually don't like the DBW, but it's a small dislike so I live with it.

Lung Fu Mo Shi

ClubTSX link

Middle of the page, dyno on a 5AT showing 11hp at the wheel increase. Assuming 6MT and +17% crank translation = 13-14hp peak. Obviously with noise sacrifice.

Quote:

As for the lightweight rims, lightweight =fragile, and I'm not sure Acura would be too happy to have a bunch of dented rims come back on warranty. Anyways, those gains don't show on paper, so it's not marketable. It will only show on a test-drive, but then again, it's a seat-of-the-pants thing that 80% of the people will never notice.

I agree. It was not my intention to suggest that an OEM would use "less reliable" parts. This is retrofit for a current owner.

Consequently, i forgot that I could sell the OEM rims and tires for ~$600, further decreasing my money outlay.

AKay

dom

So it was poorly planned then. I think they maybe should have taken into account the possibility of someday selling this car in NA. And I have a really hard time beliving they did'nt. So IMO, it was poorly planned. The TSX is a great selling car (in the US at least) imagine how great it would be selling with a V6.

I wonder how the Mazda 6 V6 is selling in Europe, or is that engine even offered there?

ClutchPerformer

Absolutely. Bringing this car here as an Acura seems like an afterthought on the part of Honda product planning. Since it seems to be a successful afterthought, I think there's a chance that the next-gen TSX will be V-6 ready (unless it's still 100% based on a Euro Accord). We'll see around 2008 or so

swami

The Honda doesn't do turbos argument is pointless. If I'm not mistaken, they had the first production motorcycle that was turbocharged, the 1982 CX-500. They also produce two turbo watercraft currently. I think the reason they don't do turbo cars, is the inherent turbo lag syndrome. Until that is solved you won't see a turbocharged Honda IMO. I think the normally aspirated route is the correct one. The average driver wants user friendliness, as opposed to a peaky powerband that's hard to control. I'm pretty sure the TSX engine is a starting point as far as power is concerned. I can see another 40-50 HP easily out of this powerplant. I'm an old V-8 dude and I love the power and torque, but the new age 4 and 6 cylinders are pushing HP numbers that are comparable. If there's a company that could duplicate the HP and torque, with a smaller engine, I'd bet on Honda. It could be IMA, Turbocharging, or Supercharging, who knows? IMHO the future of Honda engines is in cylinder head and air intake developement. That's where the HP is hiding.

Lung Fu Mo Shi

Well, since the Honda Accord (Euro/JDM) sells more than 10 times the volume than the TSX, I think Honda is smart to address THAT market.

By contrast, I imagine the TL will sell 3 times more than the TSX in NA.

Business-wise, I'd bet the TSX is a mistake in the US. It's stealing market share from itself and not generating the big margins that other vehicles would and making the suply chain more complex.

Brad

Honestly, V6 means absolutely nothing to me.

The TSX strikes a nice--a perfect balance--between handling and power. More power is overkill and a waste. Handling is very important. I had thought that my old Accord 4-banger was sweet and smooth, but the TSX's K24 4-banger takes the matter several steps higher in refinement and smoothness and performance.

Had the TSX been available only with V6, Honda/Acura would have lost me as a customer.