dom

You don't have to answer but I was wondering if developing a reflash for the TSX has been worth the time, effort and R&D to this point?

Has the MT been more successful than the AT or vice versa? And if so by how much?

Just wondering how big the aftermarket for the TSX really is and if you were pleasantly surprised or perhaps dissapointed by the demand for the reflash.

JTso

iTrader: (2)

I'm curious to know as well.

hondata

Ask us in a year's time how it has gone. This is a long term investment by us. Uptake has been about 2/3 that of the RSX reflash even though Honda's sales of the TSX have been greater than the RSX. Manual sales a little more than the Auto.

So far we have only advertised here and on our web site. We suspect the demographics of the average TSX owner means they do not read the web sites as much as the RSX owners, so we will need to do more magazine articles. Until then we will rely on happy owners telling and showing others.

Developing the performance market for the TSX is somewhat of a chicken and egg situation in that you need to have the engine management before you can have high performance add-ons. In part the market will not develop fully unless we make it happen - which we intend to.

There will also be a need for people - the readers here, to be trailblazers, spend a little more time effort and money to try different things.

We'll have a summary article of all our tuning results (with some interesting bits) to date posted by this weekend.

TinkyWinky

I think sales for the reflash will jump as soon as the 04 and 05 models fall out of warranty and/or sold used to a younger 2nd owner.

Consider me in the first demographic.

drunkenbuda

This is on your page, and i just want to know why the AT HP and ft/lb is so low? 135.9hp?
this is the MT

xizor

Keep posting information and feeding the user community and you'll have your people

kyotousa

yah that.....shit i got 45,000 miles warranty hahaha
this is the last mod i'll do XD

TSX.Fury

develop the 05 and I think you'll get a whole bunch of new customers, including me :wink:

JTso

iTrader: (2)

The user community is strong and we are looking forward for any new development.

dzuy

damn, i've been wanting cams for so long. i messaged ips on k-series.com but they said cams would be a dream unless hondata or some other company would release a unit like a k pro to run with the cams.

consider me as a strong, if not definite, buyer of any hondata product to come.

hondata =

Zasker1

I would probaby do cam's as well, although I just dont know if I am skilled enough to install them myself. My buddy installed a set of cams on his Jetta and bent one of the exhaust valves.

vwong

It's because of the torque converter in the AT. It robs power. Therefore,

MT > AT always

K24tunr

When will the reflash be available for the 05 Manual? Any idea?

Tsx536

Hondata, thanks for keeping us posted. I look forward to reading the summary article

I'm very happy with my Hondata reflash, and hope you guys keep on getting business.

jiggaman

so far i have been very impressed with hondata and i have not even bought their reflash yet. i do plan to, just haven't got around to it yet.

justsomeboi

too bad i have the extended 100,000 mile warranty...

JTso

iTrader: (2)

Let's take a look at this warranty and mod thing so many people are worrying about. So certain portion of the warranty can be voided if a certain mod is found to be the cause. You end up paying for the repair. Right?

So, you wait until the warranty is over, then mod. What if the mod causes certain problems? You still end up paying for the repair. Right?

Life is short, enjoy it now and mod like no tomorrow. Get the Hondata reflash, you won't be disappointed.

Dan Martin

It's taking that horsepower reading where the cursor is on the screen. If you look at the actual graph you'll see it makes about 168hp peak. The MT graph is showing a peak of about 185hp so there's only about 17hp difference between transmissions.

dom

But different mods on those cars.

The difference is only about 10HP stock for stock is it not? We've seen stock MT's dyno at 170 and AT's at 160.

kyotousa

lol i guess you aint never getting your hondata......or maybe you wanna void your engine warranty ??

kyotousa

I don't understand what you talking about
it's both showing at 6,000 rpm.....therefore it's a good comparison

Dan Martin

As Dom pointed out, there are different mods between the cars so the difference is a little bigger than vs a stock MT with Hondata.

The 135.9hp you're referring to is on the non-hondata AT. The Hondata'd AT is putting out an additional 22hp at that point. It's actually putting out 6.7hp more than the non-hondata'd MT car at the same RPM.

dzuy

i rode in at hondata AT.

it was def better than the non hondata version.

i hope that dom gets it one day

seriously tho - i cant wait to ride in triz08's car now that he has header and high flow cat.

dom

I was referring to peak HP only. The tourque curve on the AT is almost enough for me for drive my car off a cliff

dzuy, I'll will be getting Hondata, just not yet.

Dan Martin

The curve isn't as bad as it looks. The scale on the AT chart has a range of 55.8lb ft, but the scale on the MT chart has a range of 85.3lb ft. So really it looks 1.5x worse than it really is.

vwong

Both of them are stock cars. The MT graph is from my car. Don't know whoes car it is in the AT graph.

drunkenbuda

WoW, 17hp difference? Thats a lot!

kyotousa

i thought hondata is comparing AT stock and MT stock

it would be dumb to compare stock and nonstock......
and it wasn't me that ask that question about ft/lb

Dan Martin

Apparently both the MT and AT graphs are stock rides other than the Hondata reflash. I stand corrected on that point.

Hondata wasn't comparing MT to AT, you were. They only show before and after runs of the same car on the same dyno to show the gains of the reflash.

I don't know who you're rolling your eyes at but I didn't say anything to you about torque.

justsomeboi

I really hope this site is still here 7 yrs from now when i do the mod...
Haha shit this sucks. But I did put in a CAI. Thats without parents knowing though.

kyotousa

--------now in 7 yrs you'd want to get a new car
don't need to mod a 7 yr car haha

btw isn't the tsx suppose to deliver 200 hp /165hp torque?
they lie like the rx-8 did?.......

sauceman

Nope. If anything, Honda understates the power of their cars.

xizor

If you know how to read a dyno you'd see the TSX makes plenty of torque. My car w/ 1000 miles and only a CAI put down ~177ft/lb to the crank.

kyotousa

ok...from the hondata dyno on MT the torque shows 160 ft/lb the highest?
and seems like 188hp.....is that wrong?

anyway i thought it would be like 200hp/165torque from the factory without the hondata haha

sauceman how did honda understate TSX's performance??

AlterZgo

The dyno charts show hp and torque measured at the wheels. The factory hp and torque specs are of the engine itself w/ emissions equipment attached.

Because the transmission, hubs, rims, tires, etc. all add friction, weight, etc. it results in a lower measured hp. The drivetrain losses are typically in the 15-20% range and may be higher w/ automatic transmissions.

Pretty much all cars will produce less hp on a Dynojet than their rated crank hp. There are a few exceptions with cars that are severely underrated by their manufacturer.

kyotousa

yah thx...i know the difference between WHP and HP
anyway.....i was pretty shock to get 160HP for AT TSX.....even tho I still feel TSX runs great

therefore i don't get what's the point to say honda underate the TSX?
or Sauceman just referring to some other Honda car?

so xizor you got like 17torque gain with just CAI? that's pretty cool

xizor

no you missed the point, sauceman said Honda under rates their engines. I didn't get 17ft/lb, the engine should be rated higher than 160ft/lb to start w/. I probably gained ~8ft/lb which means the stock engine should be near 170.