jevans

Anybody have experience with the TSX after owning a turbo engine. A little concerned with the torque curve and not having that low end push and having to really rev the engine. They say the Vtec has improved low end torque, but the torque curve doesn't look too flat to me. Ant comments? I'm currently driving a Golf 1.8T and am seriously looking at the TSX. Anybody coming from the same car/engine?

chrisalberts

Audi turbos are fairly low boost pressure and offer phenomenal mid range urge, but don't have an extended top end. Honda/Acura VTEC engines have amazing top end and somewhat lesser mid range.

To be honest, it's what you like and what you're used to. We are looking at the TSX for my wife to replace our recently departed (totalled) Audi S4 Avant, and while the midrange (from 1850 up) was incredible, I sometimes missed the top end. My current car has an 8k redline, and I previously owned a Honda Prelude SH that didn't get started until about 5500 and went up to 7500+, and I love top end.

I don't mind revving the motor to get the most out of it (as long as it's a sweet motor). Some people hate to do that.

Test drive one first (try and get one that's run in so you can rev properly) and see if you like it. It just requires a different driving style.

C.

teombe

I agree with chrisalberts

"Feel" is obviously subjective. If you like driving a car where the tach spends most of it's time above 3K RPM, then the TSX is for you.

I had a Jetta VR6 before this, and while it was quite strong and torquey, it sounded/felt as if it were going to die between 3K-5K RPMs. So, I adjusted my 'normal driving style' to upshift at about 3500RPM. It always felt unnatural, because I really like smooth, high revving engines. Now, with my TSX, I shift at 5500RPM when I'm driving like a grandma. I feel like I can actually use the entire engine, if that makes sense. To me, a much better 'feeling'.

fdl

Do you really shift at 5500 in day-to-day driving? Just curious..what kind of gas mileage are you getting.

teombe

My last two tanks were about 22MPG. All city. There is a trade off...

TinkySD

Here is a dyno is a very slightly modded 1.8t




Here is the dyno of a tsx from one of the people on our site...



Notes: jabs car only had like 1500 miles..one would expect more tq and horsepower with extra miles on it.

Analysis: The two torque curves are very very similar. The tsx having more torque at every point thorugh the curve except about 2500-3000 rpm where they are both peaking and almost identical. The tsx also has much better top end/midrange which will aid acceleration quite a bit. You are looking at a good 200-300lbs extra weight with a tsx which will have an effect. The tsx with it's much broader powerband and substantially more top end pays huge benefits.

Anyone who says vtec motors have no bottom end needs to read up on the k24a2...it's asweet motor, super quiet, smooth and rev happy.

rb1

I have that same dyno and I believe it is from a stock AWW 1.8T (rated 150 hp) motor.

jevans,

My opinion is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. I went through this torque thing myself with the TSX vs the 2001 Jetta 1.8T (162 lb-ft @ 1950 RPM, 155lb-ft @ 1750-4200 RPM) and I couldn't get past the low-end torque difference, but then again I'm a short shifter and don't like to downshift. The 2002 and later Golfs have 174 lb-ft @ 1950 RPM and hold it till 5000 RPM.

The TSX purrs at higher RPM's and really starts to pull at 3500 RPM, while the 1.8T gets noisy at high RPM. However, I find the 1.8T much quieter at normal driving speeds (I can't even hear my engine when cruising until I get to 80 mph or so). In my Jetta, I can go uphill in 5th gear at 40 mph with the A/C on and a passenger without lugging the engine. I'd never try this in any 4-cylinder Honda. The turbo 4 drives more like a small 6 at low RPM's.

I've been on 3 extended test drives in the TSX and really like the car overall, but now I'm thinking about the new TL...

chrisalberts

I don't think anyone in this thread said that they had no bottom end. (I'm not sure if that's what you're implying or not.) My comments were fairly general and based on the characteristics of a lowish revving, low pressure turbo motor and a high revving, somewhat larger displacement NA motor.

The use of variable valve timing and lift has become *almost* universally adopted in high performance engines as a way to provide the best of both worlds and I'm not disputing its benefits. That said it never provides the kind of stump pulling torque you get from large displacement 6 and 8 cylinder motors with less aggressive timing, and so it generally needs a little more shifting to keep the motor on the boil. As long as the motor is as sweet and rev happy as you say it is, and the shift action is slick, then to me that's all gravy, as I love shifting and high revving.

C. <-- shifts at 5-7.5k almost always, and no, I don't get great gas mileage.

TinkySD

don't take my comments as any kind of insult. Didn't intend them to be. I was just trying to discuss the motor in relation to the question about his 1.8ts torque! As you can see it's just as good or better at every point(minus the tsxs weight but plus the more aggresive gearing!)

Iceman

The TSX is fast. Frankly, it is a little hard for me to evaluate just HOW fast. I mean, I live in a large metro area. How fast can you go in 24 hour heavy traffic? When I come off my favorite cloverleaf and put it to the floor, I get to 80 waaaay too fast.

Honda built this engine to have great low-end torque. VTEC doesn't come in until 6000 rpm's.

adam fiooz

If your smart you will buy a 2003 Accord v6 coupe.sweet ass car man.

rb1

Will the TSX climb a hill in top gear (or even 5th gear) at 1500 RPM without lugging the engine? No. With the A/C on, too?

Will the TSX climb a hill in 3rd gear at 1300 RPM? Not sure.

Can you comfortably do all of your TSX city driving (cruising) between 1600 RPM and 2200 RPM and have the car still feel responsive? Definitely not.

Would you even consider passing someone in a TSX on a two lane road from 50 mph in top gear? No. 5th gear? Maybe.

Have you ever comfortably gone around a full cloverleaf ramp while leaving car in top gear? 5th gear?

When you are comfortable answering yes to all these questions, then we'll talk "low-end torque"... :P

TSX-TC

I really like the TSX. It is a beautiful and refined vehicle. I currently drive a '99 CL and test drove the TSX for the first time last night. I was dissapointed by one thing last night........the torque, or lack there of. The HP is the same as my CL, but the difference in torqe is 29 lbs less. I fiquered there would be very little difference. I was wrong. I found myself continually pressing the accelerator to the floor looking for a little extra pull. And after reading all the positive posts over the past few months, I have to say, I was disappointed with the power.
I know I will still purchase the TSX, but now I find myself pondering how to increase power or more importantly torqe. Turbos are great, but I think I would look to the simplicity and reliability of a superchager. I'm not looking for insane power, but 35 lbs of additional torqe, would be perfect. Hopefully Jackson Racing will release something soon or someone will figure out how to adapt the RSX kit.

TinkySD

I climb steep hills(SD terrain) in top gear all the time at like 55..with the AC and the car keeps it's speed fine. You aren't going to be accelerating much but you aren't slowing down either.... The MT should be better with less weight and less drive line loss.


This is moot in an AT -- STall speed is 2000rpm and it won't locup aat that speed meaning you are at 2500rpm at a mininum in pretty much every gear.

Again moot point if you get on the gas with the auto(even in ss which doesn't downshift)..your rpms will be above that point. I generally leave it in 4 for anything less than 45-50 mph crusing and you can accelerate..not neck snapping but doyou need tha tin a city? In relation to the 1.8t the tsx has just as much or more power even below 2000rpms which is what the origianlly question was about.

[/QUOTE]

TinkySD

i assume you are driving a AT? The MT TSX actually has more torque than the j30a1 from the accord(assuming same as cl) below 4000 rpm and above 6000.....

the j30a1 will pull a lot harder than the tsx 4000-6000. I can get soem dynos if you'd like to see.

TinkySD

Here's a bit of analysis from our good friend SteVtec

I think 20% is a tad optimistic for an automatic. We've been seeing 22-23%. I dunno, though. Are the trannys for the K-series engines more efficient?

I would expect a TSX auto to put down 155 fwhp and 139 fwtq based on a 22.5% loss which is the average of what we've seen. That's going with the estimated crank figures of 200HP and 180TQ, not 166TQ as rated. The engine definitely has a lot more than 166TQ. Best of all, you will have that 139 fwtq right off of idle whereas J30A1 Accords only have 125-130 fwtq until 3500rpm when it starts ramping up and finally hits 145 fwtq around 4700rpm.

AV6's weigh 3250-3330lb depending on body style and trim which is similar to the TSX auto's curb weight. I think it's a little over 3300lb.


NOTE: Changing the dyno to show one over the entire rev range.

crisco

No
No
No
No
No
That's why I drive a 6-speed manual and not an automatic

rb1

Well, my comments weren't intended toward the AT but toward the MT. An AT will keep itself in the torque band after launch anyway.

Anyway, who said anything about 55 mph? Your car turns 1500 RPM at 55 mph in the AT and doesn't downshift on hills? In my post, I was talking about the Golf/Jetta having no trouble climbing a moderate grade at 40 mph in 5th gear.

The minimum is 2000 RPM? What about all that low-end torque available below 2000 RPM? (And of course this answers my question about 1500 RPM above)

Uh, not even close. A major advantage of a FI vs. NA I-4 motor is the added torque at the low end. The spec'd torque peak of the 1.8T is @ 1750 RPM (or 1950 RPM, depending on model year). Not only were these dynos not set up to test the very low range (which has to be done differently), but a point for point comparison of dynos on different machines is generally not valid anyway.

Couple this with a car that weighs 10% less and gearing that is slightly shorter and the result is a significant difference in responsiveness at low RPM.

Any TSX MT drivers want to talk about how peppy their car seems to be at 1800 RPM (or whether they even bother do to any driving at such a low RPM, and if not, why not if there is so much torque available)?

ClutchPerformer

It's fine. I drive at 1800 RPM all the time. You won't accelerate that fast up a hill, but you won't slow down and choke either.

And there's no need to drive up hills, etc. at such a low RPM just to prove a point. Isn't the idea of getting a manual that you don't have to?

Edit: TSX's torque peak (at the wheels) is at 2800 RPM. I don't think you can ask much more of a NA 4-cyl.

rzee

Dude, I thought you said you were talking about MT. There is no 2000RPM lockup of any kind in MT. Do you even know the difference between Auto and Manual transmission? MTs do NOT have a torque convertor.

TinkySD

Torque is strong at about 90% at 1800rpms which is solid. Maybe not quite turbo level but you can't dog it too much. Sure the extra weight is a significant factor. But at the same time the tsx does have better gearing.


Gear Ratios TSX 1.8
3.267 1st 3.30
1.880 2nd 1.94
1.355 3rd 1.31
1.028 4th 1.03
0.825 5th .84
0.659 6th

Final Drive 4.76 3.65

Actual Gear ration = (ratio x final) = In every gear the tsx has the shorter(more torque amplification less subtraction). Is there a 6mt version of the 1.8t? That could adjust things.

TSX-TC

Yes I was driving the AT and would not consider the MT as I am lazy and constantly on the phone.

You don't need to post charts, I will still buy the TSX b/c it is still an incredible package. Like I stated before, I just thought the car was going to have a little more pull than it did.

Based purely on feel and pedal position, my j30 pulls harder through the entire RPM range. I assume this is due entirely to the 29 lbs of extra torque...........I only have the 4 speed AT, and with the TSX having a 5 AT, I also assumed it has closer ratio gears or at least a lower 1st gear (never checked that out)...so this is the other reason I tought both cars would pull about the same.

I am not trying to bash the TSX........I do love it and have not changed my mind about my purchase........I just think that Honda could have pushed more than 24 lbs of torque out of nearly 1/2 liter of additional displacement (that being based on the RSX type S, 2.0 liter, 200HP and 142TQ)

rb1

And how about 1500 RPM up a hill? I don't do it to prove a point, it just works and saves gas. Why bother with a gear change if the one you're in is doing the job and the engine seems happy? I explored low-end torque response extensively in my TSX test drives and the TSX engine didn't strike me as being very happy below 2000 RPM. And while you observe "not accelerating fast" at 1800 RPM, the 1.8T is already at maximum torque. Not "almost 90%" per Honda claims, but at 100%

On your second point, Honda claims the TSX torque peak is @ 4500, but I won't quibble on your using 2800 RPM from the posted dyno except to note that even VW's base engine (the 8V NA 2.0) hits its peak torque @ 2600 RPM.

At any rate, since the original poster owns 1.8T and asked about how the TSX low-end response compares, my points seem relevant. It's different enough for me to wait for the TL before I reconsider.

rb1

There are 6MT 1.8T's (GTI 337 edition?, but that's a 180 hp/174 lb-ft motor) but I was thinking of the 5MT (and mainly comparing the 1.8T 5th to the TSX 6th).

I seem to remember the TSX turning slightly fewer RPM @ 70 mph (I turn an even 3100), but if the TSX top gear is actually shorter (which would seem to be the case based on the numbers you posted), then I'm even happier with response I get. I'm comfortably in 5th at 40 mph and up unless accelerating and almost never downshift over 50 mph. 50-70 mph is in the mid 8 second range.

TinkySD

I'm with ya. I would respectfully comment that what people feel isn't always exactly reality. The j30a1 is very peayk at about 4000rpm which makes it feel very strong, even though you are actually just feeling the change in torque curve. The tsx is actually cranking ~ 180lbft @ about 2500 rpm(this is shown by dyno charts...166 is definitely underrated) with it slowly tapering off after 5000rpm to redline. This smoothness and gradual decline makes it feel slower than it is...just like vtec motors with a big power spike at the tome of the rpm band make a car feel faster than it is. we dont' have any official numbers or time slips but i'd be everything the tsx and cl 3.0 are more or less dead even in acceleration.(with the tsx having better lowend for better drivability)

TinkySD

The 8v motor is totally irrelevant..8vs are always way torquier down low but have limited top end. I'm not trying to tell you a tsx is going to out torque a turbo motor down low. The reality of the situation is even blow 2500 rpms the tsx has 90 percent of it's torque on tap and it weighs bit more.(150lbs or so more than the jettta right? not really fair to compare a hatch...tsx and vr6 jettas weigh about the same) Will this make a difference? Definitely. would it make a the tsx motor unliveable as was the original feel of the question? definitely not. It's as strong down low as you are going to find in a NA 4 with nice top end to boot.

EDIT: The only source i've seen for top gear 50-70 is mid 9 seconds for the tsx. I would guess(key word) that the majority of that difference is just due to the weight difference not so much the superiority of one power plant to the other.

7eighteen

hmmmm, im coming from an Audi 1.8t. ....umm, I dont know what to say to you. I hated my Audi after 2 years when the turbo blew for no reason and I had a whole bunh of other problems. You own a 1.8 t, so you must be very familiar with turbo lag....Ah yes, turbo lag,...the solution and cause to all of life's little problems......I own a TSX now and I wouldn't trade it for a A8 if they offered it to me....Get the TSX, you'll thank me later.

rb1

Regarding the Audi 1.8T, it weighs too much for the motor (a sentiment I also feel is true of the TSX).

The Jetta weighs only 2974 lbs, almost 300 lbs less than the TSX and 400 lbs less than the Audi. I don't really notice any turbo lag in my car but I'm only dealing with 0.5 bar of boost vs. 0.8 bar in the Audi engine.

Anyway, no one is arguing which motor is superior. They are completely different engines. The TSX motor is clearly a rev-happy technological marvel, and if I hadn't just bought a car 2 years ago and were in the market, it would be high on my list. The 1.8T is no technology slouch either (5 valves per cylinder, not too many of those around) and has won many awards and accolades.

I'm not sure I would buy another VW/Audi (only because of quality/service issues), but now that I have one and it is (thus far) behaving, I do distinctly prefer it's low RPM torque and responsiveness to the TSX (which is what the original poster was asking about).

tsp159

I believe it depends entirely upon the driver's preference. Like you said, you like low rpm torque and power. Most TSX drivers are probably going to enjoy the high end power and midrange torque.

Personally, the gas saved by running a motor at 1500 rpm going uphill at 55 isn't much if I put it in a lower gear and run it at 3000 rpm. I shift my Accord at 5000 rpm if I want quick acceleration just because I can and the engine is quite happy to drive hard like that. If I want to go slow and save gas, then yes, I'll shift at 2000 rpm, but who tries to go fast at those engine speeds?

rb1

I don't know where this 1500 rpm @ 55 mph thingy keeps coming from (neither of our manual tranny's have gearing that would permit us to do anything close to this), but the amount of fuel your engine consumes under throttle is directly related to RPM.

So, in this "hypothetical" case, the car turning 1500 RPM would in general burn much less gas than one turning 3000 RPM, even with somewhat more throttle pressure required to maintain speed at lower RPM. Under full throttle, your engine is burning almost twice as much fuel at 3000 RPM as it does at 1500 RPM. Generally, somewhat less throttle is required to go the same speed at a higher RPM so in steady state conditions its unlikely to actually be twice as much, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the fuel consumption be 50% or more higher in this hypothetical case.

tsp159

No, I do know that doubling engine speed would logically double fuel consumption.

However, the difference in fuel consumption is probably minimal, and we're driving $27,000 cars here, not $8000 Metros. If I want to save gas I'll get a Civic Hybrid or Insight.

Gboyz78

I love turbo cars. That is why I still have my 97' Eclipse GS-T with a few bolt on upgrades, and my new enrty level luxury car, my baby TSX! I love turbo cars, specially the torque that you get with it.

Eric@McDavid

Since I have been fortunate to be able to drive an M6 TSX for the past 90 days - here is my impressions.

BTW: Here is a list of my previous rides which I use as a subjective comparison:

94 Acura Integra GS-R
99 Accord V6
87 Buick GN
01 Corvette 6 Speed
00 Civic SI
93 Prelude VTEC
89 Thunderbird Super Coupe 5-Speed
90 Taurus SHO
84 Volvo 760 Turbo

If you take a look at the Dyno from Sport Compact Car, the TSX with it Variable Timing Camshafts and 2.4L displacement is able to produce much more low end torque than other Hondas.

When driving every day it appears to enjoy 3500-6200 shifts better than barrelling to the redline every time. This is simply exploiting the benefits of the i-VTEC. The car moves confidently, where other Hondas if driven this conservatively would fall on their face.

Since the VTEC comes in rather late in the RPM range, only 6000-7000+, you don't have that 2200 (approx) range of raucous VTEC snarl you would expect in a Civic Si, Prelude or GS-R. The TSX just gives you a hint of Snarl to remind you of its Honda origins.

Overall the package is more refined which compliments the character of the car.

My wish:

Have Doug at Hondata play with the ECU. Give us 240 HP w/ a 7800 redline using some upgraded Type-R K20 valvesprings. Start the VTEC at 5000 and way advance the intake timing to help with cylinder filling at the lower RPM. Keep the flat torque curve from 2200 on Up. If you check out Hondatas website, using agressive cams and headers the K20 RSX engine is seeing 240 HP. We the extra .4L displacement, the TSX engine should be able to manage similar w/out the more aggressive cams or RPM that would make the bottom end marginal.

or...

Have Jackson and Hondata get together and adapt the k20 supercharger.

If you are interested in reading more about Cam theory, Chevy High Performance had a great article about the trade-offs of advanced vs. retarded camshaft timing; lift and duration. The beauty of our variable lift/duration/timing is their is no trade-off.

kurt_bradley

I agree that Hondata needs to get a Flash out for this engine. Good amount of potential in this car, but it needs just a little more juice.

onenonlieTSX

"Give us 240 HP w/ a 7800 redline using some upgraded Type-R K20 valvesprings."

I've been in many discussions about the potential for our K24a2 motors and they're revving capabilites. Because it IS a 2.4 it may not be able to reach such high revs compared to a 1.6 or 1.8 liter B series engine. There has been much talk about mods and maybe even DE-stroking the motor to a smaller displacement in order to reach higher revs. Nevertheless... I have great expectations for the K24 and its potential. Also.. remember that the K24 has i-VTEC. Although there seems like only 1 grand of VTEC to play with, the camshafts have three progressive lobes compared to one VTEC lobe with older VTEC motors. Therefore... the VTEC gains are spreadout evenly throughout the RPM range instead of that big VTEC "rush" with B and H series motors.

I am really looking forward to the release of a Comptech supercharger. A definite MUST for me... i need to compensate for all the extra weight the TSX carries.