notstr8

Ok im confused I was just on 95 going south when a silver V6 Accord Coupe pulled next to me it looked nice wheels slammed other than that looked stock no noticeable exhaust so we gunned it from 70mph I was really stunned I didnt pull from him he didnt pull from me I went to 130mph and then let off I cant figure it out the only thing is that I had 4 people in the car he had 2 there was no driving around in traffic just a str8 line.... very confused....... that and I have an exhaust...... if anybody is in the Miami area and has some info on a Silver Coupe Accord please share.... I think I need to go to Acura and say "ITS BROKEN" I got beat by an accord....... im going to go burn relax and go to bed maybe it was all a bad bad dream...... :p

songoku

GET YOURSELF DIET!!!! j/k

I am sure he was one of those luck bastard!!!

STAGED

the weight killed you.

in the High Performance Pontiac closed session test of my dad's Bonneville, there were two runs fairly close together. One was 14.6 at 93mph. The next run with a 150lb person dropped times to 15.3 at 91mph.

BlackShadow

I agree...weight will always kill your speed. I learned it the hard way. A few months ago I raced a honda Insight (that electric car) with 4 people plus lots of luggage in my mom's 90 Accord and I lost to the Insight. The Insight driver was by himself.

BTW, were those people with you...fat???

MikesTypeS

I also agree with the weight factor, and would also add that Acura did crappy job designing the TL-S engine they should have made the engine with at least 270lbs of torque, but I would like to have 295lbs of Torque with reliability of course.

corey415

For a SOHC 3.2 V6, those numbers would be unattainable without forced induction.

Edr0e

Beat all accords except 2.

One was a 2000 V6 Fully modded (75 shot wet)... THIS GUY BEAT ME BY 4 to 5 cars :wow:

Second one was a 96 four Banger LOL!
Sh#t was crazy he had a purge kit running 50shot. 3 Car race...
TL vs 4cyl Accord vs Mitsu GSX. GSX and I leave the accord at the line... GSX a half a car on me, Accord nowhere to be seen... Then all of a sudden I hear the little 4 banger (with its straight pipe) loud ass hell! The Accord flys past me at 90 mph and passes the GSX!!!!:wow: :wow: :wow:

Im pretty sure he was lying about the 50 shot... Must have had more

MB-telecom

You don't lose 7/10's of a second by adding a 150 lb. person! That is ridiculous! I guess than my 91 Stealth RT/TT that weighs 4000 lbs should only run the 1/4 in 17 secs and not low 12's like it does. Rule of thumb. Every one hundred lbs. is equal to 1/10 of a second. Go to a drag strip and ANYONE there will tell you that.

If you have a total of four people in your car, than yeah that will cost you a few tenths of a second.

Edward'TLS

This is very true. It is possible to crank out lots of hp with high technologies such as VTEC, i-VTEC, VVT-i, dual-intake runners, higher rpm, etc., etc., but nothing can help to crank out lots of torque except larger engine displacement (4.0L or better still 5.0L) and forced induction.

SilkkTypeS

My stock Type S took out a 530i the other day. He had a passenger with him and I didn't. I guess weight does matters. Also took out a 2000 Maxima SE the next day, he tried to keep up but let off once I hit triple digits.

DJ Iceman

To me, this just goes to show that all these cars perform ROUGHLY the same. In a a magazine you may see one or two second differences 0-60, but even that is not that noticeable in normal driving. There are so many other variables, some of which have already been mentioned!

So don't look in the back of Car and Driver and see that an Accord V6 (or Maxima or GS300 or whatever) is supposed to be a slower car and think you're going to mop up the road with him.

Oh, and it cracks me up to see things like "I have an exhaust", thinking it's like a turbo or something. H/I/E will only get you a MARGINAL increase in performance. Every little bit helps, but it's still well within the margin of error on all the other variables...

STAGED

The example I posted originally was a 1996 Bonneville S/C.

Here's another example: 1993 Bonneville. Me only: 16.281 at 82.11 mph. Added a 225 lb dude, times went to 16.9x at 8x.xx.

Rules of thumbs suck in this particular matter. Lightweight cars with low peak power and narrow powerbands (like the Miata) tend to be adversely affected by a given weight than a powerful, wide powerband, heavy vehicle (like the upcoming Dodge SRT Ram 8.3L V10 truck).

On your Stealth, add a 150lb person I guarantee your times will dip 0.4 seconds on the average if not more. With your rule of thumb that would mean if you towed a 1000lb trailer (assume bearing friction and aero drag is zero so we can isolate the effects to just weight) to lop onto your 4000lb Stealth and driver weight, you'd still be running low-13s (1 second penalty). I don't think so. Dragging 1000lbs would probably slow your low-12 runner to mid 14s.

STAGED

Oh yeah, I forgot one other thing. All too often magazines test cars that gain weight over time with no increase in power and torque across the rpm. I think the fastest year for the Northstar Cadillac Seville was 1995 with best times typically in the mid-14s at 97mph or so. A few years later it gained almost a couple hundred extra pounds and times went to low 15s (in general) at 93mph.

How about convertible versions of cars??? Of course there is some aerodynamic penalty but drag race is heavily determined (in many cases) reliant on the 1st 1/8th mile performance where speeds are not high enough to enact a drag penalty worth noting. Many convertibles weigh about 150lbs or so more than their hardtop versions. And of course you see big penalties. Usually 0.3 to 1.0 second quarter mile penalty in most cases.

How about wagon versions of sedans? Same story with weight and aero drag with aero drag being the smaller of the two penalties. Again wagons typically weigh 100-200lbs more than their sedan counterparts with approximately 0.4 to 1.5 second penalty in quarter-mile time.

And finally I owned a Trans Am. Back when I had merely a supercharger on a stockish motor, my car was a solid 12-second runner (mid 12s at 114.5 for the time I'm about to talk about. One day I took a 320 lb dude and my 120lb brother out. Well to make a long story short, I gave a MKIV automatic stock Supra (driver only) the break and I could never catch up with it even to 150+mph. A witness was so elated that I had to prove him wrong by driving over to his shop the next day. Parked over there was a BPU automatic Supra capable of 12.1 at close to 120mph. This time this other guy took one passenger in the Supra and I was solo in my car. Result? two races. The first I pulled the Sup and kept pulling till we let off at 135 mph (over 4 car length difference). The next race, he got me off the line and by 70mph I was ahea by one full car length, which he made up 1/3 car length by 130mph till we let off but I was still ahead. Thanks to the added weight the modded Supra was carrying I looked artificially good at the time. But because I was carrying 500lbs worth of passengers the night before, I looked horrible against the stock MKIV Supra.

MB-telecom

There is a simple explanation for the 'convertible issue' that you are talking about. Convertibles often weigh a couple/few hundreds lbs. more than their hard-top counterparts. I never heard of a mere 150 lb. increase for a convertible over a hard-top. Also what you are dealing with is a lot more chassis flex in the convertible than the hard-top. Manufactuers reinforce the frame more to compensate for the increased chassis flex (this also addd weight), but it is NEVER as rigid as the inherent design of the hard-top.

With a convertable you will lose about .2 to .4 of second in the 1/4 due to added weight (200 - 400 lbs.) and you will lose another .1 - .4 seconds due to the less rigid chassis of the convertible. Aerodymnamics DO play a role, but that will only hinder the car another .05 to .1 sec. in 1/4.

Look at the late 80's Mustang GT hard-top vs. Mustang GT convertible and you will see what I am saying holds true as far as weight differences and 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times too.

DJ Iceman

This is not true, however, when comparing the M Roadster and M Coupe. On paper, the convertible both out-accelerates and out-corners the hardtop. Don't ask me how BMW did it, though!

STAGED

I'm not sure 200-400 lbs is exactly correct. I think the penalties (from structural reinforcements) on most convertibles is under 200lbs but over 100lbs. As for penalties, MT tested a 3.23 geared Firebird V8 LT1 automatic and ran 14.1 at ?99mph? which is representative of the norm. C&D tested a Trans Am (LT1 T/As are closer to the Formula weight than in earlier fbodies) automatic and ran 14.6 at 95mph, again representative. And the weight penalty is in the 100-200lb range as in many other examples.

The only car I know of which thwarts this generality is the C5 convertible which I believe C&D magazine said had a mere 5 lb penalty since that hydroform framed chassis was designed to also be applied to convertibles with the minimum of reinforcements. Hence the magazine test noted only a 0.1 second penalty in the quarter mile run primarily from aero drag increases.

The only convertibles that are laden with very heavy hardware directly related to convertible operation are those with foldable hardtops. They include the Mitsubishi 300 GT VR4 Spyder (even the non convertibles are heavy), MB SLK and SL, and the Lexus SC430 to name a few. Most of the weight of course comes from the various actuators, linkages, solid panels and motors not to mention the structural reinforcements.

As for the chassis flex story, many folks say that chassis flex kills acceleration. First of all any energy lost there against acceleration is impossible to measure, it's well below measurement uncertainties. Also, those who claim notable improvements probably get those improvements from say most positive contact of the rubber and the pavement thanks to improved maintenance of intended suspension geometry through a more stable foundation.

Last but not least, as long as the chassis doesn't flex plastically (i.e., permanent deformation), it will spring back and there is no net energy lost (whatever energy was expended in flexing the chassis, gets stored for milliseconds, and the gets returned when it is unflexed in the reverse direction). There is negligible heating or dissipation (such as say when you bend a paper clip back and forth quickly) during the flex and virtually no loss through joints.

MB-telecom

The kinetic energy imparted to the chassis from the 'torque' of the transmission does not get re-applied to the wheels in any linear fashion whatsoever that would benefit acceleration of the vehicle. It is lost is 'oscillation' if you will of the chassis.

You need to brush up on your physics too. You do not get 100% of the energy back that you put into an object. Unless Einstein missed something you are wrong about that. When the chassis flexes the kinetic energy is not proportionally channeled to the wheels. Where did you make that up?

Why do you think some cars employ traction bars and/or sub frame connectors? It is to keep the chassis more rigid.

You just klled your own argument by using the Corvette C5 convertible as an example of how it only weighs 50 lbs. more than the hard-top. Also, please explain why then it is STILL a couple/few tenths of a sec. slower in 1/4 mile than the hard-top. It has to do wth increased chassis flex of the convertible over the hard-top. Go to any speed shop or race track and see if I am correct.

Monte TLS,MAX

I agree totally with you!

j83

if you realize that the tl has its qualities,
and so does other cars,
but i notice too if there are more than 2 ppl in a tl it feels different not neccessarily slow, but the butt dyno can tell its not pulling as hard.
honda and acura tries to make these cars lightweight, and it's efficient. gas milelage, liters, blah blah
i'm sure nissan is putting more liters into a 6 cylinder(3.5) to create more tq rather than hp. but losing more efficiency
our car are efficient,
but i do have a hunch that transmission is what holds the tls down.