PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Myself, Spiroh, AcuraCrazy, and another guy w/ an integra went to the dragstrip tonight; we each only got three runs in.
I'm bone stock, btw.

R/T .948
60' 2.409
330 6.634
1/8 10.024
1/4 15.426 @ 90.95mph

(First run, brake stalled to 2000 rpms, excessive wheel hop results; pure auto mode (no SS, VSA off)).

R/T 1.297
60' 2.387
330 6.601
1/8 9.981
1/4 15.363 @ 91.24mph

(Second run, brake stalled to 1800 rpms, still the wheel hop, auto mode w/ SS shifting)

R/T .773
60' 2.383
330 6.616
1/8 10.011
1/4 15.407 @ 90.98mph

(Final run, no brake stalling, no wheel hop -- clean peel out, auto mode w/ SS)

AcuraCrazy ran a XX.X consistently w/ his intake (TL-S) and springs (I'll let him tell you what he ran), and Spiroh ran a consistent 14.7 w/ Intake, headers, springs, sways ('01 CL-S).

The 'tegra GS-R ran b/w 15.8 and 16.2 seconds (bone stock).

There was a laguna seca blue 2001 M3 conv't that ran a 14.7 and 15.0 for his two runs!! A stock Z06 ran a 12.67, and a modded Eagle Talon turbo ran against me in my final run and pulled a 14.55 @ 97.96 mph.

Temp was 66 degrees w/ pretty high humidity. Track conditions varied, resulting in either wheel hop or fairly decent launches. It was a good time, thanks for the invite Spiroh, AcuraCrazy!!

Crzy Acura

yea yea i only ran a 15.1 all three time... but i do have a system in the trunk. then again i had no gas. Even my gas light came on... I thought i would have done better but i guess not.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Oh, and some IS300 ran a 16.5 or something, true story.

Crzy Acura

a NEW ford lighting did a 13 flat.... now that was shocking!!!!

AKRY

13's for lightning is fast!!! but again, it must be moded... HOWEVER stock 2001 Lightning should be able to dust our TLS... Don't try run against a Lightning....

Andy Kuo

asiankidd

no offfense or nothing but why are the numbers so low i was hoping the tl-s could do better.....must have been the humitity

mackdaddy

I ran about the same last weekend at MCIR (Marion County International Raceway.) Kinda dissapointed, but had a heavy headwind, and very high humidity (this was last Sat.) I made 8 passes, all runs with VSA off, in D3, slight brake torque.

Here's a list of the best values I had for the day

RT .629 (got to work on this)
60 ft 2.349
330 ft 6.591
ET@594 ft 9.362
1/8 mi ET 9.985
1/8 MPH 72.35
1/4 mi ET 15.449
1/4 MPH 89.78

Not bad for the 1st time out in this car. We need 60 degree weather with low humidity. That'll give me what I'm looking for!

Jim

ZodiakTL

well now i dont feel so bad running the 15.2 with 78 degree weather and high humidity. cant wait for the temps to drop so i can break into 14s. man, it would be nice to run when it was 66 degrees.

RAdams

My best run was 14.8 @ 94.21. Temp (according to the car) was 85 degrees and the humidity was high (or course.. I'm in FL).

A good 60' time will net you a good time. MPH is a good indication of the power your car is making.

I've been to the track twice and found that the best launch was had with the tire pressure lowered to about 26psi, VSA off, no brake-torquing (admittedly I only tried it once). I used SS each run, so I can't comment on that versus D5 (in my 2000 TL SS helped a LOT).

Practice, practice, practice!

Webologist

The Florida point may be important. The tests in the mags are frequently run in CA, also near sea level. What's the altitude of the track you ran at Peter?

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

We were all willing to reduce our pressure to 24-26psi last night, however we didn't have an air compressor to restore the psi to 32 for the ride home. Also, next time I'll run w/ 1/4-tank of fuel or less --> I had 3/4 of a tank, and I didn't take the spare out.

Humidity, altitude, and launch technique make a huge difference (huge = .2 -> .5 seconds). In my case brake-torquing did NOT help, it hindered the launch, causing excessive wheel hop that threw me into the low rpm range in 1st gear. A smooth peel-out resulted in placing me in the middle part of 1st gear, close to to the peak torque band.

Crzy Acura's springs helped him keep his wheel planted, w/ little rear end squat -- therefore I think that helped his ET.


15.1 is the average time achieved by many carmags. I'm not surprised by my numbers at all.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Web,

Wisconsin/Illinois is @ 4800 ft. (where we were) approximately. That's a big difference in O2 levels in the air compared w/ Florida! Higher altitude = lower O2 levels = poor ET (unless ya have forced induction). Of course my technique leaves MUCH to be desired, so I can't complain too much.

Lower tire pressure effectively does two things for you, from what I understand: 1) it gives you better grip for the launch, less hop and a better 60' time, 2) it effectively (and minimally) lowers the diameter of your wheel, therefore kinda increasing the 1st gear ratio slightly, giving you a better launch, etc.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

um, duh.

Crzy Acura

After reading all the post about track times.. i would have to say that headers are WORTH it. Seems like no matter if its a CLS or a TLS if you have headers then you are running around 14.8s...


Then again i was not satisifed on any of my launches.... i think all 3 were horrible, i have done better on the streets. So whos knows, even with a great launch i dont think i can get a 14.8 without headers.

RUF87

Not bad time at all. Please don't be discouraged.

Remember those magazine drivers do this for a living. That could be worth a couple of 10s easy. Then consider that when the TLS numbers from MT were done. Early in the year with cooler temperatures. I also would not be surprised if they did tweak the car some.

So in the end it's not all bad depending on how you want to look at it.

Remember the M3? Think he wasn't thinking "what the $#!*"? His time is also very likely representative of your everyday M3 driven by your everyday driver.

BTW - I'm sick that I don't have easy access to a track around here. I've got to drive over an hour to the closest one. And they don't have many days open for casual events that give you a time slip. I mean not much sense in going if you can't get a time slip.

RUF

Guest

Why are the numbers so slow for these cars? I just don't understand that. How much hp are the headers adding on these cars... 20-30?(don't know). That would be upwards of 280-290 hp and only running a 14.8x. That's really messed up, that car should be running close to a 14 flat with that much hp. No offense but if Acura's hp ratings are accurate those numbers should be a good bit better than that. Oh wait, did you say that these runs were @ 4800ft. altitude. That would make sense because that should knock 3-4 tenths off. Anyone have any actual dyno results yet on one of these stock?

Eric

Crzy Acura

the type-s engine is 260hp at the crank... but only 200 at the wheels.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Eric,

You're right about the altitude difference -- our CL-S boyz in California are running anywhere from 14.3->14.5 w/ intake/headers/etc.. to the 1/4-mile. Our buddy M3Sins ran a 14.6 in his '98 M3 5-spd .. technically he should be running a 14.2->14.4 'ccording to the carmags. He launched at all sorts of different rpms and got a best of 14.6. He ran at the same track we did last night in similar (maybe warmer) conditions. The humidity sucked.. when I ran down the track, my windshielf fogged up bigtime!

Dyno results for the CL-S engine (J30) is 200hp peak, 190lb-ft peak. The automatic is sucking up 23% of the power -- though that seems to be typical for an automatic, it's pretty depressing considering the capability of the engine and all that is being lost. Consider this .. the RSX dyno-ed produced an impressive 7% loss of power to wheels.. w/ something like 188hp to the front wheels. Adding intake, headers, and factoring some help from reduced height due to stiffer, lower springs .. you're pushing 280-290hp @ the crank .. but not a huge difference in torque, though not negligible .. something like 210lb-ft of torque to the front wheels. Power is seen much more evidently on the highway than at the dragstrip. Spiroh w/ his intake/headers pulled much harder than the '98 M3 on the highway, and it blows my car outta the water in highway duels... all that high-end pwr!

I imagine this new 6-spd Type S w/ intake/headers will be pushing high-13's to low 14's at sea level .. maybe 14.0 @ 100.0 mph?!

A GTP should do much better in the weather we had last night w/ the forced induction .. there were a couple GTX's there, and one modded GTP .. I think they were running high 14's to a 15.1 that I saw. Traction was an issue for them, not as much for the GTX w/ the 18's .. one GTX had 17" GTP rims.

RUF87

Hang in there Peter, the "X" Mod is coming soon.

That should put you nicely into the 14s.

Although, I wish that I could find someone that really knows and can fix these trannys up. That's one mod I think this car really needs. I think I told you I had a fully manual automatic in my 64SS. Boy did that thing bang the gears and give those manuals hell. And it never gave me any problems, until my driveshaft twisted in half and all hell broke loose. And at over 100PMH to boot!!

RUF

Steveb

So what happens to the 60hp as it leaves the crank to the wheels? And does this loss to the wheels apply to all cars? Or for all practical purposes should we say that the tl-s has 200hp?

ZodiakTL

the 60hp are lost on their way from the crank to the wheels due mostly to the auto transmission. our cars lose about 20% which seems to be the average for automatics, and actually, i think think several dynos put the car up to 208hp to the wheels stock, so we are actually losing 52hp, but of course that varies from car to car. that is also why stickshift is faster, and can actually beat cars that have more horsepower, as they lose only about 10% or less to the transmission and are more efficient in shifting gears.

pjonkheer1

GTP wheels are only 16"... which would make for even worse traction.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Much of it is also due to the torque converter, and the fact that it doesn't lock-up until a certain rpm to allow for more "fluid"/seamless shifts. Automatics are so very complicated compared w/ manuals, and that's what makes the SMG tranny such a racer's dream. Shifts in auto's compared w/ manuals are still slower than the fastest shifter at the helm of a manual (IMO). Mercedes claims that its new tranny (installed in the SLK/C32 models) shifts FASTER than the best manual shifter, while BMW's SMG tranny claims 0.08 second shifts -- the second fastest shift in the business, except an F1/GTR transmission.

RAdams

What does the diameter of the wheel have to do with traction?

pjonkheer1

Good point. I have always "thought" smaller wheels would result in worse performance. Higher profile tires usually go on the smaller wheels where lower profile rubber fits well on the "taller" wheels.

mackdaddy

I think this is what your referring to http://www.levelten.com/store/import..._converter.htm I'd have to say it would probably give us all what we're looking for. Just a bit leary of installing a new TQ whilst still under warrenty. But for those who don't mind, it looks to be the ticket.

Jim

mgs333

manuals don't lose 10% or less. they lose around 12-15%, and auto's lose around 20-25% 60 out of 200 is about 23%.

RUF87

Hot Dog!

Thanks mackdaddy, this is just want I was interested in!

Now to start saving the pennies for the PTS Kit and the Torque Converter. That is if the tranny doesn't give out first. I will probably do some real digging though before I would do this. I want to make sure I'm not putting this in to a bad tranny and then have it blow on me.

And should the tranny gives out, I'm going to swap it. Warranty or not. I can't stand a weak link in the system.

Honda makes great engines, but I'm getting leary about the trannies in these cars. Let's hope it just a few bad apples out there.

RUF

mackdaddy

Your quite welcome. And as to the 2nd statement I quoted, agreed. Hopefully these are fairly isolated. I'd sure hate to think Honda can't build a decent trans. these days. That's not been an issue for them in the past. Time will tell my friend. I've just turned over 1500mi., knock on simulated wood workstation!

Jim

ZodiakTL

yes we can all use a calculator, but as i said, the type s has been dynoes at 208hp to the wheels, therefor its a 20% loss. also, if stick lost 15%, it would only have a 5% advantage, and i dont think that 10hp is enough to make a .5sec difference, so my guess would be that stick loses a lot less than 15%.

RUF87

Well if it makes you feel any better, I've had mind since the end of March (4800 miles) and the tranny still feels and sounds fine.

BTW - I've not abused it, but I have run all out a bunch! I never fail to run it out (redline) in at least 1st or 2nd everytime I drive it.

I also almost always shift manually. 1, 2, D3 And even downshift manually regularly.

So we'll see if it holds up. It should if it's any good.

RUF

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

A smaller diameter wheel mated w/ low profile (50% or less, more commonly 35% profile series) tires effectively shortens the gear ratios .. thus your first, and second gears are shorter (most important for first gear, not as important in 2nd gear ). Therefore, your launch will be improved w/ better throttle response (theoretically) and a more aggressive acceleration to redline (however, unless you're using slicks or very good rubber, you're not going to see the improvement). Larger profile tires are usually mated to more luxurious autos, and they tend not to be sporty rubber, thus you compromise cornering quality for overall ride quality and a quiet ride. 18" rims don't necessarily guarantee you a better ET, it depends on how your tranny is geared also and how soft your tires are (ZR rated).

1st - 2.563 <--- Acura's prefered gearing
2nd - 1.551
3rd - 1.021
4th - 0.653
5th - 0.470
Reverse - 1.846
Final Drive - 4.428

My prefered gearing would be: 1) 2.9, 2) 1.8, 3) 1.4, 4) 1.0, 5) 0.6
Granted, my fuel economy would go to sh!t, but my ET would drop to mid-14's.

1st gear on the TL-S is 2.563:1 .. w/ smaller diameter rims, that may go to 2.8:1 (slight exaggeration w/o doing the actual math). However, on a more "torquey" car like the GTP/GTX, a larger rim (i.e. 18" rims) may be more beneficial since it has 300lb-ft of torque (or very close to) available @ 3000 rpms, thus a larger rim size will reduce the amount of time you spend "peeling out," since it actually heightens the first gear. Granted, this is no science since track conditions also play a big role in traction, but it's not a small enough issue to be negligible in your ET if you launch right.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

I've seen more dynos from CL-S-ers showing a 200hp peak to the wheels ... that's a 23% loss..

The RSX is putting 188hp to the wheels!!! That's only a 7% loss to the wheels. 15% is a high number in terms of power loss in a manual. From our dragstrip experiences, I think CL-S and TL-S owners would agree that you need about 40-50hp to the wheels for a 0.5 second decrease in your ET (that doesn't even take into effect how the power is distributed over the power curve).

kleeftonsi

Whoa. RSX dynoing at 188whp???? Can you post a link or something? The highest RSX dyno I've seen showed about 185whp and that was questionable. Recently a member at ClubRSX.com dynoed his car and got 167whp.

For a manual 15% is the norm. Anything lower than that is a feat which commends a very efficient drivetrain.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

I think there exists more parasitic loss of power to the wheels w/ transverse mounted engines (though this is up for debate as well), therefore RWD vehicles tend to put more hp to the rear wheels (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread...&threadid=3284

I stand corrected, 185hp, this is probably a link to the same info you've reviewed, KleeftonSi.

RHINO928

The diameter of the wheel would not effect out of the hole traction!! the type of rubber on the 16 or 17 inch wheel would....

RAdams

Exactly my point. The OD of the tire affects the gearing. The wheel diameter (not weight) is a non-issue.

mgs333

if you don't know, please don't misinform others.

do you guys understand the concept of a 'range'? when i say 12-15%, isn't it obvious that the 15% is on the high side? and when i say 20-25% isn't it obvious that i am including 20%? why do you make it sound like i didn't mention 20%?

and why do you take the high number for the manual and the low number for the auto? if you're going to use the 15% figure for the manual, doesn't it make sense to use the high figure for the auto?

mgs333

and there are other factors besides parasitic loss which makes the manual faster. i know i'm coming off as abrasive, but i'm just stating facts. peace.

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Correct, as in the "factor" that manuals are almost always geared shorter (gears 1 thru 4) than autos b/c you can slip the clutch to achieve a smooth take off -- autos have a tq. conv. to provide the smooth transition. Shorter gearing = better acceleration. Your use of "faster" is incorrect. You mean to say "quicker." Faster, as you know, wise one, implied higher top speed. Manual trannies are lighter than conventional autos, shifting can, in theory, be quicker in a manual, etc...

"Enlighten" us, Obi Wan, perhaps then you won't seem as "abbrasive."