Aegir

No bubbles to burst. I agree 14.5 to 13.9 would be a stretch. C&D ran a 14.3@99, 0-60 in 5.6 sec, in an A-Spec test this month. A member of this forum ran a 14.2 recently, stock with a K&N. http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78391 That's the starting point I'm using. I think another 30hp lead to a 13.9x. Actually, it could probably be done with chassis and tires alone, but that wouldn't be as fun.

mobilezen

The TL is a J series block...so is the 6 and 7gen Accord V6 models... Would it be possible to tkae headers from a 6gen accord v6 and put them on the 2k4 TL? Wonder if anyone in dallas wants to try? I have a set of headers for my Accord that are about to come out.

cams...hmmm I would not recommend opening up any J3x engine...you always end up with pieces here and there haha. A remapped ECU would be interesting but at the same time, I would be waving goodbye to the warranty.

Aegir

No, it's a different head. The exhaust manifold is cast into the head with a single outlet. The first two cats connect directly to the heads. I have to believe power was lost in this design based on my experiences with long vs. short header tube designs. Too bad...not much can be done.

Nitrotiger

I wonder if the computer would go crazy if you remove the cats off the header and came up with your own down pipe from the mainfold hmmmm

mobilezen

Doh! That sucks...I never realized there would be a different head.

Why don't you try and let us know. Maybe the friendly check engine light will come on.

Nitrotiger

I figured thar would be the response i would get :toothless i spoke to comptech friday they said the next thing they are doing for the TL is the exhaust and it needs 1 bad the piping is so small

stealth

port and polish to lower CR, problem solved, u could even add turbo, that would be more than 300hp, probably more like 400, guestimate.
and as an added bonus, u wouldn't have to use premium fuel.

magmilt

I know BMW's and Audi's can bump the HP 20% by replacing an engine computer chip. Does anyone know if there is something like that for the '04 TL?

Sherlock

Am I wrong or aren't the headers forged with the block on this car ?? making it impossible to modify them, leaving mods up to intake and exhaust

All of the iVTEC blocks are this way. But so far iVTEC is only in the 4cyl models.

mobilezen

Aegir explained this in an earlier post about the heads being connected to a single port. To get 300hp, superchager would be the quickest way and maybe nitrous but that's about it. I wouldn't dig too deep into the engine with fears of voiding warranty.

yield2s

put an 02/03 type S motor in it w/ headers and Ice box.. Thats 300hp!
couldnt resist,, sorry. This really sucks about the new and improved exhaust manafold. I think it was an intensional attemp to keep people from unleashing the hugh high end gain capable w/ headers.

NightRider

I show an interest in that part about removing the silencer (resonator) and it will be done within 2 weeks. This is because I had a crash to the front end and my baby is at the shop. Well with the driver side of the bumper hanging off, you get a great view of the induction system. The body shop is going to remove this for me. I already have a K&N filter so I figure with that and the resonator removed I should get the same benefit of a CAI, considering all that CAI is is less restrictive air flow and different filter. Already with just the K&N it sounds throatier from VTEC on and needle seems to pull slightly quicker. I am hoping to be able to save $200 on the CAI with this method. Of course with a CAI or similar performance tuned induction, you can't have power robbing backpressure build up, so you need a free-er flowing exhaust to bring full potential. Having one without the other is like weight lifting with your biceps but never working on your triceps. I think with CAI and exhast we could hit 285 or 290, maybe even 300 with just those. ECU upgrade is definitely needed as this will help, we have more deep inside the beast, I know it.

yield2s

based on the Type s engine the most restictive part was the exhaust manafold, the 04's got 10 more hp by redesigning the intake((CAI)3-5hp gain) and using higher flow exhaust componants((cats imparticular)the other 5-8hp) On the type S there's 27whp tied up in the E manafold thats about 35-38hp at the crank. Thats where the power/flow restiction lies, not ferther down the tail pipe.

N74DV

ummm... cams and superchargers do just that... get more air into and out of the engine.

NightRider

What happened to PeterUbers?

youngTL

I'm confused why a manufacturer would do this on purpose...
You'd think they tested the ECU and optimized it for everyday driving.

ravingstylez

people and that fwd cant handle horsepower.....please..

i saw a integra pushing 560 the other day with no problem

ACuraR_RENAMED

[This really sucks about the new and improved exhaust manafold (sic). I think it was an intensional (sic) attemp (sic) to keep people from unleashing the hugh (sic) high end gain capable w/ headers.]

Actually the integrated exhaust "manifold" cast into the cylinder head and higher flow "close coupled catalytic converters" installed up at the cylinder heads improves cold start emissions performance, as the catalysts reach optimum operating temperature quicker. The "close coupled catalytic converters" clean the exhaust of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) while the converter under the vehicle cleans up nitrogen oxide (NoX). Part of Honda's environmental + performance strategy.

1SICKLEX

http://www.caranddriver.com/article...5&page_number=1
The Steering Column
Slowly but surely, horsepower is killing front drive.
BY CSABA CSERE
July 2004


There seems to be considerable trepidation in some Detroit circles about the switch from front- to rear-wheel drive in cars such as the Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum (replacing the Intrepid), and Cadillac STS. And if we believe our spies, most future big sedans from the Big Three will propel themselves via their rear wheels.

Some critics view this switch as little more than a fashion statement, much like raising or dropping the hemline of a woman’s skirt, and designed to juice sales by giving advertisers something to talk about. Others don’t want to lose front-wheel drive’s traction advantages in winter and fret about fishtailing down snowy city streets with a rear-driver. Some even worry about losing the slightly lighter weight and more efficient packaging available with front drive.

Given the enormous expense of replacing a front-drive car with a rear-drive one, no car company would do it just to provide the marketers with a new talking point. On the other hand, a discussion of front drive versus rear drive in slippery conditions is more relevant. There’s little question that by placing between 60 and 65 percent of a vehicle’s weight over its driving wheels, front drive develops more traction than does rear drive—unless the rear-drive car happens to be a Porsche 911. The only thing better is four-wheel drive, which puts 100 percent of a vehicle’s weight on its driving wheels.

Adding traction control into the equation doesn’t alter this traction pecking order. However, traction control does ensure that a vehicle makes the most of its available grip and helps a clumsy driver from losing control because of wheelspin.

Remember, though, that the definition of traction is grip that allows acceleration. Grip for cornering and braking is completely different, and there’s no evidence that front drive provides any advantage in these areas during winter driving. Electronic stability-control systems make the most of the available grip regardless of which wheels are driven, but if you really want secure winter handling, you need to change to snow tires. Four snow tires will improve traction as well as braking and cornering grip to the point where the winter merits of front and rear drive are rendered irrelevant.

Once we get away from the slippery stuff, rear drive has traditionally displayed better handling because it splits the duties of steering, cornering, acceleration, and braking more equitably among the four tires.

During acceleration, for example, although front drive provides more traction the instant you press the throttle, that advantage diminishes as soon as the car begins to accelerate. This action is caused by the inertia of the car’s center of gravity that is about a foot and a half above the pavement. Commonly called “weight transfer,” this effect on an Acura TSX, which has about 60 percent of its weight on its front wheels when standing still, shifts more than 300 pounds from its front to its rear wheels under hard acceleration in first gear.

The BMW 325i, similar to the TSX in size and performance, has a nearly 50/50 weight split. When accelerating, it undergoes a similar front-to-rear load transfer. But whereas traction in the TSX decreases about 20 percent under hard acceleration, in the 325, it increases by a similar amount.

Under braking, a similar load shift occurs, only this time it’s from the rear tires toward the fronts. With a front-drive car, this means that during maximum braking the front tires might be doing more than 80 percent of the stopping. A more even distribution of braking force would be beneficial, which is why rear-heavy cars such as Porsche 911s always stop very well. Obviously, the forward weight bias of front-drive cars is not helpful.

Nor does it help in cornering, where an equal weight distribution works best. In fact, since so much cornering takes place in combination with some acceleration, a rearward weight bias is advantageous, particularly when combined with larger rear tires. A mid-engine layout provides this configuration, which is why it is chosen by all race-car builders when the rules permit.

Okay, most of us are not exploring limit handling on the street, but we’re all familiar with the many ways that applying power can corrupt the steering feel of front-drive cars. Torque steer is the classic problem, causing the steering wheel to twitch in your hands while the car pulls in one direction or the other when you press on the gas. Equal-length half-shafts going to the front wheels have largely eliminated this problem, but others remain.

During hard acceleration in the lower gears, front-drive cars often lose some directional stability and are easily deflected by bumps, dips, and crowns in the pavement. Rear-drive cars can fishtail when they lose traction, but front-drivers often “fishhead” under the same circumstances.

In corners, particularly slow ones, many front-drive cars lose self-centering under power. The driver can’t easily tell whether this is a front-drive effect or an impending loss of grip. In some cars, such as the Dodge SRT-4, you can let go of the wheel completely in midcorner under power and the steering wheel doesn’t move a degree. And when a limited-slip differential is employed in a front-driver, these effects are sometimes amplified as the diff decides which wheel to favor with power.

Despite these flaws, we’ve found many front-drive cars over the years with terrific handling. But this was years ago, when power was more scarce than it is today.

The first VW GTI sold in America—back in 1983—had all of 90 horsepower and needed 9.7 seconds to get to 60 mph. When Chevrolet introduced its front-drive Celebrity mid-size sedan in 1982, its most powerful engine was a 2.8-liter V-6 with 112 horsepower. That Celebrity replaced the rear-drive Malibu with a standard 3.8-liter V-6 making 110 horsepower. With only a piddling 112 horses, it didn’t matter which end of the Chevy was driven.

But today, Honda Accords and Nissan Altimas come with 240-hp V-6s, and 300-hp luxury sedans are everywhere. At these power levels, front-drive has reached the limit of its competence.

I don’t even want to think about driving a 340-hp Chrysler 300C Hemi V-8 delivering power through its front wheels. In the end, you can have either front drive or plenty of power. But you can’t have both.

ndabunka

1Sick - Bullshi...... Those guys are wrong as much as they are right. I think 320HP would be a nice FWD car. Maybe not the quickest of the line but once you get over 350HP, even the RWD will spin like a MOFO unless you "feather" it. I should know. I have a RWD CLK55 with 342HP and 376ft/lbs torque. Stock rears were 245 and spun. A number of use dropped 265's on there (as big as we could go in stock wheel wells). Still spun... So unless your ready to have a daily driver running drag radials, anything over 350HP is going to spin, spin, spin (with most drivers anyway). Give me 320HP in this vs. 90% of the idiots with 350HP spinning their wheels and let's see who gets to the end of the track first...IMHO

ravingstylez

you guys make me laugh....... go to ure local track and look at all the civics integras rsx's and s200 that are pushin 400 hp then come back. no shit the tires are gunna spin but in rwd that happens .. so wats the big deal i wuld much ratehr have tl with 340 hp that spins off the line than a stock one that doesnt in a race any day

1SICKLEX

CSABA CSERE is one of the most respected automotive jornalists on the planet.
And if FWD were so great with high horsepower, your very own ACURA RL would be FWD again instead of AWD next go round.

yield2s

Tats nise butt nun off tat stuf hellps 2 get 2 300hps, maker o faxt itts becuz uf thee oboved menthioned tat u kant eezally gett to 300hps

Aegir

Any car with this level of power demands a certain degree of respect and control. There are plenty of second-gen cars putting 300+ whp to the ground that are very fast and a lot of fun to drive. However, there are negative dynamics related to power application and steering in FWD that are not seen in RWD. Even at 'only' 270hp, I can push my car and experience this. It wouldn't stop me from adding a supercharger, but power/steering dynamics will get worse as power increases. Yes, it can be avoided by altering driving style and being 'smooth', but it's clear that many, including Honda, agree that FWD is not the preferred platform for higher power levels.

Aegir

No offense, but it took me five minute to decipher what you wrote. I only did it for the challenge.

PoochaKannInc

I only "tried" to read this because Aegir said he did it, so I knew it must be possible. Its been a long time since I've seen that many words misspelled in a row.

rynpamn21

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....HOW CAN WE GET THOSE 30 extra HORSIES?