i disable it because all the cars i've been driving before have not had vsa

i'e not been able to be in a situation or driven to the point where it activates in on the TL and because of first sentence.

and given to more info i've read about the vsa it appears that turning it off for my driving style/habits will save me on brake wear

should i leave this on or off given what I am use to

 

Personally, I disable it every time I drive. But that is just me. I do, however leave it on in bad weather (ie: rain storms).
BTW does the VSA switch on the left side of the dash light up or stay lit when headlights are on? I just bought mine last week and noticed it is dark.

 

For the most part i leave mine on...its definately turned off when i line up against someone at a stoplight...Car is much faster especiallly shifting hard through the gears while the wheels break loose..When vsa is on and use try to shift hard between 1st and 2nd the computer will just slow the wheels down once it feels them breaking loose. Other than that i dont really mess with the vsa.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and say "all of them". The VSA ruins all the fun in this car!

 

i never leave it on...so much more fun to just let it rip when its off

 

I turn off VSA when the roads are dry and I'm not at highway speeds. One thing the original thread did not address is torque steer reduction (possibly because it wasn't introduced yet).

The computer will reduce your torque up to 27% to reduce torque steer. That's no fun! I wish I could program it to automatically turn back on above a certain speed because I greatly value the added safety it provides. You never know when you might have to suddenly swerve to avoid a collision, and VSA might give you just enough of an edge to avoid one.

Here's a little about the torque steer reduction. Search for the word "reduction."

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/ar...spx?id=2826-en

I also wish you could turn traction control on and off independently of VSC (stability control) and have torque steer reduction linked to the TC button. For normal driving, I would rather VSC be always active.

 

has anyone driven a tank of gas with or without vsa. Does it effect your mileage?

 

I'm not sure why there's so much misinformation out there.

Disengaging VSA:

Turns traction control off.

Turns stability assist off.

Disables torque reduction on whatever years have it.

Puts ABS into 3 channel mode.

It does not get rid of the ABS, no manufacturer would or could make ABS defeatable.

It works off of the existing ABS hardware along with a couple additional sensors. It modulates the throttle and brakes to bring the car back under control. If the rear end gets loose it can help catch a very small slide but anything major will be at the mercy of the driver's skill level since VSA can not turn the steering wheel and correct for you.

It does not affect ANYTHING during normal driving such as gas mileage. All VSA can do is control the throttle when it needs to and apply the ABS to any wheel individually, that's it.

If the car understeers it first lifts off the throttle for you and then brakes the inside front tire to try and keep the car on it's intended path.

If the car oversteers, it applies the front outside brake and I *think* the rear outside brake after the front is applied.

I forgot to turn it off a couple days ago and as I was making a turn at about 40mph it went sideways like it always does but then the appropriate brakes were applied and before it was all over with I was nearly sitting still, the VSA had helped ruin my slide and nearly stopped the car too. This is a turn I usually slide around with heavy throttle and the speed never dips below 40mph. It would have been embarrassing if anyone was around. It did do it's job. I've found that the best thing to do if you get into a little slide and the VSA really kicks in is nothing. It seems to not only try and stop the slide but if you're going reasonably slow it tries to point the car in the right direction with the brakes. Still though, VSA will not stop or even come close to stopping large slides without correct driver input. I've gotten used to the TL's system, I know not to correct as much when it slides and to lead the rear end a lot more than without the VSA.

Where VSA is worst is in a RWD car when you're sliding under power. When one of my friends first got his new at the time $200,000 Mercedes CL65 AMG he asked me to slide it. I asked if the stability control was off and he said it was. I was rolling about 40mph when I first took a turn and got on the twin turbo V12 hard. It had great response and the car got real sideways real quick which was the goal. What wasn't the goal was when I nearly slammed it into a light pole because the ECU let completely off the gas while I had the steering at full lock in the other direction and it was all I could do to straighten the wheel up quick enough to avoid over-correcting and sliding in the other direction. Apparently the traction control was not completely disabled. I've run into this with the TL but the slides are rarely as intense and I usually remember to turn the VSA off when I know I'm going to slide it.

I see the value in these systems for the average driver because I've seen so many times a tiny little slide, more like a little twitch from the rear end that the driver causes to become a huge slide and eventually spinning because they have no idea what they're doing. For someone that knows how to drive, these systems usually hinder performance. I like going sideways and I'm comfortable doing so, I've owned a fast RWD car since '94 my junior year in highschool with cable throttle, no ABS, no stability control, and no traction control. It's a hell of a lot more fun to drive because it does exactly what you tell it to do no matter how stupid it may be lol.

For what it's worth, the ABS seems to be a little more aggressive in 3 channel mode but I can't find any measured stops in 4 channel vs 3 channel, maybe I never measured them.

One other thing, I've seen the importance of keeping brake bias the same as stock. The VSA does a MUCH better job at stabilizing the car now that I have the Stoptech BBK which has near stock brake bias vs when I had the Rotora BBK that was very front heavy. With the Rotoras, the ABS was way too conservative and the VSA hardly worked at all.

 

Thanks for the info.

Could you explain a little more about 3-channel vs. 4-channel ABS? I'd like to learn more about this.

Since torque steer reduction is linked to the VSA button, it could theoretically affect gas mileage but the effects are probably insignificant. Reducing the torque for a few seconds probably won't affect anything that much. In fact, there are opposing effects that could theoretically cancel each other out (such as decreased fuel efficiency due to part-throttle vs. reduced fuel consumption due to less throttle).

Can they not make ABS defeatable because of law or something? I've read about a horror story where it took someone forever to stop on a gravel shoulder. If the wheels locked, the tires would have dug into the gravel and stopped the car in less distance. But for most people, I see no reason to disable ABS.

 

what people see
1. VSA limits engine power
2. VSA don't let you slide
3. VSA hinders performance unless you're a good driver.

what people think
1. power? the more the better.
-not unless you get it to the ground
2. I can control slide. I've pulled the E-brake a few times in snow.
- lol no comment
3. I'm a good driver
- lolol no comment

conclusion : hit VSA button to turn it off = hit Ctrl for NoS

^ what i've been told when i asked people what they think about stability control systems.

 

Lol. Very true.

 

I like to turn it off when the roads are wet, and I'm driving through an industrial park I often drive through. I can be going 25mph in 3rd, and floor it and I'll break the tires loose. That probably says more though about how bald my tires are.

 

I always turn mine off. It's off before the car moves.

 

Not trying to be rude or start anything, but if you're worried about spinning tires when accelerating, you arent driving for gas mileage IMO. If your referring to daily driving the car and driving it to get the best gas milege you can (as I do everyday) I have yet to have mine engage, I can't imagine it would make any difference at all.


Though I have been wrong in the past.

 

I don't understand the appeal of turning VSA off. Especially every time you drive the car. I find it to be helpful to avoid wheel spin, especially with very little traction on snow covered roads.

The only thing I don't like about it, is how it's willing to stall the engine to avoid wheel spin. I don't find it to be a big limitation to me getting up a steep snow covered driveway with summer tires, but I did have the car stall before with my foot to the floor. Obviously this is with a 6MT.

It allows enough wheel spin for me not to feel its drastically limiting traction, and its responsive enough that I don't feel the need to turn it off unless I'm trying to do something stupid. With it off, it usually just results in wheel hop, or rev limiter.

It's a slow family sedan, not a race car. If the car made enough power to do rolling heaters, I could see the appeal. However, it's not going to do that unless you're into redline clutch dumps.

 

^ I feel the same way. Though mine is a base 5at, so I dont have the "pleasures" of dumping the clutch in it. Ive got another to beat the shit out of when need be lol.

 

Yeah, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds what a slow car.

 

Now you're getting it.

 

I've got to agree its not a fast car. I'm so tired of the lack of power I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a new daily. I miss being able to get out in front if traffic with 1/4 throttle and never breaking 2,900rpm
I'm guessing only a handful of people in this board can replicate that 5.9 second 0-60.

 

Irrespective of who and how many people actually could do 0-60 under 6 seconds. How many E90 M3 owners could do 0-60 in the 4.2 seconds that it can do it in? So, does that make it a "slow family sedan"?

 

It's still slow even with the "good" 0-60 time. To put it in perspective, my old car did 0-60 in 4.9 seconds in '86, 4.6 seconds in '87 on old skinny tires. There are many cars capable of besting the TL. If you consider cars like Camrys, Altimas, Maximas, etc a good race you're not fast. I'm almost resentful that if I want to get around a mom in a minivan with a lead foot I have to go nearly full throttle to get around. I had a chick in a new Camaro steal a lane from me and there's nothing I could do. No more TL for me, I want my 600lbs of torque back.

The TL is peppy for what it is but it's far from fast.

 

I agree it's not fast, but it definitely isn't "slow" either. I'd agree it's peppy, and the manuals handle and brake well with the Brembo's. I mean it performs the same if not better than a BMW 330i zhp, which is the "competition package".

 

The handling is great. Honda has always been the best in designing FWD suspensions. All it takes is springs and shocks and swaybars geared more toward high performance but the geometry works well. The autos brake just as quickly as the Brembos but will fade sooner.

You probably wouldn't believe the cars I've outrun at Willow with just a decent set of tires, swaybars, and aspec springs, cars way out of our class.

But in a straight line it's a let down and straight line acceleration is the arena you can exploit the most on the street without being a total menace to society. I miss the quick 2.5 second squirts to 60mph to get out in front of traffic and then cruising. I hate that the TL requires so much throttle and it seems so high strung, always around 5,000rpm in order to do what I want it to do. I miss beating people at 1/4 throttle that I didn't even know were racing me. I'm keeping the TL as an out of town car and a back up car and as a classy nice car to take people out in but I just can't put up with this lack of acceleration anymore, especially with how quick everything has gotten lately.

 

Yeah, Honda's always did lack low end grunt, and you're absolutely right about everything else getting quicker. Hell, the new Kia Optima has like 276hp and pretty much the same 0-60 as the TL. Only problem is that they're only available in automatic. That's why my next car is going to be either an e90 335, or an F30 335. You can't go wrong with a 6 speed and rear wheel drive.

 

Hand picking the best 0-60 times with professional drivers under ideal conditions is a bit unrealistic. Most people don't have the traction or knowhow to accomplish those times, especially in a FWD car. Sure, 6MT's can be faster, but you need to kinda beat up the car to get the best times. I don't see the appeal of that to shave off a few decimal seconds in a slow daily driver.

Didn't you ever watch the fast and the furious? Cars don't get 'fast' until they run the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds or less.

 

So, "I hate cars" his 84 GN 602rwhp 620lbs, is slow because it doesn't run 10 seconds or less 1/4 mile it does it in only 10.6?

 

This made me actually LOL thanks for the morning laugh.

 

I don't want to deviate this topic more than it has been, BUT I have to say that the TL is NOT a slow family sedan. The previous gen Ford Taurus (non-SHO) was a snooze-fest. The Toyota Camry is a slug-fest, and the Dodge Charger (non-RT) is a slow dog. Even driving a Honda Civic now is like going into a coma!
I have raced professionally for 15 years, and also a driving instructor for several clubs (BMW, Porsche and Ferrari), and I have to say I am impressed with the TL's performance in general. Remember, production cars, for the most part, are built for the 90% of the general public. Not the less than 10% of us performance drivers (or the even more who THINK they are!). Does our gen TL need more power? Personally I'd love to see 300+ HP, and that is easily attainable if you want it.
Speed/ performance is all relative. They guy with the 2013 M3 thinks your TL is slow while the kid in the 2013 Civic Si thinks your TL is a rocket ship! Obviously none of us would be here if we really thought this car was hopeless. So just do a search for whatever ills ya, then make the changes that fits your personal driving style.

 

If a Camry or a common truck like a Tundra is a close race, you're driving a slow car. If its taken in the context of a grocery getter with decent power it's fine but I would never take the TL out looking to race people because anything it can beat is slow and you're going to get beat by anything halfway serious. I hate the power delivery, how it has to wind out to make any appreciable power. I like being able to make cars look like they slammed on the brakes with 1/4 throttle and never going above 2,800 rpm. It's so much more relaxed and effortless than having to dip in to 3/4 throttle and 5,500rpm to scoot ahead in traffic.

 

Great discussion, I see the TL as a filling the niche of a classy, sporty, luxury sedan for grownups.

It's not designed to be a sports car (=2 seats + rear wheel drive. Nor does it try to be a BMW high performance sedan beater (=RWD + high torque + unbreakable autoban engine). It's certainly not supposed to be a muscle car (huge high torque engine, RWD, simple straight-line oriented suspension).

The beauty of the TL is that is does so many things well--it is versatile as an enjoyable daily driver. The pure performance downside of its front wheel drive are offset for the majority of us who have to periodically go in the snow (where high performance RWD cars won't go). It doesn't have the torque of a 6 Liter hemi, but it also doesn't get 12 miles to the gallon, and scream "hey everybody, look at me!"

It's all a matter of choices and compromises. And different strokes for different folks...

 

Love my TL Type S as a daily car. Not the fastest but not the slowest car either. Glad I still have my other cars to drive if i need my fill for speed.

 

Mine gets 13mpg. High performance RWD cars will do fine in the snow depending on the tires and the car. Straight line suspension is far from simple. The TL's engine is actually more "unbreakable" than most engines you'll find in a Bimmer.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the TL, it does do a lot of things very well. Back when I bought mine in Dec of '05 it really stood at during that time period. It had more power than just about anything in it's class. It's styling and especially the interior was far superior to anything even close to that price range. The tech (navi, BT, HFL, etc) was great for it's day and even the HIDs were very rare and people thought they were neat. People thought the voice commands were so cool and people would look at me funny when I was on BT because it wasn't common and it looked like I was talking to myself.

I remember my first impressions when driving one. Great on center steering feel. Taught suspension for a near luxury car. Good behavior at the limit. People always gave it compliments, even BMW owners. I was single at the time and the girls really liked it, many thought it was a Lexus. I pulled up at a bar one time and had my windows down in Jan of '06 when it was only a month old and several chicks stopped me as I walked in and made comments about the car. When I first pulled up, some white-trash-hot girls made a comment about finally some guys with money show up. It was a dirty redneck bar but they never made comments about my GN lol. Just an all around nice car that did a lot of things very well.

Mine still looks great and has been extremely reliable. I try to stay on it, keeping it looking new. My only real complaint is the engine. The engine itself is great. No flaws such as blown headgaskets, coolant leaking past the intake manifold gaskets, sludge, valvetrain problems, piston slap, etc. I just don't like the way the power is delivered. In the beginning it wasn't a problem but over the years I've gotten annoyed at the power level. Not even so much the FWD since I have no intentions of drag racing it, I just wish it had a little more down low and a little more everywhere. Part of this is the fact that all cars are getting quicker. Back in '06 there was a big difference in power levels of all cars. The V6 Mustangs were a joke against the TL. The GTs from a few years back were slower than the TL. Every 3 series BMW was considerably slower besides the M cars.

My city has changed a lot as well, maybe that's part of the reason the power level bothers me. Everything was so relaxed back when I bought the car and I could just cruise from place to place but now everyone drives like they're racing and if I drive somewhat sane, I'm holding people up. Now that I accelerate quicker just to avoid holding up traffic I'm more aware of it's shortcomings. It used to be either cruising 99% of the time or full throttle screwing around, none of this 1/2-3/4 throttle and 5,500rpm just to keep up with everyday traffic.

I still like the car a lot. I'm extremely happy with my choice to buy the TL as my first new car and I'll never sell it. It still looks like a new car and I'm always surprised at just how good it looks when I see my fiancee drive it. It's a very classy design that will likely never look outdated. I see these cars being highly desirable in another 10-20 years. I need more power unfortunately.

 

Stock to stock, a V6 Camry will walk all over a base 3G 5AT TL. Toyota/Lexus has been doing automatic transmissions way better than Honda/Acura for a long time, not to mention the Camry's 10-13 horsepower stronger and ~ 180 lbs lighter than the 5AT TL. I think Honda's new 6AT is going to turn out to be a vast improvement. And in terms of speed, a Civic SI is going to stay pretty close to a 5AT TL, where as an E9x M3 is going to pull tractor trailers on both of them. You're talking two mid 90 mph trapping cars and one 112 mph car.
It's all relative. You're used to a 125+ mph car, so any TL is going to feel crazy slow to you. Someone who has driven nothing but econo-boxes his whole life and then gets into a TL is going to think he's John Force. I've driven a couple of 110-115 mph cars which is about par for an average sports car these days, and those would feel slow if I jumped in your GN right after driving them.

 

You also have to realize the 3g TL is 10 years old compare that to a 04 Camry that dooes 0-60 in 7.9 seconds, and a 14 year old S2000 does0 -60 in 5.7 seconds.

 

Some 10 seconds cars aren't even fast imo. Went to the dragway in Charlotte over the weekend and there were plenty of 10 sec cars running 118-122mph. A Stock Z06 will run a slower 11.6-8 but at 125mph. That corvette would rape that drag car from a roll.

 

I'm even with traffic and I shift at 2-2.5k. You guys must be in a hurry lol.

 

The five McLaren F1 cars that were built to commemorate their winning the 24hrs of Le Mans, and the other four cars that also finished. Only does the 1/4 mile in over 11 seconds, but it can go from a 0 to 100mph back to 0 in 11.1 seconds. It can also go from 40mph to 110mph in 4th gear in 2.1 seconds. What a slow ass POS

How did drag racing become the only standard for a car being fast. I consider a car fast that can set lap records at the Nordschleife or any other track that isn't straight or all left turns. If you've ever watched TopGear UK you saw the McLaren MP4-12C beat a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport that had nearly twice the horsepower.

 

We both agree. What i was getting at is the drag car has an awesome 60' / 0-60 but after that they are just meh.

 

All 10 second cars are fast and you're not going to find a 10 second car trapping 118 unless they let off the throttle or are having problems. 118 feels fast. 125-ish usually scares people even people who think they know what fast is. I've taken co-workers for rides in mine before (to it's credit it should be trapping 135-136mph now) and I'll go under a couple psi of boost to warm things up before I go to full power and I've had people get scared from that. At full throttle I've had grown men screaming like little girls and telling me to let of before we've broken any laws yet. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and say a 10 second car isn't quick but go for a ride in one or own one and your opinion will quickly change.

I don't know about the ratings and what you've seen but we took out a cammed Z06 about a year ago in my friend's GN that was on the factory longblock, just bolt ons. That was not a 125-130mph car.

I also took down a ZR1 a couple years ago badly.

People drive fast around here. The point being, I shouldn't have to go nearly full throttle to get around a minivan even if they have the pedal to the floor. The TL just isn't fast.
Because drag racing is something everyone can do on the street and it shows acceleration capability. You're not going to be sliding around corners or brake checking people on the street but most people want to feel that push back in the seat. I've come to learn over the years that people who talk down on drag racing usually own slow cars. We drive our cars on the street, acceleration is easy and somewhat safe to exploit on the drive from work. Cornering at the limit isn't.

The McLaren is an awesome car, one of my favorite of all time. However, line it up next to my GN at a redlight and it's game over for the McLaren. It allows poor people like myself to have a little fun.

Acceleration in top gear is used to show how tractable the car is. No one races in top gear. It gives an idea of power delivery. Put the Corvette's top gear ratio in a Mclaren and that acceleration figure will triple (3x slower).
Says who? Would you like to race my car from a 60mph roll? I guarantee 99% of the members here if they were put in my GN and told to floor it all the way at 70mph in a straight line they would total it. I have the data logs showing the GN accelerates from 120-130mph quicker than the Tl can go 0-10mph. 0-60 is just a measure of traction in a quick car. It still has sickening acceleration at 120mph. On regular street tires it's still trying to spin the tires. It's a handful to drive, it takes skill and it's an E ticket ride. It doesn't run a 2 second 0-60 and then fall on it's face. Same with any other car that traps in the 130s.

About trap speed vs ET. I care about getting to the finish line first, not who is going faster when we get there. I don't believe in excuses and losing a race but bragging you have a higher trap speed is an excuse. No one wants to have to drive their car, they want to go from a roll and let the car do all of the work. I'm sick of people always wanting to race me from a roll. I have more power and I'm the one having to keep the car on the road but I can drive the car. Setting up a race from a roll on purpose, other than a random street encounter is retarded and it's for those who can't drive and whose cars suck off the start. It would be like asking me to turn my boost down on a roll race.

To recap, until you've been out there and done it you don't know what goes on, on the street, the dynamics, the feeling, and what works and what doesn't work on the street under sub-optimal conditions. Magazines are one thing but I've beaten too many cars and bikes too many times that are "rated" as being faster than me. 1/4 ET and mph give an indication of it's traction level, power, and power delivery. It is VERY important on the street. I love the quick 1-2 second squirts that leave everyone in the rearview and make my head spin. I can do this safely and I can do it a lot. Most races on the street are 0-60 or there abouts. I want the car that not only has power but can put it down. MPH is nice but it's who can get there first that wins the race.

Why do you guys get so butthurt. The Tl is slow period. The Mclaren, Z06, and Veyron are quick. EVERY 10 second car is very quick and most of you would piss yourself if you got a ride in one. The only ones saying they're a POS is you guys. Grow up.

 

the TL is my race car