My TL was dyno'ed today at Church Automotive Testing in Torrance, CA. Church does a lot of development testing for Hondata and Temple of Vtec. See the attached results.

In a nutshell, the care dyno'ed at:
231 Horsepower (Max - SAE) @ 6321 RPM
210 lb-ft Torque (Max - SAE) @ 5303 RPM

Assuming 15% to 17% drivetrain losses (corrected):
265hp to 270hp @ 6,321 rpm
(270 hp @ 6200 RPM - manufacturer's data)
241 lb-ft to 245.7 lb-ft @ 5,303 RPM
(238 @ 5,000 rpm - manufacturer's data)

The other two runs (green and blue) were conducted after the car was already very hot from the first run. As you can see, the car loses quite a bit (5 to 10) horsepower and torque when hot.

 

I guess Acura is correct in their advertising. Wished Acura was wrong, and could have been higher.

 

yeah, i really thought this engine would be under-rated

 

Thanks for this. I always like to know if anyone would try dyno... if I'm in CA, I would have my 5AT for the test.

May I know why we lost more HP and torque when the car gets hot?

 

Am I missing somthing here? The red line on your chart which I presume to be your first run, indicates that you ran 215.82 ft/lbs torque, and 237.2 HP. Or are your figures 210/231 "corrected"?

 

Thanks for doing this, I think we were all hoping for a little more.

How many miles were on the car?

Thanks again for posting!

 

That's what we were thinking (and I was hoping!)

If anyone can host videos, I have one of it being dyno'ed.

 

Greenseed - It's because it's SAE corrected (temp, pressure and humidity)

need4spd - close to 3,000 miles.

 

The "other" car I want is an 04 350z touring 6sp and the HP rate from the factory is 287. Dynos show about 230 - 250 RWHP. This is from a 3.5 V6. Since the TL is a 3.2 V6 to me it says the TL is fairly higly tuned. I will wait to see what becomes available for any increases/engine mods. First mod will be Alpine Sport tires...

 

Yeah, but the 260hp CLS barely cracked 200, about the same as the 225hp BMW.

It was my premise from the beginning that all Acura did was provide bigger horses. The real dyno HP increase is a lot.

 

Remember that this car is pretty new. Hondas don't start to make their full potential until after 10,000 miles.

The S2000 especially is affected by this.

 

The type of dyno that Church Automotive uses generally reads about 10hp more than other dyno machines.

 

While those are good numbers I would suggest some caution. Dynapack dyno's will read 5-10 higher at the wheels than a typical Dynojet due to the dyno numbers being directly taken from the hub. This differs from a roller style dyno where the hp is taken from the tires. We all know how much wheels/tires weigh and how much force it takes to turn them, so you can see how this can equate to a couple extra hp on the Dynapack dyno over the more standard roller style dyno.

What really matters is trap speed, that will show whether or not the TL-6 has significantly more hp than say a CL-S6.

 

I can host it if u email it to ME

 

This is why we assumed a 15% to 17% loss. Also, I was told by Church Automotive that because the car has a limited slip differential, there are additional "minor" losses as compared to an open differential.

 

Honda traditionaly under rates, acura is right on the money. Marketing, marketing!! Who cares? The TL will blow the doors off the accord, that's good enough for me!

 

Thanks for the dyno. It's nice to know Acura is close or on the money for hp and torque ratings. I agree with Ken, though, that Hondas generally don't reach their full potential until 10k miles or so. I'm happy with these results.

 

No problem...

Also, as soon as I figure out a way to blur my license plate, I'll post the dyno video.

 

We promise not too look at the plate

Video editing anyone!!!!

 

Is it just me, or does it look like this new J32 engine might have LESS low-end torque than the J32A2 from the previous TL-S?



This Dynapack is showing about 205 fwtq at about 3500rpm. I agree that the Dynapack does read higher than the usual Dynojet, about 10 whp/wtq in this range. So correct that to about 195 fwtq @ 3500 as an estimation to what it would have on a Dynojet 248C. Now here's a stock CL-S 6spd dyno that I have...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...k_Astroboy.jpg

This was making 205 fwtq (peak torque) at only 3500 rpm. This is the same as this dynapack for the 04, but since the dynapack usually reads higher than a dynojet, this is what makes me think that there might be less low-end torque. Also you can tell from the curve shapes that the J32A2 makes peak torque very early on whereas (it's advertised at 232 lb-ft @ 3500) and this new engine seems to need to rev more to get fully spooled up. A little more torque possibly, but need to rev it up to 5k to get there?


The technical documentation on HondaNews.com for the 04 TL powertrain says the VTEC crossover is at 4700 rpm which I guess is the hump in the mid-4k range on this dyno. If that's the VTEC x-over though, I guess it must be a variable x-over VTEC and not a static one that's fixed to a certain RPM. The documentation doesn't state when exactly the variable intake manifold switches over, but I don't see any of the usual humps in the torque curve to indicate that it was switching here. You can see it very clearly at 3800 rpm on the J32A2 dyno, and then the little hump at 4800rpm is the VTEC x-over, again on the J32A2 dyno.

The manifold switchover usually causes a fairly large and noticeable dip in the torque curve, but aside from just some small curves below that mid-4k VTEC hump I really don't see anything. They look more like resonances (mild peaks and valleys) on whatever profile the manifold was on. Can you guys verify that the manifold is actually switching over? I remember back when the CL-S first came out that Honda did have some troubles with the actuators breaking.

I'd hate to think that Acura shifted the powerband up higher at the expense of some low-end because nearly 3600 lb cars need all the low-end that they can get, but that's what it's looking like right now to me at least.

 

Steve I owned both cars. My buttmeister measuring device clearly tells me that the new engine is much stronger throughout the RPM range. My 0-60 times (there's that damn measurement again) are quicker by at least one second without having to brutalize the drivetrain at all. As I've stated elswhere If you dont compare the cars back to back on the same machine on the same day, comparisons are cheap!

 

"one second faster"? lol

I could believe that if you have a 6MT and were comparing to a TL-S 5AT, but there's no way the new car is a whole second faster to 60 mph. The dyno doesn't lie. Based on this one, the torque curve shape is clearly a lot different, so I'm suspicious at this point. Plus you have new car bias as well.

I can't wait to see some more solid data for these cars ala more dynos (preferably dynojet) and track times.

 

I'll have my stock dyno info up here tonight along with my Injen Cold Air Intake system DYno as well...

So far we got 13hp out of the motor more with just teh intake placed in...

 

Here's a great article on Dyno'ing http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/...article-01.htm

It states that the Dynojet reads higher that other dyno's, so the difference between the Dynojet and the Dynapak may be less than some think.

Anyway, I think that we're splitting hairs here. The '04 TL is a great car and horsepower (and torque) is not the only measuremet of the cars performance.

 

Some tuner mag did a back to back single day dyno comparison on different machines awhile back with a stock 350z.

Dynapack: 249.4 rwhp, 242.8 rwtq
Dynojet: 235.8 rwhp, 227.8 rwtq

According to that, the Dynapack reads about 6% higher, and Jeff/Shawn over at VTEC.net also say that the dynapack reads higher than a Dynojet. Having looked at a lot of dynos for a lot of different cars, what I've seen backs that up also.

 

So what is your point....if the dynapack reads 6% higher does not mean is wrong.

the dynojet reads 6% lower does not mean is wrong.

So in conclussion, they are both right, because in their own way that is the way it is.

 

I'm saying that for the purposes of comparing this 04 TL dynapack dyno you to the CL-S6 dynojet dyno that I linked, you need to adjust the dynapack figures DOWN to compare more fairly, not up as someone else suggested. I'm not saying it's wrong either, but you do need to keep the playing field as level as possible when trying to compare this stuff with any sort of accuracy.

 

I do have a 6 spd (first one around, going on 6k miles!!!!!!!)
The autos feel pretty similar. My Tl'S couldn't pull less than 7sec even with torque braking. Consumers pulled a 6.7 with just stomping on the auto, therefore auto on auto is not a big difference but the manual is very different.

 

Well yeah, the manuals are lighter, have better gearing, and put more power to the ground than an autotragic does.

 

The new TL-6 is not a second faster than a TLS/CLS auto to 60 or in the quarter. There is no 13-second stock TL-6 but there are quite a few TLS/CLS in the 14.7-15.0 in the quarter. Its faster but not that much faster!

 

You are comparing an auto CLS to a TL-6. The CLS6 dynos closer to 215-225 fwhp on a dynojet so its pretty similar to the TL-6. My guess is that the auto TL would dyno around 200-205 on the dynojet and according to what others say about the dynopack probably about 210-220.

 

Why is blurring your tags a concern or important?

 

No reason in particular...I would just rather not. Why don't people use their first and last name for their screen name?

 

if nothing else u could just use microsoft paint to just put a big white block over the tags and stuff

 

I never got the whole "I want to hide my license plate" thing. For god's sake probably a thousand people a day see it if you drive alot. It's not like they can steal your SS# if they get your plate.

 

Getting your plate and a simple greasing of the palms of somebody at the DMV and you can pretty much find out everything about a person. Name, SS# even I bet, including where you live if they wanted to jack your car up and steal all of your mods. It's just a simple precaution to take. Why open yourself up to that if you don't need to.

If crap like that didn't actually happen, there would be no need to cover up your plates. But it does happen, unfortunately.

 

Video is from the back, but I'll wait to post it because of the issue with the plate. However, here's a Pic...

 

Here's another graph showing torque and air/fuel ratio.

 

Wow! They really are pushing the 3.2 to the limits!

An average of a 14:1 AFR at WOT is pretty crazy. A lot of other cars I've seen run in the 10-12 range on mostly non-performance cars. Very rich just to keep things safe. My buddies 330Ci 5mt was hitting somewhere in the mid-13 AFR range I think and he dynoed at 200 rwhp stock. That 3.0L engine is really tuned out also. This is a very aggressive tune by Acura from the factory, though. By far one of the most aggressive I've seen.

I don't know if the J32A3 still has an OBD-II system or if it's switched over to the CAN bus setup, but it'd also be interesting to see what the ignition timing curves look like also and see what sort of advance it's pulling with an OBD-II scanner. Both open-loop WOT and closed-loop operation during around town driving and such at less than full throttle.

 

wow, I'm shocked at how un-smooth the torque curve is compared to the cl-s 6 speed. acura sure can't claim a broad and flat torque curve for this TL