TSX and RSX motor question
05-12-2003, 10:51 PM
#1
Cruisin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSX and RSX motor question
Doe the TSX basically have the rsx motor,but with bigger displacement and more torque? If not, what other differences are there? I did a quick search and found that the tsx is 2.4L while the rsx is 2.0L.
05-12-2003, 10:53 PM
#2
Cost Drivers!!!!
well people are doing swaps so i imagine the only difference is the block(place where displacement is). The head might be slightly different as the TSX might use different compression than the RSX.
05-13-2003, 12:46 PM
#5
Safety Car
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 3,644
Received 312 Likes
on
198 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
well people are doing swaps so i imagine the only difference is the block(place where displacement is). The head might be slightly different as the TSX might use different compression than the RSX.
well people are doing swaps so i imagine the only difference is the block(place where displacement is). The head might be slightly different as the TSX might use different compression than the RSX.
05-13-2003, 01:14 PM
#6
Drifting
Originally posted by IgNiTe
stroked as in more displacement?
stroked as in more displacement?
It is possible to change the bore to stroke ratio with out increasing or decreasing displacement, but this in most cases would be a waste of money.
05-13-2003, 01:55 PM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Age: 44
Posts: 6,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what are the torque figures of the 2.0 RSX-S motor???? the 2.4 TSX motor has the SAME HP as the 2.0...does it even have any more torque?? or what good is the extra .4 L anyways???
Trending Topics
05-13-2003, 02:00 PM
#8
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by jimcol711
what are the torque figures of the 2.0 RSX-S motor???? the 2.4 TSX motor has the SAME HP as the 2.0...does it even have any more torque?? or what good is the extra .4 L anyways???
what are the torque figures of the 2.0 RSX-S motor???? the 2.4 TSX motor has the SAME HP as the 2.0...does it even have any more torque?? or what good is the extra .4 L anyways???
05-13-2003, 02:01 PM
#9
4dr & I like it that way
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego
Age: 39
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22ft*lbs more torque, and the TSX has 90% of that torque from 2k-7k rpms i believe, not sure how flat the cure is on a RSX-S but i dont think its that flat
zapata - doesnt the rsx have 140 something?
zapata - doesnt the rsx have 140 something?
05-13-2003, 02:07 PM
#10
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by Davediego
22ft*lbs more torque, and the TSX has 90% of that torque from 2k-7k rpms i believe, not sure how flat the cure is on a RSX-S but i dont think its that flat
zapata - doesnt the rsx have 140 something?
22ft*lbs more torque, and the TSX has 90% of that torque from 2k-7k rpms i believe, not sure how flat the cure is on a RSX-S but i dont think its that flat
zapata - doesnt the rsx have 140 something?
141 ft-lbs. Thanks.....trq curve of the TSX is pretty much a flat line with a nice peak in the middle
05-13-2003, 02:26 PM
#12
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by jimcol711
youd think with an extra 400 cc they would be able to at least get that thing up to 220 hp....look at the S2000 for christs sakes....240!!!
youd think with an extra 400 cc they would be able to at least get that thing up to 220 hp....look at the S2000 for christs sakes....240!!!
s2k revs to 9000 RPM.
05-13-2003, 02:36 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Age: 44
Posts: 6,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i hope youre right zapata, it would be nice to see a TSX-S with 230 or more HP...maybe even that 3.0 v6 from the accord at 240 HP....if it wouldnt upset the weight balance and handling too much. a TSX with more juice would gain alot more respect than in its current form, im sure. i still love that interior, though, acura did their homework on the interior, for sure.
05-13-2003, 02:52 PM
#14
Cost Drivers!!!!
Can one of the mods move this to Car Talk?
just remember displacement increases usually show their greatest gains in trq not hp. Although there is usually SOME gain in HP I think engine dynamics might contribute to why we don't see a HP gain in the TSX. You can see the bore remains relatively the same but the stroke increases by 11mm because of the block....so that really don't tell you anything. Based on the information below the only thing which could explain less HP in the TSX is the lower compression. Of course you have ECU information which nobody here as access too.
RSX-S----------------------TSX
86 mm x 86 mm--- 87 mm x 99 mm
Displacement
122.1 cu. in. ---------- 143.6 cu. in.
Compression Ratio
11.0:1------------ 10.5:1
Anybody else care to elaborate? EricL, Scalbert, All_Motor, Jens, Siggy? anybody?
Originally posted by jimcol711
well i hope youre right zapata, it would be nice to see a TSX-S with 230 or more HP...maybe even that 3.0 v6 from the accord at 240 HP....if it wouldnt upset the weight balance and handling too much. a TSX with more juice would gain alot more respect than in its current form, im sure. i still love that interior, though, acura did their homework on the interior, for sure.
well i hope youre right zapata, it would be nice to see a TSX-S with 230 or more HP...maybe even that 3.0 v6 from the accord at 240 HP....if it wouldnt upset the weight balance and handling too much. a TSX with more juice would gain alot more respect than in its current form, im sure. i still love that interior, though, acura did their homework on the interior, for sure.
just remember displacement increases usually show their greatest gains in trq not hp. Although there is usually SOME gain in HP I think engine dynamics might contribute to why we don't see a HP gain in the TSX. You can see the bore remains relatively the same but the stroke increases by 11mm because of the block....so that really don't tell you anything. Based on the information below the only thing which could explain less HP in the TSX is the lower compression. Of course you have ECU information which nobody here as access too.
RSX-S----------------------TSX
86 mm x 86 mm--- 87 mm x 99 mm
Displacement
122.1 cu. in. ---------- 143.6 cu. in.
Compression Ratio
11.0:1------------ 10.5:1
Anybody else care to elaborate? EricL, Scalbert, All_Motor, Jens, Siggy? anybody?
05-13-2003, 03:25 PM
#15
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
You can see the bore remains relatively the same but the stroke increases by 11mm because of the block....so that really don't tell you anything.
You can see the bore remains relatively the same but the stroke increases by 11mm because of the block....so that really don't tell you anything.
It means the TSX's fairly undersquare K24 isn't going to approach the S2000's oversquare F20 (87mm bore x 84mm stroke) by means of astronomical revs. Maybe if you blueprint it, put in a forged crank, balance it, and put in some lightweight conrods + pistons. But the piston velocities will still be so high it'd be a timebomb. In terms of power-by-revs that Honda does the RSX's square K20 has more potential on paper.
Do remember that the F20 already has piston velocities that exceed some F1 engines.
Do remember that in order for the NSX's C32 to achieve an 8K redline, it's severely oversquare (93mm bore x 78mm stroke) with both aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
And consider that the C30 achieve a 7.5K redline with 90mm bore x 78mm stroke, also with aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
Honda engines are generally already free-breathing for production engines, so I don't know if there's anything to open up, especially from Honda's own point of view. It remains to be seen if the K24 (or even the K20) is strong enough to take any significant F/I.
05-13-2003, 03:35 PM
#16
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by DtEW
Actually, it tells you a lot.
It means the TSX's fairly undersquare K24 isn't going to approach the S2000's oversquare F20 (87mm bore x 84mm stroke) by means of astronomical revs. Maybe if you blueprint it, put in a forged crank, balance it, and put in some lightweight conrods + pistons. But the piston velocities will still be so high it'd be a timebomb. In terms of power-by-revs that Honda does the RSX's square K20 has more potential on paper.
Do remember that the F20 already has piston velocities that exceed some F1 engines.
Do remember that in order for the NSX's C32 to achieve an 8K redline, it's severely oversquare (93mm bore x 78mm stroke) with both aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
And consider that the C30 achieve a 7.5K redline with 90mm bore x 78mm stroke, also with aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
Honda engines are generally already free-breathing for production engines, so I don't know if there's anything to open up, especially from Honda's own point of view. It remains to be seen if the K24 (or even the K20) is strong enough to take any significant F/I.
Actually, it tells you a lot.
It means the TSX's fairly undersquare K24 isn't going to approach the S2000's oversquare F20 (87mm bore x 84mm stroke) by means of astronomical revs. Maybe if you blueprint it, put in a forged crank, balance it, and put in some lightweight conrods + pistons. But the piston velocities will still be so high it'd be a timebomb. In terms of power-by-revs that Honda does the RSX's square K20 has more potential on paper.
Do remember that the F20 already has piston velocities that exceed some F1 engines.
Do remember that in order for the NSX's C32 to achieve an 8K redline, it's severely oversquare (93mm bore x 78mm stroke) with both aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
And consider that the C30 achieve a 7.5K redline with 90mm bore x 78mm stroke, also with aluminum pistons and titanium conrods.
Honda engines are generally already free-breathing for production engines, so I don't know if there's anything to open up, especially from Honda's own point of view. It remains to be seen if the K24 (or even the K20) is strong enough to take any significant F/I.
Nice information but in terms of the TSX and RSX engine comparison
Could you comment on that 
05-13-2003, 04:02 PM
#17
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RSX's 86mm bore x 86mm stroke = 7.9K redline
TSX's 87mm bore x 99mm stroke = 7.1K redline
And going from a 10.5:1 to 11:1 doesn't net you much power, if this equation appies:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/crchange.html
2hp.
The K24 is really an engine built for as much torque as a 2.4 liter engine can possibly be good for. Honda knows the target market. But that makes it hard (if not outright impossible) to achieve power the way the S2000 does. So no "well why isn't it 220hp?" applies.
TSX's 87mm bore x 99mm stroke = 7.1K redline
And going from a 10.5:1 to 11:1 doesn't net you much power, if this equation appies:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/crchange.html
2hp.
The K24 is really an engine built for as much torque as a 2.4 liter engine can possibly be good for. Honda knows the target market. But that makes it hard (if not outright impossible) to achieve power the way the S2000 does. So no "well why isn't it 220hp?" applies.
05-13-2003, 04:24 PM
#18
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by DtEW
RSX's 86mm bore x 86mm stroke = 7.9K redline
TSX's 87mm bore x 99mm stroke = 7.1K redline
And going from a 10.5:1 to 11:1 doesn't net you much power, if this equation appies:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/crchange.html
2hp.
The K24 is really an engine built for as much torque as a 2.4 liter engine can possibly be good for. Honda knows the target market. But that makes it hard (if not outright impossible) to achieve power the way the S2000 does. So no "well why isn't it 220hp?" applies.
RSX's 86mm bore x 86mm stroke = 7.9K redline
TSX's 87mm bore x 99mm stroke = 7.1K redline
And going from a 10.5:1 to 11:1 doesn't net you much power, if this equation appies:
http://www.bgsoflex.com/crchange.html
2hp.
The K24 is really an engine built for as much torque as a 2.4 liter engine can possibly be good for. Honda knows the target market. But that makes it hard (if not outright impossible) to achieve power the way the S2000 does. So no "well why isn't it 220hp?" applies.
The redline is determined by the bore and stroke? I thought that was more of product of the ECU configuration.
05-13-2003, 04:26 PM
#19
Safety Car
The RSX head flows more than the TSX head... the RSX is a rev-happy motor... the TSX makes power lower in the rpm range... this is because of the unfavourable rod-ratio achieved with the 2.4L. Using the 2.4 block and the RSX head would get more hp, but the best way to go about this is to use custom rods/pistons.
05-13-2003, 04:29 PM
#20
Audi Driving Snob
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a few more notes... the tsx rev limiter cuts in at 7500rpm with torque starting to fall off after 6800 rpm..there m ight be a bit of room to tune the tsx motor to crank more HP by helping out the top end a bit. On a side note several tuners have noted on vtec.net that from their initial dynos the tsx seems underrated. They are guessing something like 210hp/175 lbft at the crank. The tsx will never be a rocket because of the weight....but i'm guessing a rsx with k24a2 swap would haul some major ass.
05-13-2003, 04:31 PM
#21
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
ah thanks! The redline is determined by the bore and stroke? I thought that was more of product of the ECU configuration.
ah thanks!
The redline is determined by the bore and stroke? I thought that was more of product of the ECU configuration.
05-13-2003, 04:34 PM
#22
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by DtEW
Well, the redline is partly determined by bore & stroke. Valve float is the other thing. You can program electronics to give you any redline, but the mechanical safety limitations determine what the manufacturer programs into the ECU.
Well, the redline is partly determined by bore & stroke. Valve float is the other thing. You can program electronics to give you any redline, but the mechanical safety limitations determine what the manufacturer programs into the ECU.
Ah ok I see what you were saying. I was thinking it might but wasn't sure.
05-13-2003, 04:38 PM
#23
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
correct sir 141 ft-lbs. Thanks.....
trq curve of the TSX is pretty much a flat line with a nice peak in the middle
correct sir
141 ft-lbs. Thanks.....trq curve of the TSX is pretty much a flat line with a nice peak in the middle
can you post the dyno, i haven't seen one on the boards yet.
05-13-2003, 04:53 PM
#24
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by heyitsme
can you post the dyno, i haven't seen one on the boards yet.
can you post the dyno, i haven't seen one on the boards yet.
This what honda/acura has. I have yet to see an owners dyno:
05-13-2003, 10:26 PM
#25
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 50
Posts: 4,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it with the dyno ... I have to tell you guys I have learned more about my engine in this one thread on a-cl.com that any other thread on other forums
The above torque curve is very evident when I drive my car ... this is the smoothest accelerating I4 that I have been in ... ever. This usually yields one of two comments "Is this an I6/V6?" or "This car feels slow" with the latter being an affect of no neck snapping turbo or even VTEC break point. I think feel is going to be deceiving in this car and I truly expect for this car to dyno better than expected (i.e. K24 is underated) and that is based on owning both the RSX-S and CL-S. I am probably wrong, but I really think my 6MT TSX could have kept up with my RSX-S in a straight line ... and if it falls short by .2 sec ... it does it with MUCH less of an effort (read - small V6-like).
For those who haven't test driven this car ... you should ... I just can not wait to see what Acura has in store for the TSX line (and TL line for that matter) over the next few years as my 3 year lease just gives me enough time to shop I am really hoping for this exact car (TSX) plus AWD and IMA to give a major 330i killer.
We'll see ... who knows .... but Acura is about to show some serious momentum with the TSX, then TL, then RL, then NSX !
The above torque curve is very evident when I drive my car ... this is the smoothest accelerating I4 that I have been in ... ever. This usually yields one of two comments "Is this an I6/V6?" or "This car feels slow" with the latter being an affect of no neck snapping turbo or even VTEC break point. I think feel is going to be deceiving in this car and I truly expect for this car to dyno better than expected (i.e. K24 is underated) and that is based on owning both the RSX-S and CL-S. I am probably wrong, but I really think my 6MT TSX could have kept up with my RSX-S in a straight line ... and if it falls short by .2 sec ... it does it with MUCH less of an effort (read - small V6-like).
For those who haven't test driven this car ... you should ... I just can not wait to see what Acura has in store for the TSX line (and TL line for that matter) over the next few years as my 3 year lease just gives me enough time to shop
I am really hoping for this exact car (TSX) plus AWD and IMA to give a major 330i killer.We'll see ... who knows .... but Acura is about to show some serious momentum with the TSX, then TL, then RL, then NSX !
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
divac
5G TLX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
16
08-29-2018 10:13 AM
DiamondJoeQuimby
Car Parts for Sale
1
09-10-2015 11:40 AM
