F23A4

Thank you.
#kidsthesedays

Saintor

Prove it. The "295lb/ft of torque at 1600rpm right up to 5200rpm" is good for test benches, but rarely conclusive for acceleration. I don't think that the Q50S 3.0TT is even doing 0.5s quicker on both 0-60/5-60 than the NA 3.7. Finally even fuel economy is not better.

If Acura had done what Infiniti did with that 3.0Toy 300HP, Acurazine would have imploded.

Bo_Darville

Infiniti Q50 Signature Edition Pairs Twin-Turbo V-6 Power with Sub-$40K Price

BlackTLXadvance

I've got no problems with people having a positive outlook on their cars. What I do have a problem with is Acura, instead of fixing what they need to fix they mask it by changing how it looks. The drive train remains unchanged for the V6.

Go ahead and ban me, I don't need a vacation here. Trading this POS in anyway for a Lexus. How's that for positive thoughts?

BlackTLXadvance

#kidsusehashtags

kurtatx

I don't love or hate the TLX, but this is a bit aggressive for me. I completely understand buying an Acura. I cross-shopped my TSX with Accords, Mazdas. I moved on, but I would choose a I4 TLX if I were still at that point in my life. It's a good, solid car with the right amount of style and tech for a certain group of people.

My Acura problem has been and has continued to be the poor marketing effort, the lack of true performance models, and the lack of engine innovations coming from them. If you're cross shopping Hondas, Acuras, and Mazdas, Acura stands out, but once you start bringing in other premium models, you hit a point where the other competitors are just better.

Kense

You are wrong. There's a forum for this. Go ask the owners. The car was dyno'd and is very underatted as most F.I. cars often are. The 3.7. Is much slower than the Silver sport. It's a fact.

Rae Rad

Seriously??... You wrote "kids use hashtags" while writing it in a hashtag yourself?



I had a 2016 V6 tech as a loaner last year while my 2.4 tech was getting a snow tire change over and an oil change. I did not witness any transmission jerks at all. It was a smooth ride for the entire day. I took it for a long drive to the city which is a lil over 80 miles away( loaners don't have any mileage restrictions so I took advantage to take care of a few things in the city to save miles on my car) I heard so many stories of the transmission on the V6 so I was sure to pay extra attention to it during my drive. I have no complaints about the loaner. Its was smooth

steve_97060

you sure told them..

BlackTLXadvance

thats the problem with Acura as a whole. They don't listen to their customers. I see that as a huge problem if you and me would rather drive a V4 over their V6 line. Their V6 should be the one we want but it isn't, am I the only one who sees a problem with this? That the V4 is more fun.

Acura is Honda's Luxery line, should not be compared with Honda itself or Mazda which is not a luxury line. Nobody compares Toyota with Lexus. We have higher expectations once we buy into that level.

They can develop a better transmission for the V6, they did with the V4 and NSX. What's their excuse, $$$.

The refresh

The refresh on how it looks is subjective, whatever the refresh isn't impressive. Apple car play should have been there long ago, they are just catching up. Accords had it years before them. Didn't Civics get it before them?

You can say I'm bitching or complaining or whatever, I know if they did what we really want on these forums these cars would the best...but like I said they don't listen and many of us including myself will jump ship.

How does this sound, a transmission like the NSX 9Speed DCT with a turbo added to the V6. How's that for a type S. Yeah keep dreaming, Acura doesn't innovate anymore. They aren't Advanced anymore.

Instead they do shit like do cosmetic changes and call it A-Spec. They act like we don't want a car with more balls.

alpha2beta

V4? don't you mean I4.

Saintor

No I am not. The burden is on you to prove your point (that YOU brought up) from a reputed source, not kids in garage . In the meantime, HERE is what the 3.7 328HP could do (5.60 in 5.3s is awesome).

wlkeel

Another thread gone down the tubes. Too bad.

BEAR-AvHistory

0-60 in 4.9 & 1/4 mile in 13.5 @ 104 is not to shabby; neither is 0.95G on the skid pad. $51K MSRP should put it in the mid $40's after negotiation. Would rate it a good price/performance car.

Kense

"Kids in a garage", is that supposed to be an insult? Not many "kids" can afford a 50K car. Second of all, are you having trouble reading because that clearly shows the 3.7 doing 4.9 0 to 60. Considering the Silver Sport puts out 300 HP TO THE WHEELS and has been tested by people who actually have the car doing 4.8 0-60 times. I'm not sure what you're reading or where you're getting that 5.6 0 to 60 time. Are you even reading the crap you're sending?

Saintor

Where did you take that 5.6? I wrote 5.3s for the 5-60mph as taken from the link I provided. It also mentions 0-60 in 4.9s. I don't see the 3.0TT 300HP doing really better. If I am wrong, bring the data from a reputed source. Couldn't care less about anecdotes and people's assumptions just because they automatically interpret a wider curve of torque. That's not the way it works,

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Thank you. That's a decent addition.

I haven't seen any reputable test of the non red sport Q50 3.0T. Would love to know what it can do under the hands of Car and Driver and/or Motor Trend.

pyrodan007

Makes me laugh all these performance numbers from much more powerful engines being thrown yet the reason why most buy TLX is bang for buck.

I changed my winter tires over the weekend. The amount of rust that's forming is pathetic compared to my 12 TL. You can clearly see where they cut corners. I also got a software update for the transmission during my oil change last week. No idea which version, no notes from tech (took 0.3 hrs so something was done). Feels better but hardness is still present, hesitation still present.

It makes me laugh that I keep on switching between getting aspec this summer or dumping Acura once and for all. Same for forum, people either love or hate the TLX.

With all the massive discounts happening, Acura's once legendary resale value is no longer holding ground. If many get big discounts, no way it can be worth as much compared to TLs of same age, relatively speaking.

quantum7

^^^ wait....the transmission still hesitates???? I thought that it was fixed in 2016. I remember someone saying on this forum that only the 2015 had transmission issues but the software fixed it and that all of the cars were perfect now. Do you have a 2015/2016/2017?

pyrodan007

2015 SH-AWD Advanced, just noticed my signature is not there. It does feel different, but not to the point where I can say it's solved. Curious to see how if feels on the aspec.

On a side note Redline Review just posted a new vid about the aspec (and it's the blue we all want lol):

TacoBello

That's exactly how it works.

Dynos don't generally lie. They may over or underestimate power, but how the power is put down is not a lie. That's exactly what is being read at the wheels. Sorry, but a TLX, at the very most, is only putting down 260hp to the wheels. Likely a bit less. Argue it all you want. Science doesn't care if you believe in it, or not.

There is no point in providing additional proof, Because as always, you'll refute it no matter what. In addition, no one owes you anything here.

It's proven with thousands of dyno charts that a turbo engine puts all of its torque down way before any larger displacement NA engine can. I really see no point in providing more dynos. You won't believe them anyway. It makes sense though. An NA engine needs to climb in rpm and suck a good amount of air in to be able to reach peak torque. The beauty of forced induction is that air is being rammed in to the combustion chambers at relatively low rpm. I don't understand how you can refute that.

Also, horsepower is a calculation based on torque. HP = (RPM x Torque)/ 5252

This again, is proven by science and used by all auto manufacturers. That being said, an NA engine has so much HP, based on its torque curve. A Honda engine can keep making HP into the high revs, but that's simply due to- you got it- the high revs, as by about ~4500-5000rpm, torque starts to drop. On the other hand, a turbo engine has linear torque generally from about 1500-5000rpm and power gains are much larger off the line. After 5000rpm, the torque starts to drop also, but not nearly as quickly as an NA engine, thereby allowing manufacturers to squeeze much more power out of their engines. This is also why you don't generally see high revving turbo engines. There's no need for it.

Once again, you may refute science all you want. Unfortunately, science doesn't care if you believe in it or not.

Rocket_man

My experience with the software updates is that any improvement seems to be gone in 500 miles. When I first got the car it tended to lunge forward when I came to a stop. That is about the only thing the software updates have fixed for me. (yes I have a 2015). There are some nice things to like about this car but the transmission is a deal breaker and the way Acura handled it is another deal breaker for the brand itself. I still like the idea behind Acura, but their execution both in their cars and their corporate culture are not in alignment. So will I ever buy another Acura? I don't know, but if I did I'd have to hold back a ton of ill will and I'd have to get a deal I couldn't refuse. And yes, when I go to sell the one I have I may take a bath. Or maybe Saintor will buy it from me. Apparently it is a great car and there is nothing wrong with it.

Or perhaps I should be banned until my opinion improves?

BlackTLXadvance

i know exactly how you feel, have the same problems you do and how Acura is structured. My car still lurches forward before a complete stop sometimes. Acura dealerships and client relations says this is normal. That's pretty messed up if that's "normal". its gotten to a point it's second nature to press on the break harder to make sure I stop...makes my head jerk a bit, every time my head jerk it's like the car is pushing me in my head reminding me how messed up the transmission is. makes me say f**k sometimes.

Its like you said though, they will have to do a lot and I mean a lot to make me ever come back to Acura.

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree with Taco you can play all kinds of games reading typical chassis dynos because of the way the are run. This is a BMW440 before & after the MPPK/MPE option was installed.


First thing you see is the peak torque reading of 370ft lbs around 3700 rpm. So it looks like there is zip torque below that because there is only 150/175 ft lbs at 2700 rpm. So someone will try to make a case that a turbo is ineffective. What you are actually seeing is a function of the way a dyno run is conducted.

The car is strapped down hooked up electrically to measure RPM etc the started. The car is advanced through the gears till it hits the 1:1 ratio. Depending on the transmission that could typically be 4TH, 5TH, 6TH. At about 2700rpm in the 1:1 ratio the throttle is floored & held down till red line & released.

This process will give max horsepower to the wheels, maximum torque & plot the power curve. What is not shown because its not measured is the available torque of a turbo engine at WOT off idle. A turbo will generally hold 90% of its torque from 1200rpm on up till it decays to the crossover point where horsepower starts to exceed torque. The crossover point is always 5,252 rpm.

The high almost instantaneous torque of a turbo engine is why they are so quick out of a light or 0-60 even when their horsepower ratings are not all that high. Then in the case of the Germans they typically grossly underrate their engines. The B58 engine on the dyno is factory rated at 326 stock & 355 MPPK/MPE at the crank horsepower.

Depending on the frictional/rotational losses from the crank the true crank horsepower rating of this engine is 10/15% higher than the wheel rating. At 10% the crank horsepower is 364 & 404. That's why they will run a 1/4 mile in the 12 second range & to 60 in the low 4's.

Kense

LOL thank you for saving me the trouble. I clearly said people have been running 4.8s with the more powerful silver sport, then he posts an article showing the 3.7 runs a 4.9 , a car that puts out about 270 hp to the wheels and much less torque. Yet he refuses to believe a car putting out over 300 hp and over 300 pounds of torque to the wheels can run .1 second better. LOL SMFH

Saintor

That is a low of wishful thinking, not much else. You and Kense can continue to ass-ume; all the theory in the world means not much if real-world results say otherwise, so simple. Save yourself a lot of typing by just bringing what I asked, Real-world always wins.

Not what I said, BTW. TWO turbos to gain of 0.1s? Thank you for proving my point.

Kense

That IS what you said, and what point was proven? It's brand new engine, there is no more VQ going forward, you get more power with better fuel economy. if you want to be in the Low 4's get the Red Sport. Take off the garbage run flats that come with the cars and you're going to be running better times.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I think there's some misunderstanding of what Saintor's said. He said,

"Prove it. The "295lb/ft of torque at 1600rpm right up to 5200rpm" is good for test benches, but rarely conclusive for acceleration."

I don't think he's arguing that having low end torque is useless. He's saying that having a lot of low end torque does not automatically mean it's gonna accelerate fast. If it is, then the BMW 335d should be much faster than the BMW 335i. The thing is, with modern boosted engines, manufacturers set their ecu so that the peak torque is LIMITED and stays the same through out. What this means is that, the car would still feel very lively in low rpm because of all that torque, and likely to feel more lively than a NA engine with the same horsepower rating. But as the S2000 has shown us, even if you don't make a whole of torque at low rpm, you can still get decent acceleration, and it's hp that determines how fast a car can accelerate.

As you mentioned, hp is a function of torque, so, you NEED torque to get hp.

Again, the torque curves gives you an idea how the engine would feel when you are driving it. With something like the Q50 silver sport, or any modern turbocharged cars, you don't need to be shifting constantly to get moving. In fact, shifting to a lower gear might not help that much. Whereas in a car like the S2000, if you don't always keep the engine in high rpm, you will be going nowhere fast. But ultimate, the S2000 can still accelerate like any other cars with 240hp at 2800lb.

So your comment,"Honda engine can keep making HP into the high revs, but that's simply due to- you got it- the high revs, as by about ~4500-5000rpm, torque starts to drop," is not 100% correct. Honda NA engines can make hp into the high revs because even at those high revs, the engine is still sustaining the torque output - not dropping. In the case of the S2000, the torque actually GOES up once it's at 6000rpm or so, and maintains it all the way to 9000rpm.

So here's an example, if the torque of the S2000 starts to drop at 6000rpm, say, just 120lbft by 8500rpm, the horsepower would be: (8500RPM x 120lbft)/ 5252 = 194hp@8500rpm

On the other hand, if the S2000 maintains 150lbft at 8500rpm, we would have (8500rpm x 150lbft)/5252 = 243hp

The S2000 is an extreme example, but if you look at a non high revving NA k24, or J35, a similar trend can be seen - that the torque curve is quite flat and doesn't start dropping off until 5500rpm or so.They might not make peak torque from 1500-5000rpm, but they still maintain 90% peak torque from 2000rpm to 6000rpm or so.

Also, most modern turbocharged cars have small turbochargers. They are good for minimizing lag, and more importantly for this discussion, are designed with making peak torque as soon as possible (ie, 1x00 rpm). The downsize is that they can't keep that boost up after 5000rpm or so. But for regular consumers, they don't really care about power after 5000rpm.

Saintor

Do your homework right; it is NOT what I said. I wrote "I don't think that the Q50S 3.0TT is even doing 0.5s quicker on both 0-60/5-60 than the NA 3.7."

There is no "more power with better fuel economy" in the case of 3.0TT 300HP. I don't see the VQ going from the Nissan world when Toyota will introduce this fall a new V6 NA 3.5 for 2018.

Can not be highlighted enough. Can be from 2500-2800, it doesn't change anything. Modern cars have been like this for a long time.

Kense

What in the world are you talking about? You said the 3.7 goes 0-60 in the mid 5's. Which it doesn't , it does 0-60 in 4.9. I stated that the 300tt has been tested doing 4.8 times, which is faster than the 3.7. Where are you getting .5 seconds from? Nobody other than you and your false numbers said anything about mid 5's and the silver sport being .5 seconds quicker in 0-60 than the 3.7. Stop moving the goal post. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There are Dyno numbers that PROVE the Silver sport makes more power yet you're on here making up stuff. Why? The New VR engine is lighter than the 3.7 and the car is the same weight. Yet the turbo makes more power yet you think they are the same? That doesn't even make sense AT ALL. Not to mention the Q50/60 has discontinued the VQ engine. Period.

Here is a Dyno'd Q60 with the same 300 HP engine making 322 HP and 319 Lb ft of Torque TO THE WHEELS. which is almost the crank HP of the 3.7 and kills the torque the 3.7 made.

Bo_Darville

can't you two just settle this with a game of roshambo or something?

Saintor

WTF!? Stop writing anything before you are SURE to really understand. Because *you didn't*.

I never wrote that the "3.7 goes 0-60 in the mid 5's." I said that it would do 5-60 in 5.3s and posted a link that supported 0-60 in 4.9s. I think that you would be better served on a turbo-something forum, which would match your wishful thinking. Acura is not your thing, whatever the MMC.

F23A4

Not to stir up anything further, a couple of the V6 guys on the Facebook 9G Accord page discussed readily dispatching the 3.0TT in a runoff.

One (with a 13/14 AV6 sedan) posted a video on the page. (If I can figure out how to extract it from FB and post it here, I will do so.)

Kense

Work on your trolling.

Kense

I'd like to see that because I'm not sure how that's possible unless the accords are modified in some way.

BEAR-AvHistory

I would disagree with a blanket statement about torque not being the key to quick acceleration. Take to cars - Identical torque/horsepower - same transmission gearing same tires, same weight.. One car is running a 2:56 rear end the other a 3:55. Whith car will accelerate faster every time?

In a typical acceleration curve torque gets the car moving & horsepower pulls it through to the end of the run. You want to be king of the traffic light build a torque - a strong finisher in the 1/4 mile horsepower.

I would agree that turbos/superchargers are used for different reasons in cars so the ECU boost controls are designed to suite what the car company wants the car to do. One company might want passable performance from a small engine while at Dodge Demon wants to get down the 1/4 mile in 9 seconds. The turbo sizes, boost curves & max PSI are going to be totally different. No difference with different carburetor CFM ratings on similar sized engines in the 60's.

Think most factory street performance cars turbos will run to an about 5800/6200RPM shift point. Lets make our engine peppy but still frugal will be around 5000RPM. Best pure performance choice is a supercharger, the current standard for high performance cars.

Bottom line is for performance nothing outside on N2O beats boost.

Word too he wise about diesels. Do not run against a tuned DuraMax powered pick up truck unless you are running a lot of power.

Saintor

You obviously worked on yours.

What does that comparison have to do with engine torque? You are talking about gearing.

Nobody is disputing the value of FI for ultimate power. But the case of similar power VQ 3.7 328HP vs 3.0TT 300HP is a good example that turbo can fail to improve significantly a car acceleration (TBD), even with the same gearing.. don't bother with 0.1s lol.. Just good for marketing, getting more $ and further tuning. I think that somehow Acura and Toyota both get this. Gimme a cheaper and larger NA engine every time.

BlackTLXadvance

Copy link and paste it, no need for video extraction. I also did a Google Search because I'm curious. Can't find it unless it's modified. Also looked on YouTube, fake news unless its modified. You must of viewed a modified version.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I'd assume the AV6's were modded?

With that said, the Q50 is quite heavy. The Q50S 3.7 RWD is 3713lb, while the new Q50 Red Sport RWD is 3895lb. I'd think the Q50 3.0T 300hp is probably around 3850-3900lb too.

Stillen tested both the stock Q50 3.0T SS and Redsport 400:
https://blog.stillen.com/2016/12/to-...30ddtt-turbos/

Here's what they said about whp:
I couldn't find a Stillen dyno for the Q50 3.7, but found these two dynos:

DynoJet:
ECUTune on Q50S - Infiniti Q50 Forum

Mustang Dyno:
Q50 3.7L on the Dyno - Infiniti Q50 Forum

Both show the Q50 3.7S makes 293whp.

And here's a stock 2013 Accord V6 6AT dyno at 240whp:
Temple of VTEC Rumors and News - TOV Dyno Test: 2013 Accord V6 Touring

Essentially, we are looking at 240whp/3525lb Accord, vs a 300whp/3850lb Q50 3.0t ss.

That's 14.7lb/whp in the Accord vs 12.8lb/whp.

Haha, sorry I was just generalizing to make a point. I do understand where you are coming from. After all, lack of low end torque is why the S2000 needs to be launched at like 6000rpm to do 0-60mph in the 5's, otherwise it's no faster than a 4 cylinder accord.

quantum7

someone make it stop....