TLX Races Volvo S60
10-28-2014, 12:12 PM
#2
Whatever. Dacono Co. elevation is 5030ft. above sea level so It's not surprising a turbocharged S60 would pull away. Don't know how far they went but it really didn't look like the Volvo was all that much ahead at the end.
Last edited by smoooov; 10-28-2014 at 12:16 PM.
The following users liked this post:
MedX172 (10-28-2014)
10-28-2014, 05:58 PM
#4
Regardless of the results, the TLX is not a sports car so I doubt very few buy it to do these sort of acceleration tests. Seeing that white TLX coming down with its Jewel eyes sure looks good and I still think the TLX is an amazing car with an amazing price for its options.
Between the bland Volvo or the TLX, I'd still take the TLX in a heartbeat....Acura's interior are still far superior in my opinion. That center stack on the Volvo is way too boring for me.
Between the bland Volvo or the TLX, I'd still take the TLX in a heartbeat....Acura's interior are still far superior in my opinion. That center stack on the Volvo is way too boring for me.
The following 3 users liked this post by weather:
10-28-2014, 06:08 PM
#5
These guys run that stupid test all the time.....a mile high acceleration where, obviously, the FI engines have an advantage....I remember when they raced a G37 Coupe and an Audi A5 (4 cylinder turbo), and if I remember correctly, the Audi had a slight advantage....
In the real world a G37 coupe eats an A5 in acceleration for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert...is not even funny....
I had few A4 4 bangers in the past trying to race me at traffic lights (with my 6MT 4G TL) ...smoked them without even trying....
In the real world a G37 coupe eats an A5 in acceleration for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert...is not even funny....
I had few A4 4 bangers in the past trying to race me at traffic lights (with my 6MT 4G TL) ...smoked them without even trying....
10-28-2014, 06:11 PM
#6
Burning Brakes
the funny thing about this video is the comments.... the majority of the comments defended Acura. Now that's is very... different.
10-28-2014, 06:13 PM
#7
10th Gear
Regardless of the results, the TLX is not a sports car so I doubt very few buy it to do these sort of acceleration tests. Seeing that white TLX coming down with its Jewel eyes sure looks good and I still think the TLX is an amazing car with an amazing price for its options.
Between the bland Volvo or the TLX, I'd still take the TLX in a heartbeat....Acura's interior are still far superior in my opinion. That center stack on the Volvo is way too boring for me.
Between the bland Volvo or the TLX, I'd still take the TLX in a heartbeat....Acura's interior are still far superior in my opinion. That center stack on the Volvo is way too boring for me.
Trending Topics
10-28-2014, 09:32 PM
#8
Instructor
These guys are idiots that conducted a shit show of a test. How can you even say that a turbo charged vehicle out performed a normally aspired one at 5,000ft altitude?
That's like me saying a Cessna 172 (in San Francisco) out performed a Cirrus SR22 (in Denver) on climb rates.
If anything, I loved the video. It just illustrates that the S60 can *barely* beat a TLX even with a turbo charged advantage at altitude.
That's like me saying a Cessna 172 (in San Francisco) out performed a Cirrus SR22 (in Denver) on climb rates.
If anything, I loved the video. It just illustrates that the S60 can *barely* beat a TLX even with a turbo charged advantage at altitude.
10-28-2014, 09:36 PM
#9
Instructor
The TLX looks way outdo the Volvo's, hands down. The TLX looks so much cooler and sportier as they were racing towards the camera. Also, 290 HP vs 302, with the elevation to boot.
10-28-2014, 10:11 PM
#12
Instructor
Heh, can't say that I have. I really haven't done much performance driving since my Prelude days!
The last two States I've lived in (Florida/California) aren't conducive to a lot of fun driving. Florida was flat as a pancake and California is so congested. Once I got my pilots license my perception of speed or what's "fast" changed too. Cruising at 90mph in the TLX just isn't the same as cruising at 211mph in a Cirrus
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (10-29-2014)
10-28-2014, 11:14 PM
#14
Drifting
Nevermind.... I have always found TFLCars to be one of the least helpful and least informative car sites.
So, the Volvo was faster, so what? What was the time for both cars? If speed is the only thing that matters, then go for a big American muscle car.
I remember that they did quite a few 0-60mph testing on that show with a handheld clicker as the car reaches 60mph... LOL! No wonder why the cars that they tested often have much lower 0-60mph times than the other professional sites get.
And the "Thrill" to drive does not only apply to acceleration and speed....
So, the Volvo was faster, so what? What was the time for both cars? If speed is the only thing that matters, then go for a big American muscle car.
I remember that they did quite a few 0-60mph testing on that show with a handheld clicker as the car reaches 60mph... LOL! No wonder why the cars that they tested often have much lower 0-60mph times than the other professional sites get.
And the "Thrill" to drive does not only apply to acceleration and speed....
Last edited by ostrich; 10-28-2014 at 11:17 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by justnspace:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-31-2014),
MedX172 (11-01-2014)
10-29-2014, 02:04 PM
#16
Intermediate
Well Acura did market the TLX with "exhilarating athletic performance", but Acura seems to have produced a great entry level luxury car with not much "athleticism" and more efficiency.
10-29-2014, 02:12 PM
#17
the TL community has been tearing down and building these J-series engines!
what we have found is that Acura uses better parts in each iteration of the J-engine
The new J-series pistons are coated for high temps, the valve train has less moving parts and the cooling jackets are better!
this means efficiency, power and reliability are up!
except that Acura limits them at 300 crank hp.
the engines are good for 350+ crank hp.
but who the heck wants to rev to the moon to be able to have this power???
what we have found is that Acura uses better parts in each iteration of the J-engine
The new J-series pistons are coated for high temps, the valve train has less moving parts and the cooling jackets are better!
this means efficiency, power and reliability are up!
except that Acura limits them at 300 crank hp.
the engines are good for 350+ crank hp.
but who the heck wants to rev to the moon to be able to have this power???
10-29-2014, 03:50 PM
#19
Volvo T6 torque = 295 lb.-ft.
TLX (FWD) V6 torque = 267 lb.-ft.
I was expecting the Volvo to do a lot better than that. Turbo lag obvious?
TLX (FWD) V6 torque = 267 lb.-ft.
I was expecting the Volvo to do a lot better than that. Turbo lag obvious?
10-29-2014, 03:55 PM
#20
this!! why do people buy front wheel drive cars and worry so much about drag racing or 0-60/quarter mile times? nevermind other cars, is the car you are driving fast enough to do what it needs to do to your satisfaction? if not get another car.
10-29-2014, 07:03 PM
#21
The older S60 T6 AWD is 300hp and 325 torque at sea level. Elevation was 5030 feet. Once the boost is up the turbo cars are making full power even at that elevation. I've read that NA engines loose about 15% at that elevation (3% per 1000 feet) so the TLX was looking at around 245 hp and around 225 torque. Not surprising the Volvo pulled away but it wasn't a huge gap at the end. The turbo lag would have been somewhat greater in the thinner air but once the pressure was up the car was good to go.
Last edited by smoooov; 10-29-2014 at 07:17 PM.
10-29-2014, 09:36 PM
#22
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-31-2014)
10-29-2014, 09:50 PM
#23
smoooov: I think its the new e-drive 2.0 Litre, 4-cylinder, supercharged and turbo-charged, direct-injection, 8-speed. Supercharger for low RPM and turbocharger for high RPM. Yep, 2.0 litre !
10-30-2014, 07:10 AM
#24
10-30-2014, 07:17 AM
#25
Pretty useless comparison unless you're trying to illustrate the advantage of FI at altitude.
10-30-2014, 07:21 AM
#26
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Turbocharged engines take longer to spool up at elevation due to thinner air, and while they don't lose as much as power as the NA engines at elevation, they still lose power.
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
Last edited by civicdrivr; 10-30-2014 at 07:27 AM.
10-30-2014, 07:51 AM
#27
Well it's my understanding that boost is controlled by the wastegate and actuator so the turbo would eventually spool up the total amount of boost the wastegate allows. It would take a bit longer because of thinner air resulting in more lag (however the supercharger would help) and perhaps the thinner air would contain less oxygen so less power would be produced but turbo psi would still be the same. Also thinner air would mean more heat and less intercooler effectiveness so that could have an effect. It seems if your theory is right them FI wouldn't have hardly any effect on airplanes at very high altitudes.
The only way to know which car would win at sea level would be to run them at sea level.
The only way to know which car would win at sea level would be to run them at sea level.
Last edited by smoooov; 10-30-2014 at 08:05 AM.
10-30-2014, 08:33 AM
#28
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
FI planes that operate at high altitude are tuned for high altitude. A car is, in most cases, not.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-31-2014)
10-30-2014, 08:47 AM
#29
Yes they are. But still the waste gate is going to open at say 5 psi max independent of air pressure. In thinner air it will take a higher engine rpm to generate the exhaust velocity required turn the turbo fast enough to reach that 5 psi since there is less air pressure to begin with. That is the increased lag. The hotter intake air generated, however, will effect the engines power.
Last edited by smoooov; 10-30-2014 at 08:54 AM.
10-30-2014, 09:13 AM
#30
I think this goes for any car, FWD, RWD, or AWD.
Turbocharged engines take longer to spool up at elevation due to thinner air, and while they don't lose as much as power as the NA engines at elevation, they still lose power.
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
^^This is the bottom line. This video seemed a bit worthless, IMO. Both of these cars are built for so much more than straight 0-60 times.
10-30-2014, 09:45 AM
#31
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Yes they are. But still the waste gate is going to open at say 5 psi max independent of air pressure. In thinner air it will take a higher engine rpm to generate the exhaust velocity required turn the turbo fast enough to reach that 5 psi since there is less air pressure to begin with. That is the increased lag. The hotter intake air generated, however, will effect the engines power.
Unlike other factory 4cyl turbo'd engines, the turbo on this motor is not necessarily small; that is due to the supercharger that feeds it, which makes up for the low end power, allowing Volvo to use a larger turbo for high rpm power.
In thinner air, the supercharger has to work harder, but the pressure it produces is based solely on pulley size. This has a domino effect on the power output - the supercharger no longer hits it's target PSI (and as you mentioned, creates more heat) and runs out of steam before the typical transition to the turbo, therefore, the turbo is not benefiting from the additional air from the supercharger at 5,000ft like it does at sea level.
What I'm getting at here is that even though the maximum pressure is dictated by the wastegate, there is a much narrower window for the turbo to reach maximum boost (it hits peak around 5700rpm at sea level), so the chances that it will have to rely on the wastegate is pretty slim, and won't make much of a difference given the 6,500rpm rev limit.
So like I said, I don't expect a different outcome if they did this race again at sea level
10-30-2014, 10:39 AM
#32
I'm not disagreeing with you. I even mentioned spool times in my original post.
Unlike other factory 4cyl turbo'd engines, the turbo on this motor is not necessarily small; that is due to the supercharger that feeds it, which makes up for the low end power, allowing Volvo to use a larger turbo for high rpm power.
In thinner air, the supercharger has to work harder, but the pressure it produces is based solely on pulley size. This has a domino effect on the power output - the supercharger no longer hits it's target PSI (and as you mentioned, creates more heat) and runs out of steam before the typical transition to the turbo, therefore, the turbo is not benefiting from the additional air from the supercharger at 5,000ft like it does at sea level.
What I'm getting at here is that even though the maximum pressure is dictated by the wastegate, there is a much narrower window for the turbo to reach maximum boost (it hits peak around 5700rpm at sea level), so the chances that it will have to rely on the wastegate is pretty slim, and won't make much of a difference given the 6,500rpm rev limit.
So like I said, I don't expect a different outcome if they did this race again at sea level
Unlike other factory 4cyl turbo'd engines, the turbo on this motor is not necessarily small; that is due to the supercharger that feeds it, which makes up for the low end power, allowing Volvo to use a larger turbo for high rpm power.
In thinner air, the supercharger has to work harder, but the pressure it produces is based solely on pulley size. This has a domino effect on the power output - the supercharger no longer hits it's target PSI (and as you mentioned, creates more heat) and runs out of steam before the typical transition to the turbo, therefore, the turbo is not benefiting from the additional air from the supercharger at 5,000ft like it does at sea level.
What I'm getting at here is that even though the maximum pressure is dictated by the wastegate, there is a much narrower window for the turbo to reach maximum boost (it hits peak around 5700rpm at sea level), so the chances that it will have to rely on the wastegate is pretty slim, and won't make much of a difference given the 6,500rpm rev limit.
So like I said, I don't expect a different outcome if they did this race again at sea level
You are probably right that the Volvo would win the race at sea level. It has more power and torque that comes on quicker. But since the TLX was losing even a greater percentage of power, the lead at the end would be much less. I hope to see some legit comparison tests soon. Curious how the TLX stacks up.
Last edited by smoooov; 10-30-2014 at 10:43 AM.
The following users liked this post:
civicdrivr (10-30-2014)
10-30-2014, 10:42 AM
#33
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
10-30-2014, 12:27 PM
#34
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Turbocharged engines take longer to spool up at elevation due to thinner air, and while they don't lose as much as power as the NA engines at elevation, they still lose power.
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
Let's say a turbo produces 5psi at sea level. That's 5 psi + 14.7 psi (approximate pressure at sea level). That means there is 19.7psi running through the engine. Bring that same configuration to 5,0000ft, where the air pressure is approximately 12psi, that engine is now producing 17psi - or only 2psi at sea level. The air pressure difference effects both cars.
I believe the results shown in the video would be similar at sea level
2015 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E [w/video] First Drive - Autoblog
As shown in the review above, that Borgwarner turbocharger produces 23.2psi of boost.
Your calculation would quickly become 23.2 + 14.7 = 37.9psi. Bring that to 5000ft, and your calculation would be 23.2 + 12 = 35.2 psi.
Losing 2.7psi from 37.9psi is hugely different than loosing 2.7psi from 14.7psi. That's a 7% loss vs over 18% loss.
10-30-2014, 12:34 PM
#35
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
That doesnt get around the fact that, at altitude, it is still more difficult for the engine to reach peak boost.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-31-2014)
10-30-2014, 12:50 PM
#37
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
10-30-2014, 06:28 PM
#39
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Quite different? Let's agree to disagree on this one. Even if we use Jeff's acceleration numbers, the Volvo is still faster - which is pretty damn amazing for a high torque FWD car. But hey, there's quite a difference!
Right?
Right?
10-31-2014, 05:59 PM
#40
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
lol I mean the actual output of the engine would be quite different for the TLX. We are talking about a loss of over 40hp in the TLX at 5000ft vs sea level. 40hp would result in quite a drastic change of acceleration, don't you think?
That's not to say the TLX will be faster than the S60 T6 at sea level. The S60 T6 has been consistently getting ~5.3s for 0-60mph. It will still be faster than the TLX, but it wouldn't be pulling away as hard.
That's not to say the TLX will be faster than the S60 T6 at sea level. The S60 T6 has been consistently getting ~5.3s for 0-60mph. It will still be faster than the TLX, but it wouldn't be pulling away as hard.
