new C/D test TSX 0-60 at 6.7s
05-29-2008, 07:59 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 41
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new C/D test TSX 0-60 at 6.7s
Anyone get the new issue? Here's a discussion over at TOV. Sounds pretty good!
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=764467
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=764467
05-29-2008, 10:16 PM
#4
Trill
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-29-2008, 10:20 PM
#5
Pro
I could hardly believe the 6.7 sec. to 60 time. I just got the new C/D issue today and I think that this should be more accurate since this is a full test rather than just a first drive. The car they tested was also a 6-speed.
05-29-2008, 10:42 PM
#6
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 41
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tapwave
Trending Topics
05-30-2008, 07:30 AM
#8
Senior Moderator
Personally, I like Road and Track for acceleration figures since they make no correction based on temp and elevation like Car and Driver and MotorTrend. Their times may be somewhat slower but its a fair, real world example of what the car can do.
C&D last tested a TSX in 06 and got a 7.2 or 7.3. So these times are good news for 09 owners.
C&D last tested a TSX in 06 and got a 7.2 or 7.3. So these times are good news for 09 owners.
05-30-2008, 07:57 AM
#10
Time to Climb
Originally Posted by NJSGTI
I could hardly believe the 6.7 sec. to 60 time. I just got the new C/D issue today and I think that this should be more accurate since this is a full test rather than just a first drive. The car they tested was also a 6-speed.
05-30-2008, 08:54 AM
#11
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 41
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by frescagod
6.7 seconds? i'll give $5 to anyone who can do that with their stock 2009 TSX, and prove it on camera.
05-30-2008, 09:52 AM
#12
Originally Posted by godfather2
maybe that 6.7sec run was on a broken in motor?
05-30-2008, 11:59 AM
#17
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
IMO, 0-60mph in 6.7s, 1/4mile in 15.3@93mph are about right. Remember the dyno test by TOV on a new, non-broken in TSX? It got 180whp and 162wtq. This one in C&D is broken in, and it's not surprising if it gets 185-190whp, 165-170wtq. The 2nd gen TL-S 5AT has about 190-200whp, 180wtq, and is about 100lbs heavier than this TSX, it also has 1 less gear, and the gear ratios are much taller. Yet, the 2nd gen TL-S is capable of 0-60mph in 6.2s, and 1/4mile in 14.8s@96mph. So really, I don't think the numbers from C&D are that hard to believe.
05-30-2008, 01:48 PM
#18
Banned
C&D always, ALWAYS reports better 0-60 times than other testers. They abuse their cars in the interests of achieving the fastest time. I'm not holding it against them, but I don't drive that way.
05-30-2008, 02:28 PM
#22
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by dom
Well, I don't see the Aura in the TSX but he's hardly the first person to mention it.
05-30-2008, 05:09 PM
#24
Make a hole, coming thru!
Very good summations from the lead writer, and Austin. It's a great value, Fun with a capital F, and has a nice list of standards. But there are things they *didn't* include that someone out there is looking for. In all, aside from "the face," sounds like the '09 is carrying the TSX torch without stumbling.
05-30-2008, 05:13 PM
#25
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
Originally Posted by Iceman
C&D always, ALWAYS reports better 0-60 times than other testers. They abuse their cars in the interests of achieving the fastest time. I'm not holding it against them, but I don't drive that way.
Also the RDX, R&T or MT got 0-60mph in 6.2s, and 1/4mile in 14.8s, which are faster than what C&D got.
05-30-2008, 05:24 PM
#26
Pro
Originally Posted by iforyou
lol, not always, just usually. Seen the new comparison with the GT-R? 12.1s@115mph, that's what they got. Most magazines got 11.5-11.8s@~120mph.
Also the RDX, R&T or MT got 0-60mph in 6.2s, and 1/4mile in 14.8s, which are faster than what C&D got.
Also the RDX, R&T or MT got 0-60mph in 6.2s, and 1/4mile in 14.8s, which are faster than what C&D got.
09 TSX 
05-30-2008, 10:33 PM
#28
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by frescagod
so you think that "breaking in" a motor will shave more than half a second off of the 0-60 time? come on....
05-30-2008, 10:51 PM
#29
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
Originally Posted by NJSGTI
In this same C/D issue there is a comparison test between the M3, GT-R, and 911 Turbo. The cheapest of the cars with the lowest 0-60 came out on top and the $135,000 911 came in last. I guess money doesnt really buy the best all around car. C/D also listed the GT-R 0-60 time as 3.6 when I previously saw 3.3 somewhere.
05-31-2008, 09:40 AM
#32
Burning Brakes
I was at the dealer yesterday servicing my 05 TL. I sat in the new TSX, unfortunately I didn't get a chance to test drive. I have to say the car is pretty handsome. It definitely looks better in person. The interior is head and shoulders better than the previous generation. At my dealership, they usually loan out TSXs. Even though the 1gen was peppy, I thought the interior was a little down market (for a near lux car). The new TSX definitely steps up the game.
05-31-2008, 02:11 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
^ take 1 second off (very very conservative) for 0-60 and 1/4 mile and I think it's still acceptable. In reality, it should be roughly 0.5s slower for both runs.
05-31-2008, 06:01 PM
#36
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
Not sure what he means by "you don't know much about 2.4 then," but typically, many cars tend to perform better after a certain period, and Honda is no exception. You can go to TOV and ask Jeff or Shawn to confirm about this.
06-02-2008, 06:38 AM
#37
Originally Posted by iforyou
Not sure what he means by "you don't know much about 2.4 then," but typically, many cars tend to perform better after a certain period, and Honda is no exception. You can go to TOV and ask Jeff or Shawn to confirm about this.
06-02-2008, 09:29 AM
#38
Three Wheelin'
hmmm interesting. i wanna start seeing companies tuning it. comptech and hondata get on that reflash and supercharger or someone else with a turbo.
06-02-2008, 12:59 PM
#39
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
Originally Posted by frescagod
i will give you that, but 0.5 sec faster for the 0-60 better? i just want to see the proof. half a second sounds like nothing but it's quite a lot for just "break in."
06-02-2008, 01:02 PM
#40
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by iforyou
I see what you mean, but I'm not sure what you mean by proof? C/D already posted a 6.7s time for a TSX with over 2000 miles, while road and track got 7.5s for a new TSX. Also keep in mind C/D adjusts the results with correction factors, while R&T does not. I'd imagine the tires are also part of the reason, they have broken in as well. For any car, FWD especially, having a good launch is important and that alone could shave a few tenths.
I don't think R&T has officially tested it yet. That may have been an estimate from their first drive review.
