Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Re: 260HP/280 LB-FT Performace sedan for ~ $27K

harddrivin1le said:
Sure the pontiac is faster then the tsx, as with numerious other cars you mentioned in your other post. Since when were honda/acura fast? (not including the nsx) :D I don't know the exact time for the tsx, i'm guessing a little over 7 second for 0-60. That puts it in the same range as prelude's, civic si, and integra gsr. And only fraction of a second behind the acura rsx-S. Those are all sports coupes/hatchback and they all weigh less too. The tsx is fast enough for me. Besides there will be a million aftermarket parts for it in a few months. And if thats not fast enough, give it a few month and companies will make some force induction for it. Cybernation motorsport can push ur rsx-s to about 400 hp. I'm sure they can do the same for the tsx. You would prob say why put more money into an expensive sedan. But imagine if u do put some force induction in it. I bet you can take it down to under 6 second. You would be prob quicker than 6 but under 6 sec, thats bmw 330 terriroty. And you'll still be paying less than a 330 equipped like a tsx. Tsx with navi and a high end turbo (est 10g) u'll be under 40g. 330 with leather would prob put u over 40g. lol But if speed is the only thing u care about, you should look into a bike. Suzuki Hayabusa is a nice one =) it does 0-60 under 3 second. No ferrari can even touch that. And it's under 12g new i think. And think of the fuel efficiency!! But if u want something thats affortable, well equipped, stylish and provides decent performance, the tsx would do it. just my two cents :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Re: Re: 260HP/280 LB-FT Performace sedan for ~ $27K

layzieeboi said:
Sure the pontiac is faster then the tsx, as with numerious other cars you mentioned in your other post. Since when were honda/acura fast? (not including the nsx) :D I don't know the exact time for the tsx, i'm guessing a little over 7 second for 0-60. That puts it in the same range as prelude's, civic si, and integra gsr. And only fraction of a second behind the acura rsx-S. Those are all sports coupes/hatchback and they all weigh less too. The tsx is fast enough for me. Besides there will be a million aftermarket parts for it in a few months. And if thats not fast enough, give it a few month and companies will make some force induction for it. Cybernation motorsport can push ur rsx-s to about 400 hp. I'm sure they can do the same for the tsx. You would prob say why put more money into an expensive sedan. But imagine if u do put some force induction in it. I bet you can take it down to under 6 second. You would be prob quicker than 6 but under 6 sec, thats bmw 330 terriroty. And you'll still be paying less than a 330 equipped like a tsx. Tsx with navi and a high end turbo (est 10g) u'll be under 40g. 330 with leather would prob put u over 40g. lol But if speed is the only thing u care about, you should look into a bike. Suzuki Hayabusa is a nice one =) it does 0-60 under 3 second. No ferrari can even touch that. And it's under 12g new i think. And think of the fuel efficiency!! But if u want something thats affortable, well equipped, stylish and provides decent performance, the tsx would do it. just my two cents :)
Why do you focus SOLELY on 0 -60?

Time to DISTANCE is far more telling of a vehicles performance POTENTIAL.

The Grand Prix with the blower runs the 1/4 @ 15.0 flat @ 93 MPH; top speed is 138 MPH (electronically goverened).

Not bad for a 3,669 4 door sedan that gets 18 city/27 highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
We get it man.. you're all about buying a junk car that's pretty fast for cheap. Lets move on to the next topic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
TeC said:
We get it man.. you're all about buying a junk car that's pretty fast for cheap. Lets move on to the next topic.
No...I'm also "about" making nice power in a fuel efficient manner.

The TSX 6 speed doesn't do that. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
harddrivin1le said:
No...I'm also "about" making nice power in a fuel efficient manner.

The TSX 6 speed doesn't do that. :(
"Nice" is a subjective term.... some people also feel that 200HP and 20/29MPG is nice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
sjlee said:
"Nice" is a subjective term.... some people also feel that 200HP and 20/29MPG is nice.
240 HP, 212 lb-ft of torque, a more relaxed engine (FAR fewer revs on the highway) and 20 city/30 highway on REGULAR 87 octane is even NICER. (Accord V6/6 speed).:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
harddrivin1le said:
240 HP, 212 lb-ft of torque and 20 city/30 highway on REGULAR 87 octane is even NICER. (Accord V6/6 speed).:D
Yes, but only if you're concerned with just the performance and mileage in isolation.

In any case, can you give me an example of a 4-door sedan that gives those kinds of numbers with a 6-speed?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
sjlee said:
Yes, but only if you're concerned with just the performance and mileage in isolation.

In any case, can you give me an example of a 4-door sedan that gives those kinds of numbers with a 6-speed?
Saab 9-3 - gets BETTER MILEAGE with a 6 speed.

I can think of a 2 door sports car with a 6 speed that gets CLOSE to those figures, despite the fact that it uses a 405 HP, 5.7 liter V8: Z06 Corvette

The Accord 4 cylinder/5 speed gets 26/34 on 87 octane regular!

The SRT-4 Neon gets better mileage than the TSX; it's a 4 door sedan and is also MUCH faster. And that's with a 5 speed.

A 6 speed should yield BETTER mileage because 6th SHOULD be a pure cruising gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
harddrivin1le said:
Saab 9-3 - gets BETTER MILEAGE with a 6 speed.

I can think of a 2 door sports car with a 6 speed that gets CLOSE to those figures, despite the fact that it uses a 405 HP, 5.7 liter V8: Z06 Corvette

The Accord 4 cylinder/5 speed gets 26/34 on 87 octane regular!

The SRT-4 Neon gets better mileage than the TSX; it's a 4 door sedan and is also MUCH faster. And that's with a 5 speed.

A 6 speed should yield BETTER mileage because 6th SHOULD be a pure cruising gear.
I asked for you to name a car that gets the same power and mileage as the Accord V6 Coupe 6-speed, and this is your reply?

Out of the entire list of cars that you name, only the Saab 9-3 comes even close... but it has less HP than the Accord... and doesn't come close in acceleration times.

Why do you expect so much from the TSX? The performance of an Accord V6 Coupe 6-speed and the efficiency of a Civic HX? Why don't you ask for the performance of a Porsche 911 Turbo and the efficiency of a Honda Insight?

You have yet to give me an example of ONE SINGLE 4-door sedan that offeres the same (or better) performance (including mileage, straight-line acceleration and handling) AND the same (or more) standard features for the same (or less) money of a TSX.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
sjlee said:
Out of the entire list of cars that you name, only the Saab 9-3 comes even close... but it has less HP than the Accord... and doesn't come close in acceleration times.
The Saab 9-3 Arc and Vector models (210 HP) are FASTER than the TSX, particularly so as speeds increase.

What do I expect from the TSX? I expect the PERFORMACE of a V6 Accord and the fuel economy of a V6 Accord (20 city/30 highway on 87 octane).:p

In other words, it should use the V6 Accord's engine.

It would be MUCH faster and get at least the same mileage on less expensive (87 octane) fuel.:eek:
 

·
GT40 enthusiast
Joined
·
163 Posts
This is what I found on the SAAB 9-3 ARC:

Saab is an all turbo outfit these days. Its expertise is evident in the refinement and performance of the Arc's 2.0 litre powerplant, especially the way it flows smoothly along with the five-speed automatic.

The 2.0 litre engine's 129 kW/265 Nm is widely spread from 2500-5500 rpm. It will pull from as low as 1500.

Its delivery has a gentle, effortless yet muscular quality, unique to the low boost Saab turbos.

Performance is deceptive. The Arc auto covers the zero-100 km/h trip in 9.1 seconds -- quicker than most of its rivals.

There are a few foibles to accommodate. Engine braking is almost non existent.

Around town, the on-off boost transition, though well modulated, makes the 2.0 litre turbo slightly more abrupt in traffic than, say, a naturally aspirated V6.

The five-speed auto slides up and down with great smoothness in most situations, is very responsive to light pedal pressures, and has effective adaptive programming. On the right road, shift it yourself mode is a fun way to keep the turbo humming, but it is quite conservative when downshifting

{To me, seems that the SAAB may be faster, but the ride quality and shifting smoothness, are a little off. also when I read through this article, they seemed to state that road noise is a big factor when driving through town.}
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
GT-40MarkIV said:
This is what I found on the SAAB 9-3 ARC:

Saab is an all turbo outfit these days. Its expertise is evident in the refinement and performance of the Arc's 2.0 litre powerplant, especially the way it flows smoothly along with the five-speed automatic.

The 2.0 litre engine's 129 kW/265 Nm is widely spread from 2500-5500 rpm. It will pull from as low as 1500.

Its delivery has a gentle, effortless yet muscular quality, unique to the low boost Saab turbos.

Performance is deceptive. The Arc auto covers the zero-100 km/h trip in 9.1 seconds -- quicker than most of its rivals.

There are a few foibles to accommodate. Engine braking is almost non existent.

Around town, the on-off boost transition, though well modulated, makes the 2.0 litre turbo slightly more abrupt in traffic than, say, a naturally aspirated V6.

The five-speed auto slides up and down with great smoothness in most situations, is very responsive to light pedal pressures, and has effective adaptive programming. On the right road, shift it yourself mode is a fun way to keep the turbo humming, but it is quite conservative when downshifting

{To me, seems that the SAAB may be faster, but the ride quality and shifting smoothness, are a little off. also when I read through this article, they seemed to state that road noise is a big factor when driving through town.}
I'd only be interested in the 6 speed.

Frankly, if I were buying a car in this GENERAL segment I would buy the Accord EX/V6/6 speed coupe. I would IMMEDIATELY replace the shocks and anti-roll bars with aftermarket units and I'd throw on some sticky/fatter rubber (and would save the OEM rubber for the winter).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
harddrivin1le said:
The Saab 9-3 Arc and Vector models (210 HP) are FASTER than the TSX, particularly so as speeds increase.

What do I expect from the TSX? I expect the PERFORMACE of a V6 Accord and the fuel economy of a V6 Accord (20 city/30 highway on 87 octane).:p

In other words, it should use the V6 Accord's engine.

It would be MUCH faster and get at least the same mileage on less expensive (87 octane) fuel.:eek:
The Saab is not significantly faster than the TSX no matter what speed. The TSX and Saab are very close from 0-60mph (TSX 0.1 sec faster), while the TSX has a 5-60mph time 0.5 seconds faster than the Saab. In the quarter-mile, the TSX is only 0.2 seconds slower than the Saab. The Saab is also more expensive (comparably equipped) than the TSX.

Why stop at the Accord V6? What about using the CL/TL Type S engine? That produces even more power than the Accord V6.

No one is arguing that having more power would be better, but that would also increase the price of the car, as well as the handling characteristics. Let's stick with the here and now TSX.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
sjlee said:
The Saab is not significantly faster than the TSX no matter what speed. The TSX and Saab are very close from 0-60mph (TSX 0.1 sec faster), while the TSX has a 5-60mph time 0.5 seconds faster than the Saab. In the quarter-mile, the TSX is only 0.2 seconds slower than the Saab. The Saab is also more expensive (comparably equipped) than the TSX.

Why stop at the Accord V6? What about using the CL/TL Type S engine? That produces even more power than the Accord V6.

No one is arguing that having more power would be better, but that would also increase the price of the car, as well as the handling characteristics. Let's stick with the here and now TSX.
You're correct in that the CL/TL "Type S" engine makes more power and torque than the Accord's.

I chose a conservative alternative that would yield comparable mileage to the TSX 6 speed using 87 octane. Thus, I chose the Accord version.

If Acura built a TSX with the CL/TYPE S 6 speed/limited slip transaxle I would order one TOMORROW.

But they don't so I won't.
 
G

·
I think Acura should release the Euro-R out, add more features to it (if they can develop and mature IMA in time, use that as the main feature of the Type-R upgrade), Recaro seats, etc....

And if they release the Type-S, they should increase the 2.4L to around 235hp and tweak the torque up to around 190-200lb/ft, add VTM-4. That'll be perfect.
 
G

·
sublime3sixteen said:
The Euro R is the TSX man
Actually, it's not. The TSX is a combination of sporty features from the Accord 24S (JDM)/Type-S (EDM) and luxury features from the Accord 24TL (JDM)/Executive (EDM) models. The Euro-R also uses a different engine (K20A vs K20A2 for the TSX) and a different variant of the chassis (CL7 vs CL9 for the TSX).
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top