The word on the street is that Acura is putting the J35 in the 2010 TSX... will that change the game.
Why would it change anything? The engine is one of the things that Honda got right on that car. They could "change the game" by simply taking off that ridiculous grille!
IMO, it's a bit much engine for a car that size unless that's for the S trim. If they were to put a V6 in a non-S TSX, I'd like to see them stick to something smaller. A rev happy, 2.5-3.0L motor with 220-240 hp.
I was kinda pulling for the RDX's 2.4 Turbo engine, but a nose-heavy V6 will do, I guess.
Terbow 4 > 3.5L V6
Quote from: Laconian on February 07, 2009, 05:14:57 PM
Why would it change anything? The engine is one of the things that Honda got right on that car. They could "change the game" by simply taking off that ridiculous grille!
:hesaid:
Quote from: the Teuton on February 07, 2009, 05:41:03 PM
I was kinda pulling for the RDX's 2.4 Turbo engine, but a nose-heavy V6 will do, I guess.
I don't think it'll make too much of a difference. Honda's motors aren't exactly heavy.
????????????????????????
They have the TL, and the Accord
The turbo 4 makes the most sense but the TSX is not the driver's car it once was. I don't see the point
That would make it a TL which would in turn make it shit.
I like the TSX as it is. I wouldn't mind the RDX motor in it, however.
CL9>>>CU2.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 08, 2009, 03:01:59 PM
That would make it a TL which would in turn make it shit.
I like the TSX as it is. I wouldn't mind the RDX motor in it, however.
CL9>>>CU2.
RDX motor in the CL9 = all I need
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 09, 2009, 06:37:17 AM
RDX motor in the CL9 = all I need
yessir.
I really like the CL9. It handles well, is economical, looks good, and is fun to drive. Has a decent stereo too.
I don't know about the CU2, but it's not anywhere as good looking. Even then, it's still the best looking car in Acura's lineup. By far.
How about the FU2 MFRS version?
What the fuck are you talking about? Use real words and names. Not everyone here cares enough about boring Acuras to memorize the fucking chassis codes.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17501.msg992106#msg992106 date=1234215473
How about the FU2 MFRS version?
What the fuck are you talking about? Use real words and names. Not everyone here cares enough about boring Acuras to memorize the fucking chassis codes.
1. I don't want to keep using 1st generation TSX and 2nd generation TSX all the time. That gets annoying.
2. If you cared so fucking much, why didn't you just Google the terms?
The CL9 is the first gen TSX, the CU2 is the second gen.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 09, 2009, 02:42:05 PM
1. I don't want to keep using 1st generation TSX and 2nd generation TSX all the time. That gets annoying.
2. If you cared so fucking much, why didn't you just Google the terms?
The CL9 is the first gen TSX, the CU2 is the second gen.
I don't fucking care. And what's annoying is trying to read your damn alphabet soup and make sense of it.
Quote from: Raza on February 09, 2009, 02:37:53 PM
How about the FU2 MFRS version?
What the fuck are you talking about? Use real words and names. Not everyone here cares enough about boring Acuras to memorize the fucking chassis codes.
U care enough to cry about people caring enough... that seems even more of a waste of time
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 09, 2009, 02:42:05 PM
1. I don't want to keep using 1st generation TSX and 2nd generation TSX all the time. That gets annoying.
Then use model years.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
IMO, it's a bit much engine for a car that size unless that's for the S trim. If they were to put a V6 in a non-S TSX, I'd like to see them stick to something smaller. A rev happy, 2.5-3.0L motor with 220-240 hp.
Agreed on the bigger 4
Quote from: the Teuton on February 07, 2009, 05:41:03 PM
I was kinda pulling for the RDX's 2.4 Turbo engine, but a nose-heavy V6 will do, I guess.
Another suggestion i agree with. The V6 may be the WORSE choice to up the power in the TSX
A turbo 4 would be awesome, yet require AWD to realize it's full potential(and eliminate possible torque steer and traction issues). A higher reving high HP 4 like MX suggested would have more managable torque and still allow the car to maintain it's FWD configuration.
as an enthusiast... 2.3 Turbo all the way... it would make me giddy
as a business man... V6 better suits the luxury market
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 10, 2009, 07:09:24 PM
Another suggestion i agree with. The V6 may be the WORSE choice to up the power in the TSX
A turbo 4 would be awesome, yet require AWD to realize it's full potential(and eliminate possible torque steer and traction issues). A higher reving high HP 4 like MX suggested would have more managable torque and still allow the car to maintain it's FWD configuration.
Quote from: YO on February 10, 2009, 07:38:57 PM
as an enthusiast... 2.3 Turbo all the way... it would make me giddy
as a business man... V6 better suits the luxury market
As an enthusiast the turbo in a fwd tsx would suck balls.
As a business man i'll buy a mercedes E class.
working for both companies this year, I'd take the TSX...
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 10, 2009, 07:45:35 PM
As an enthusiast the turbo in a fwd tsx would suck balls.
As a business man i'll buy a mercedes E class.
Quote from: YO on February 10, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
working for both companies this year, I'd take the TSX...
Any reason?
Don't get me wrong, I like the TSX. I just can't understand why you would ever take what is essentially an Accord over an E-Class.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 10, 2009, 10:21:27 PM
Any reason?
Don't get me wrong, I like the TSX. I just can't understand why you would ever take what is essentially an Accord over an E-Class.
An E-Class is essentially a Camry?
Quote from: NACar on February 10, 2009, 10:22:02 PM
An E-Class is essentially a Camry?
In that case, your car's essentially a Cozy Coupe.
(http://www.iqtoys.co.nz/iqtoys/images/cozycoupel2.jpg)
How does that make any sense?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 10, 2009, 10:22:37 PM
In that case, your car's essentially a Cozy Coupe.
(http://www.iqtoys.co.nz/iqtoys/images/cozycoupel2.jpg)
How does that make any sense?
HEY, AT LEAST THAT KID IS HAVING
FUN DRIVING! NOT LIKE A :zzz: CAMR-E-CLASS
Quote from: NACar on February 10, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
HEY, AT LEAST THAT KID IS HAVING FUN DRIVING! NOT LIKE A :zzz: CAMR-E-CLASS
That kid would be making a sound bet if he took you for pinks with your Metro. :evildude:
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 10, 2009, 10:26:32 PM
That kid would be making a sound bet if he took you for pinks with your Metro. :evildude:
I do not know what you are talking about. I do not own, nor have I ever driven a Metro.
It's a damn Metro. "Swift" is too ironic of a name for that car.
Quote from: Vinsanity on February 10, 2009, 11:33:06 PM
It's a damn Metro. "Swift" is too ironic of a name for that car.
It's a Suzuki Swift. It says so on the trunklid, the owners manual, and the registration.
My friend needed some help picking up a car one day.
Unbeknowenst to me, it was a damaged Metro with no license plates.
I had to drive it, eh, about 40 miles across the Phoenix interstates.
Man was that an adventure. :lol:
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 09, 2009, 02:42:05 PM
1. I don't want to keep using 1st generation TSX and 2nd generation TSX all the time. That gets annoying.
2. If you cared so fucking much, why didn't you just Google the terms?
The CL9 is the first gen TSX, the CU2 is the second gen.
1. Gen1 TSX?
2. Acuras arent worth the effort.
I mean DC2 or GC8, those are common. E46 is common.
CL9? Not common at all.
For all the crying you guys did you could have just Googled
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=igf&q=acura+cl9&btnG=Search
Welcome to America, the land of crybabies.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 11, 2009, 09:04:57 AM
I mean DC2 or GC8, those are common. E46 is common.
CL9? Not common at all.
Jeez, just google it and stop bitching.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 11, 2009, 09:04:57 AM
I mean DC2 or GC8, those are common. E46 is common.
CL9? Not common at all.
1. Last time I checked, Accords (TSX's) are more common than Subarus.
2. See Rag's post.
wtf is a GC8?
Even so, a 3.5L V6 is in the TSX.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/11/chicago-2008-acura-unveils-tsx-v6-for-2010/
Quote from: 2o6 on February 11, 2009, 08:23:07 PM
Even so, a 3.5L V6 is in the TSX.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/11/chicago-2008-acura-unveils-tsx-v6-for-2010/
Methinks Honda acknowledged just how ugly the TL was. That's why this exists.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 11, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Methinks Honda acknowledged just how ugly the TL was. That's why this exists.
Especially since it is AT only.
The TSX and the Accord are becoming more and more alike.
Quote from: TBR on February 11, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
Especially since it is AT only.
The TSX and the Accord are becoming more and more alike.
Exactly.
I can't lie, if this thing was offered with a manual, I'd be somewhat interested. FWD and all.
(Interested doesn't mean you would buy one).
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 11, 2009, 08:36:45 PM
Exactly.
I can't lie, if this thing was offered with a manual, I'd be somewhat interested. FWD and all.
(Interested doesn't mean you would buy one).
If they made it as good as the CL-S was, then I would definitely be a fan.
Quote from: TBR on February 11, 2009, 08:41:49 PM
If they made it as good as the CL-S was, then I would definitely be a fan.
Yeah, no doubt.
Thing is, it won't be. The CL-S had a LSD, whereas this is just a big V6 hooked up to the front wheels.
They will still offer the 4-banger TSX, right?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 11, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
They will still offer the 4-banger TSX, right?
Oh I am sure. The engine is already certified and given a choice most buyers (even luxury car buyers) will go with the smallest, cheapest engine.
Quote from: TBR on February 11, 2009, 08:48:31 PM
Oh I am sure. The engine is already certified and given a choice most buyers (even luxury car buyers) will go with the smallest, cheapest engine.
The 4-banger TSX is fun. My sister has one, and it's a lot of fun to rev the piss out of. Plus, it's a light engine, so the car is light on its feet and handles very well. I'd probably take a 6MT I4 TSX over the V6 one.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 11, 2009, 08:51:11 PM
The 4-banger TSX is fun. My sister has one, and it's a lot of fun to rev the piss out of. Plus, it's a light engine, so the car is light on its feet and handles very well. I'd probably take a 6MT I4 TSX over the V6 one.
Oh certainly. The TSX's I4 is one of the best N/A 4 cylinders out there and then 6MT is probably the best FWD transmission in existence. It is fast enough too, I don't need anything faster than what I have now.
Quote from: TBR on February 11, 2009, 08:53:08 PM
Oh certainly. The TSX's I4 is one of the best N/A 4 cylinders out there and then 6MT is probably the best FWD transmission in existence. It is fast enough too, I don't need anything faster than what I have now.
The 1st generation was executed extremely well. The 2nd gen, while also executed well, wasn't quite as much a hit as the 1st gen.
Still, the TSX is a perfect example of a fun FWD car. I have respect for it.
I still don't understand the point of this with the TL & RL in production.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 12, 2009, 08:44:56 AM
I still don't understand the point of this with the TL & RL in production.
1. Honda finally took a frying pan to the head and saw that the TL is uglier than the Aztek, and this could compensate for the TL's lost sales due to it's looks.
2. People buy the RL? LOL.
RL will be replaced next year with an S class 7 series fighter...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 12, 2009, 08:44:56 AM
I still don't understand the point of this with the TL & RL in production.
Yeah, and I'll strike oil next year. :rolleyes:
Acura is not on the level of Merc and BMW. They just aren't.
Quote from: YO on February 12, 2009, 08:16:58 PM
RL will be replaced next year with an S class 7 series fighter...
I don't care what Honda says, a FWD based, V6 powered, Accord based car will never be a legitimate S class or 7 series fighter.
Quote from: YO on February 12, 2009, 08:16:58 PM
RL will be replaced next year with an S class 7 series fighter...
They said it would be a legitimate 5-series/E-Class fighter in 2005. Was it good? Yeah. Did they deliver on their promise?
About that...
It won EVERY head to head with the E class and 5 Series... it just wasn't a looker... and I'd still pick it today...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 12, 2009, 08:44:30 PM
They said it would be a legitimate 5-series/E-Class fighter in 2005. Was it good? Yeah. Did they deliver on their promise?
About that...
Quote from: YO on February 12, 2009, 09:19:31 PM
It won EVERY head to head with the E class and 5 Series... it just wasn't a looker... and I'd still pick it today...
It was in 1 head-to-head.
That was also against the M54 E60 530i, which got replaced by the N52 530i, and then the N54 535i.
It's a glorified Accord that's been outclassed by the Accord.
Quote from: YO on February 12, 2009, 09:19:31 PM
It won EVERY head to head with the E class and 5 Series... it just wasn't a looker... and I'd still pick it today...
Which is great...seeing as it's outselling the more expensive BMW and Merc alternatives.
Oh wait...
Quote from: Submariner on February 12, 2009, 09:50:13 PM
Which is great...seeing as it's outselling the more expensive BMW and Merc alternatives.
Oh wait...
And what's the best-selling car in the nation again?
Vanilla...
Quote from: Tave on February 13, 2009, 11:26:01 AM
And what's the best-selling car in the nation again?
Quote from: Tave on February 13, 2009, 11:26:01 AM
And what's the best-selling car in the nation again?
Not the RL...
Americans are snobs... for example, the TSX is larger than the E350 interior wise minus 1" rear legroom and trunk. It handles better, better stereo, better navigation, better seats etc etc. But Americans crave the badge... most Americans would take a 1/2 carat in a tiffanys box over a full carat from kays
Quote from: Submariner on February 13, 2009, 05:52:55 PM
Not the RL...
Quote from: YO on February 13, 2009, 05:56:17 PM
Americans are snobs... for example, the TSX is larger than the E350 interior wise minus 1" rear legroom and trunk. It handles better, better stereo, better navigation, better seats etc etc. But Americans crave the badge... most Americans would take a 1/2 carat in a tiffanys box over a full carat from kays
The TSX is classified as a compact by the EPA and the E class is a midsize. The E class has 2 more cubic feet of interior space, plus another cubic foot of trunk.
volume is one thing... what about the measurements?
Quote from: MX793 on February 13, 2009, 06:00:42 PM
The TSX is classified as a compact by the EPA and the E class is a midsize. The E class has 2 more cubic feet of interior space, plus another cubic foot of trunk.
Quote from: Tave on February 13, 2009, 06:07:01 PM
Nor the 7-series nor S-class neither.
I bet they outsell the RL, even they go anywhere from 2-3 times the TL's price.
And besides, this has nothing to do with the 7 or S, it has to do with what I said about the RL vs. the 5 and E in sales...both of which handily outsell the RL.
Quote from: Submariner on February 13, 2009, 09:41:16 PM
I bet they outsell the RL, even they go anywhere from 2-3 times the TL's price.
And besides, this has nothing to do with the 7 or S, it has to do with what I said about the RL vs. the 5 and E in sales...both of which handily outsell the RL.
What is your point? The Camry outsells all 3--probably put together. :huh:
Quote from: YO on February 13, 2009, 09:18:08 PM
volume is one thing... what about the measurements?
Measurements are distance, volume is actual space. But if you want to talk measurements, the E350 is larger than the TSX by an inch or more in all but 3 of the 8 standard interior room measurements. The TSX is larger by an inch or more in only 1 and in all only trumps the E350 in 2 measurement categories.
E350 / TSX
Front Head Room 39.1 / 37.6 (E350 by 1.5 inches)
Front Hip Room 57.2 / 55.6 (E350 by 1.6 inches)
Front Shoulder Room 56.4 / 57.8 (TSX by 1.4 inches)
Front Leg Room 41.9 / 42.4 (TSX by .5 inches)
Rear Head Room 37.8 / 37.0 (E350 by .8 inches)
Rear Hip Room 56.1 / 54.2 (E350 by 1.9 inches)
Rear Shoulder Room 57.2 / 56.1 (E350 by 1.1 inches)
Rear Leg Room 35.6 / 34.3 (E350 by 1.3 inches)
(measurements per Edmunds)
Quote from: Tave on February 13, 2009, 10:04:51 PM
What is your point? The Camry outsells all 3--probably put together. :huh:
I was comparing sales of the (supposedly vastly superior) RL to some of its competitors.
To what end?
As everyone on this board has told everyone else a million times or more, better sales don't equal a better car. :huh:
Quote from: Tave on February 14, 2009, 09:04:50 AM
To what end?
As everyone on this board has told everyone else a million times or more, better sales don't equal a better car. :huh:
Then who here thinks the RL is the superior car? :huh:
Quote from: the Teuton on February 11, 2009, 09:04:57 AM
I mean DC2 or GC8, those are common. E46 is common.
CL9? Not common at all.
wut the flip? DC2? GC8? CL9?
Quote from: Tave on February 14, 2009, 09:04:50 AM
To what end?
As everyone on this board has told everyone else a million times or more, better sales don't equal a better car. :huh:
I think the correct phrase would be better sales equal a better product (not necessarily in automotive enthusiast's terms but more economically)
Quote from: Submariner on February 14, 2009, 09:10:37 AM
Then who here thinks the RL is the superior car? :huh:
The reviewers who YO mentioned.
Given the choice between a TSX and an E350, I can tell you that I would not choose the Acura.
Me... I've driven both extensively...
RL= Faster, much better handling and "feel, much better stereo, much more toys, and better crash tests. The navigation is decades ahead. I'm a gadget junkie and the RL does dozens of things electroncally that the E doesn't offer. And with SH-AWD and some upgraded factory 19"s, the RL is almost "fun" dare I say...
E350= Looks. Bling power. Elegant interior. Huge trunk. An uncomfortable nod of respect anywhere you go.
Quote from: Submariner on February 14, 2009, 09:10:37 AM
Then who here thinks the RL is the superior car? :huh:
Quote from: YO on February 14, 2009, 02:20:58 PM
Me... I've driven both extensively...
RL= Faster, much better handling and "feel, much better stereo, much more toys, and better crash tests. The navigation is decades ahead. I'm a gadget junkie and the RL does dozens of things electroncally that the E doesn't offer. And with SH-AWD and some upgraded factory 19"s, the RL is almost "fun" dare I say...
E350= Looks. Bling power. Elegant interior. Huge trunk. An uncomfortable nod of respect anywhere you go.
It's a good thing the public does too. :praise:
but besides prestiege, the E350 gives you nothing better cept a huge trunk...
Quote from: CJ on February 14, 2009, 11:13:20 AM
Given the choice between a TSX and an E350, I can tell you that I would not choose the Acura.
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 05:20:30 AM
but besides prestiege, the E350 gives you nothing better cept a huge trunk...
And RWD. I would bet the two cars drive nothing alike
The Mercedes also has better build quality and finer materials. The leather Honda uses is like cardboard.
E is slightly firmer than a GS350... I'd choose the TSX
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 15, 2009, 05:43:35 PM
And RWD. I would bet the two cars drive nothing alike
Most E class's do not come with leather...
Quote from: CJ on February 15, 2009, 06:27:44 PM
The Mercedes also has better build quality and finer materials. The leather Honda uses is like cardboard.
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 07:36:09 PM
Most E class's do not come with leather...
In that case, MB-Tex is better than Acura leather.
That ain't good either.
if you think so...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 15, 2009, 07:39:19 PM
In that case, MB-Tex is better than Acura leather.
That ain't good either.
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 07:35:43 PM
E is slightly firmer than a GS350... I'd choose the TSX
I dont like Benzes so within that class I would go with the... 535i.
How much more money will the TSX V6 be over the Accord V6 fully loaded???
Too many cars in the same segment... with the same motors & equipment. Why Honda why?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 16, 2009, 12:29:10 AM
I dont like Benzes so within that class I would go with the... 535i.
Yessir.
again, you need to drive both. IT's like saying
a 2009 Accord V6 is:
quiker then a 5 Series and E class caus it is
Larger than a 5 Series and E class caus it is
Has a better nav than a 5 Series and E class caus it does
HOW CAN BMW AND BENZ COMPETE!!??
Use some logic please
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 16, 2009, 12:29:10 AM
I dont like Benzes so within that class I would go with the... 535i.
How much more money will the TSX V6 be over the Accord V6 fully loaded???
Too many cars in the same segment... with the same motors & equipment. Why Honda why?
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 02:47:59 PM
again, you need to drive both. IT's like saying
a 2009 Accord V6 is:
quiker then a 5 Series and E class caus it is
Larger than a 5 Series and E class caus it is
Has a better nav than a 5 Series and E class caus it does
HOW CAN BMW AND BENZ COMPETE!!??
Use some logic please
Are we comparing a 535i? Because if we are, the 535i rapes the Accord so hard, it bleeds (quickness).
The 5-series drives so much better than the Accord that it makes the logic that they don't compete 100% valid.
DRIVE BOTH. THEN SPEAK
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 02:55:52 PM
Are we comparing a 535i? Because if we are, the 535i rapes the Accord so hard, it bleeds (quickness).
The 5-series drives so much better than the Accord that it makes the logic that they don't compete 100% valid.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:22:13 PM
DRIVE BOTH. THEN SPEAK
Done, and done.
In fact, you're at an advantage. I'm comparing a TSX.
I need to drive a 2009 Accord. The 535i is a formidable competitor, though. :lol:
where you gonna get a valid license?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 08:37:40 PM
Done, and done.
In fact, you're at an advantage. I'm comparing a TSX.
:evildude:
Quote from: YO on February 17, 2009, 07:45:14 AM
where you gonna get a valid license?
May-ish. It's just convenient that the cars in question are the cars my parents happen to own, and the cars I drive often (daily in the case of the BMW, maybe once every 2 weeks in the case of the Acura).
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 17, 2009, 08:30:26 AM
May-ish. It's just convenient that the cars in question are the cars my parents happen to own, and the cars I drive often (daily in the case of the BMW, maybe once every 2 weeks in the case of the Acura).
I doubt you daily drive your parent's 5-series without a license. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MrH on February 17, 2009, 10:38:45 AM
I doubt you daily drive your parent's 5-series without a license. :rolleyes:
Then doubt it.
If you don't believe me, that's your problem. Keep this in mind. I have to go somewhere everyday. More often than not, I drive.
Quote from: MrH on February 17, 2009, 10:38:45 AM
I doubt you daily drive your parent's 5-series without a license. :rolleyes:
Learners Permit?
Quote from: YO on February 19, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
vespa
Still makes more torque than every 4-banger Honda ever made.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 19, 2009, 12:36:59 PM
Still makes more torque than every 4-banger Honda ever made.
zing!
that must be based on "another" persons driving... must suck being too short to ride...
Quote from: YO on February 19, 2009, 02:39:02 PM
that must be based on "another" persons driving... must suck being too short to ride...
You know, it's really funny how bad your insults suck.
And it's also really bad how little torque Honda 4-bangers make. Too bad my sister has a TSX that I've driven a lot, eh?
sure
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 19, 2009, 02:43:03 PM
You know, it's really funny how bad your insults suck.
And it's also really bad how little torque Honda 4-bangers make. Too bad my sister has a TSX that I've driven a lot, eh?
Little 4 bangers with good heads can make tons of torque
All 2009 Acuras suck
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2009, 03:52:53 PM
Little 4 bangers with good heads can make tons of torque
All 2009 Acuras suck
Nobody said they can't. It's just that Honda doesn't have any N/A 4-bangers with any torque.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
Nobody said they can't. It's just that Honda doesn't have any N/A 4-bangers with any torque.
Maybe not stock :whistle:
I've seen mild builds (think stock block 2.2L motors) put torque down that puts some V6s to shame
you're showing your age again. It's impossible to feel torque in a video game. You've been brainwashed by the torque hype. Luxury V6s a short decade ago had simuler tq with much less hp... unless you have a Wi... I think you can feel tq with that thing...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
Nobody said they can't. It's just that Honda doesn't have any N/A 4-bangers with any torque.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
Nobody said they can't. It's just that Honda doesn't have any N/A 4-bangers with any torque.
No one's complained. A lot of people like revving the piss out of the motor.
Quote from: YO on February 21, 2009, 07:45:20 PM
you're showing your age again. It's impossible to feel torque in a video game. You've been brainwashed by the torque hype. Luxury V6s a short decade ago had simuler tq with much less hp... unless you have a Wi... I think you can feel tq with that thing...
They have a TSX, you douche.
Oh, yes, torque as horsepower - my favorite all time "debates" on the Internets.
good one. Back to your video games...
Quote from: CJ on February 21, 2009, 08:17:41 PM
They have a TSX, you douche.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2009, 08:18:14 PM
Oh, yes, torque as horsepower - my favorite all time "debates" on the Internets.
Yeah, not even a physicist can "debate" a god damn mathematical conversion between units.
And don't even get me started on people who can only think in peak output numbers.
Quote from: YO on February 21, 2009, 08:19:45 PM
good one. Back to your video games...
Or I can go out for a drive in either one of the vehicles currently in the garage. My Volvo is almost done being repaired.
make sure you check with mom first... don't be disrespectful...
Quote from: CJ on February 21, 2009, 08:33:57 PM
Or I can go out for a drive in either one of the vehicles currently in the garage. My Volvo is almost done being repaired.
as my BMW buddies say... "2011 Acura NSX... 722 horsepower...156 lbs of torque"...
Quote from: NACar on February 21, 2009, 08:33:11 PM
Yeah, not even a physicist can "debate" a god damn mathematical conversion between units.
And don't even get me started on people who can only think in peak output numbers.
Quote from: YO on February 21, 2009, 07:45:20 PM
you're showing your age again. It's impossible to feel torque in a video game. You've been brainwashed by the torque hype. Luxury V6s a short decade ago had simuler tq with much less hp... unless you have a Wi... I think you can feel tq with that thing...
It's also impossible to feel torque (low-end grunt) in a Honda 4-banger.
This is too easy.
Quote from: NACar on February 21, 2009, 08:33:11 PM
Yeah, not even a physicist can "debate" a god damn mathematical conversion between units.
And don't even get me started on people who can only think in peak output numbers.
You'd be surprised. I had one physics professor explain to me that parralel lines may or may not intersect each other depending on the shape of the universe.
(but don't make YO try to wrap his head around such concepts, he's a salesman)
Quote from: YO on February 21, 2009, 08:47:51 PM
as my BMW buddies say... "2011 Acura NSX... 722 horsepower...156 lbs of torque"...
That is impossible. That would mean the motor revs to 24,307 rpm, but I'm pretty sure the NSX rev limiter was set at 22,000 rpm.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 21, 2009, 08:53:14 PM
You'd be surprised. I had one physics professor explain to me that parralel lines may or may not intersect each other depending on the shape of the universe.
(but don't make YO try to wrap his head around such concepts, he's a salesman)
My astronomy professor iss pretty sure the universe is shaped like a rather large donut, so I don't have any problem with parallel lines intersecting each other.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2009, 08:50:25 PM
It's also impossible to feel torque (low-end grunt) in a Honda 4-banger.
This is too easy.
Oh, gods this post is awesome.
Quote from: NACar on February 21, 2009, 08:54:08 PM
That is impossible. That would mean the motor revs to 24,307 rpm, but I'm pretty sure the NSX rev limiter was set at 22,000 rpm.
Assuming peak torque is also at 24,307 RPM, which I doubt is the case. Its rare to find an engine that makes peak torque above 15,000 RPM.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2009, 11:14:55 PM
Oh, gods this post is awesome.
DEWD DUNT U KNO DAT J00 MUST REV TEH PISS OOT OF DA S2000 TO MAKE IT MOVE? GOSH.
:lol:
Seriously though, the "Honda's have no torque" argument is retarded. Honda motors are high strung but saying that they have no torque or have to be revved past 5,000 RPM to make the car move is retarded.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 19, 2009, 02:43:03 PM
You know, it's really funny how bad your insults suck.
And it's also really bad how little torque Honda 4-bangers make. Too bad my sister has a TSX that I've driven a lot, eh?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2009, 08:50:25 PM
It's also impossible to feel torque (low-end grunt) in a Honda 4-banger.
This is too easy.
:rage: :banghead:
Please go back to jizzing over BMW's and Porsche's and stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
it's like debating a 2nd grade soccer team....or herding cats....
Quote from: thecarnut on February 22, 2009, 12:34:05 AM
:rage: :banghead:
Please go back to jizzing over BMW's and Porsche's and stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 22, 2009, 12:34:05 AM
:rage: :banghead:
Please go back to jizzing over BMW's and Porsche's and stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
:rolleyes:
Yes, because I've never driven a 4-banger Honda. They are fun, but they have no low-end.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2009, 08:18:14 PM
Oh, yes, torque as horsepower - my favorite all time "debates" on the Internets.
It's funny for awhile, but sometimes it's just depressing to listen to.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 21, 2009, 08:53:14 PM
You'd be surprised. I had one physics professor explain to me that parralel lines may or may not intersect each other depending on the shape of the universe.
(but don't make YO try to wrap his head around such concepts, he's a salesman)
It's true!
Non-euclidean geometry is crazy shit. My math teacher totally blew my mind apart when he explained that triangles don't add up to 180 degrees sometimes.
The vast majority of Honda 4 bangers really do need to be shifted at 5K or so to make good progress though
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 22, 2009, 09:47:37 AM
:rolleyes:
Yes, because I've never driven a 4-banger Honda. They are fun, but they have no low-end.
Yeah, no.
You've driven one 4-cylinder Honda and you automatically say they have no low-end?
And I bet the TSX is just fine anyways.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 23, 2009, 06:14:34 AM
The vast majority of Honda 4 bangers really do need to be shifted at 5K or so to make good progress though
I really doubt that seeing as the TSX makes it's peak torque before 5k. :wtf:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 21, 2009, 11:42:33 PM
Assuming peak torque is also at 24,307 RPM, which I doubt is the case. Its rare to find an engine that makes peak torque above 15,000 RPM.
IT'S A HONDA, DUDE. YOU ARE WRONG. SOME HONDAS EVEN MAKE PEAK TORK ABOVE PEAK HP, THAT'S HOW AWESOME THEY ARE.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 10:52:12 AM
I really doubt that seeing as the TSX makes it's peak torque before 5k. :wtf:
But to make "good progress", you want to shift near peak power, not peak torque. And with peak torque somewhere around 4500 RPM, as I recall, that means you need to wick it up to 5K+.
Quote from: MX793 on February 23, 2009, 06:08:38 PM
But to make "good progress", you want to shift near peak power, not peak torque. And with peak torque somewhere around 4500 RPM, as I recall, that means you need to whick it up to 5K+.
HP peaks at 7,000 RPM.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 10:52:12 AM
I really doubt that seeing as the TSX makes it's peak torque before 5k. :wtf:
It makes it at 4,500 RPM. All 166 lb/ft of it.
Let's compare that of, oh, I don't know, the B7 A4 2.0T (the FSI motor). It makes peak torque (207 lb/ft) at 1,800 RPM.
The TSX's low-end is earth-shaking, right Rag? :rolleyes:
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 10:48:59 AM
Yeah, no.
You've driven one 4-cylinder Honda and you automatically say they have no low-end?
And I bet the TSX is just fine anyways.
Oh, I must be wrong. The torque curve of the S2000 suggests that doesn't make peak torque at 6200 RPM, and peak power at 7800 RPM.
My mistake. Honda 4-bangers are rip-snorting monsters on the low end.
the tach in your sig is not real... it's just a picture...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
It makes it at 4,500 RPM. All 166 lb/ft of it.
Let's compare that of, oh, I don't know, the B7 A4 2.0T (the FSI motor). It makes peak torque (207 lb/ft) at 1,800 RPM.
The TSX's low-end is earth-shaking, right Rag? :rolleyes:
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:27:13 PM
Oh, I must be wrong. The torque curve of the S2000 suggests that doesn't make peak torque at 6200 RPM, and peak power at 7800 RPM.
My mistake. Honda 4-bangers are rip-snorting monsters on the low end.
The S2000's torque curve is also quite flat. Peak may technically be at 6200 RPM, but it's still making ~90% of it's peak value down as low as 3000 RPM.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
It makes it at 4,500 RPM. All 166 lb/ft of it.
Let's compare that of, oh, I don't know, the B7 A4 2.0T (the FSI motor). It makes peak torque (207 lb/ft) at 1,800 RPM.
The TSX's low-end is earth-shaking, right Rag? :rolleyes:
You can't compare a turbocharged engine's output to a naturally aspirated's. Apples to oranges.
And it's actually better to make more torque at higher RPMs than at lower. Peak torque early in the band is only good if you can maintain that torque over the breadth of the band.
Flat torque > Flat Power (which the 2.0T FSI exhibits).
Quote from: YO on February 23, 2009, 06:27:49 PM
the tach in your sig is not real... it's just a picture...
?
So the TSX is no longer a nimble lightweight powered by a high-revving I4. What is it?
I'm thinking it's legitimately a fill-in for the old TL now.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
It makes it at 4,500 RPM. All 166 lb/ft of it.
Let's compare that of, oh, I don't know, the B7 A4 2.0T (the FSI motor). It makes peak torque (207 lb/ft) at 1,800 RPM.
The TSX's low-end is earth-shaking, right Rag? :rolleyes:
LOL
You can't even compare a terbow with an NA.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:27:13 PM
Oh, I must be wrong. The torque curve of the S2000 suggests that doesn't make peak torque at 6200 RPM, and peak power at 7800 RPM.
My mistake. Honda 4-bangers are rip-snorting monsters on the low end.
Good job, you can read. Too bad you don't know that peak numbers don't mean much on their own.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 07:18:19 PM
LOL
You can't even compare a terbow with an NA.
No, you can't. It's not fair to NA!
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17501.msg1005582#msg1005582 date=1235442685
No, you can't. It's not fair to NA!
It's not NA, it has VTAQ! :devil:
Quote from: the Teuton on February 23, 2009, 07:12:14 PM
So the TSX is no longer a nimble lightweight powered by a high-revving I4. What is it?
I'm thinking it's legitimately a fill-in for the old TL now.
It still comes with the I4.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 07:19:09 PM
Good job, you can read. Too bad you don't know that peak numbers don't mean much on their own.
It's fucking peaky. Are you really disagreeing with me? It gets a lot of power at high-RPMs, but not much at low-RPMs. Disagree? Therefore, it has little low-end power.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I swear, you are such an idiot. It's fucking peaky. Are you really disagreeing with me? It gets a lot of power at high-RPMs, but not much at low-RPMs. Disagree? Therefore, it has little low-end power.
You've never driven a really "peaky" vehicle, have you? The S2000 has a rather flat torque curve. Flat torque = steady acceleration vs RPM != peaky.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 07:45:43 PM
That's not really breaking news. :huh:
But what do you do when you see the hot girl from high school all fat and bloated 3-4 years later? You give her that awkward look like "how the mighty have fallen," and how your fantasies of her have, too.
The TSX is now that girl, except the new TSX never looked gorgeous. It has the face of Integra Girl.
Quote from: MX793 on February 23, 2009, 07:47:23 PM
You've never driven a really "peaky" vehicle, have you? The S2000 has a rather flat torque curve. Flat torque = steady acceleration vs RPM != peaky.
Well, no. The TSX is about as peaky as I've driven.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 23, 2009, 07:49:40 PM
But what do you do when you see the hot girl from high school all fat and bloated 3-4 years later? You give her that awkward look like "how the mighty have fallen," and how your fantasies of her have, too.
The TSX is now that girl, except the new TSX never looked gorgeous. It has the face of Integra Girl.
I'm still in high school, I haven't faced that yet. :lol:
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 07:52:20 PM
I'm still in high school, I haven't faced that yet. :lol:
(http://jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2008/12/medium_3131886684_a4078917d3_o.jpg)
Think about it.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 23, 2009, 07:56:30 PM
(http://jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2008/12/medium_3131886684_a4078917d3_o.jpg)
Think about it.
That's the TL. The TSX has grown on me a bit. Still looks worse than the 1st gen.
You'd hit it.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 23, 2009, 08:03:02 PM
You'd hit it.
The TSX? With a manual, yeah, maybe. I really like the 1st gen, so I'd probably find a nice CPO example (like my sister's) before I'd look at a 2nd gen.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
The TSX? With a manual, yeah, maybe. I really like the 1st gen, so I'd probably find a nice CPO example (like my sister's) before I'd look at a 2nd gen.
Clever.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 07:49:47 PM
Well, no. The TSX is about as peaky as I've driven.
The TSX 2.4L also has a pretty flat torque curve. You want to know what peaky looks like? Look at a Mazdaspeed3. Torque ramps up quickly over the first 1000 RPM, holds fairly steady for about 2 grand, then falls off sharply over the last 2500 RPM of the band. It's at 90%+ of peak for about 2500 rpm, well less than half its usable band (about 38%). That's peaky. A TSX spikes up to around 150 lb-ft at 2500 RPM and holds it until 5 grand when it starts gently ramping down. It makes 90%+ of peak over a roughly 4000 RPM band, which is over 50% of the usable band.
Honda powerbands piss me off a bit
I've driven the S2K and a few DOHC VTEC machines... to go fast, it's like the movie Speed... u have to absolutely stay on the big cam, otherwise the car cuts fuel until u stop moving.
Meanwhile, in equally powered cars w/big motors, you can get by shifting at maybe 3K or so. Def. easier to drive
This thread is just screaming for it. I have to use it. It's calling me out.
:facepalm:
Dude - "ft/lb" is about where I checked out...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 24, 2009, 01:36:28 AM
Dude - "ft/lb" is about where I checked out...
Ugh, I thought we already went over this:
Torque = (total surface area of all the cylinders added up)*(radial tolerance stack up of the play between the cylinder heads and the cylinder walls) / (the force it takes to snap a rod when applied in shear at where the head connects)
:facepalm: :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 24, 2009, 01:36:28 AM
Dude - "ft/lb" is about where I checked out...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 23, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
It makes it at 4,500 RPM. All 166 lb/ft of it.
Let's compare that of, oh, I don't know, the B7 A4 2.0T (the FSI motor). It makes peak torque (207 lb/ft) at 1,800 RPM.
The TSX's low-end is earth-shaking, right Rag? :rolleyes:
I bet you did.
Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give just a quick hint: uh, lb/ft vs. ft/lb ain't the issue...
I'll calling my "mom, dad, sister and brother" tonight to get clarity on this issue...just you wait!
Quote from: GoCougs on February 24, 2009, 06:01:33 PM
Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give just a quick hint: uh, lb/ft vs. ft/lb ain't the issue...