oldman

I find that for every “stock” car cutting incredible times, there is either a cheater, or a liar behind the wheel and or keyboard.. So much for “real people do at real tracks”

Every publication that I know of list the TC as faster in the ¼ mile, that is an irrefutable FACT. That your fictional time slips from fictional “stock” TSX does not tell, hence your attack on such independent test.


I’ve missed something, I find your troll charge high disrespectful first off, second off I did not see you “back anything up” I see no scanned timeslips, no links to a TSX dyno, etc. Not that I don’t believe it, I care not about a TSX dyno, I’m just pointing out that outside what flew out of your keyboard, there has been no “backup” of your statements. FWIW please don’t bombard this forum with TSX stuff.. big yawn now.


Did I say clutch dropping? I said Banzai, I’ve owned many VTEC powered cars and I’ve driven them to some very good ¼ mile numbers. I clearly know that the VTEC works best by reving the engine and slipping the clutch, which is much harder on a clutch then merely dropping it, a statement you just made up. Right? Oh now I’m a magazine racer I’ve clearly said in my DIESEL Jetta I’ve blown a few TSX. They ain’t that fast. In fact they are not even close. Now if a DIESEL Jetta can blow a TSX, a forced induced TC would kill one too. Here’s a post of my Jetta’s dyno since you are so concerned about dyno runs:

http://nqr.thesmallprint.org/cgi-bin...que_actaul.jpg

Let me know when your TSX puts out near 300 ft-lbs to the wheels.




For somebody that is so into hard numbers, I find it near laughable that the fastest number you can find for a TC is 16.3. I have a feeling my TC is much faster then 16.3 in the ¼ mile, and yes I look forward to some dirty dancing with any “stock” TSX and yes I have a stock TC.

So lets sum this up, every publication R&T, C&D, MSN Auto, Japan mag link above, shows the TC faster then the TSX, yet we are to believe that because you “know of” 3 TSX that have done a 15.3 that this is the expected and in fact the current level of performance for every TSX on the planet. Meanwhile your factua and independentl research has yielded the best of 16.3 for a TC and oh I’m a magazine racer.. and you are some sort of ¼ mile extrapolation to street performance guru.

I will take a scan of your time slip or your dyno run. You already have a link to my last ride. My TC will soon join it.

Oh and the GTO can be purchased $7500 off MSRP which is lower then the base price of a TSX. So what is a better value now? Gee GTO able to crank into the 13's or a overweight 4 banger that is slower then an Accord for the same price? I think I'll take the GTO thanks.

Fish

I personally like the TSX's. I don't see any reason for you guys to start bashing on this guy when he come here looking for a friendly comparison. Show a little love for other cars out there. Just because you happen to own a tC doesn't mean it is the only car out there. He likes TSX's. We like tC's. Good for everybody. Now let's all get along and welcome other people to discuss our car's and theirs.

oldman

the guy that needs love is the first with the troll call, the first with the magazine racer call, the banzai launch means clutch dump, the best a TC can do in the 1/4 mile is 16.3, the GTO is a whale even though it would SPANK, I mean completely spank a TSX on the street, in the 1/4 mile, in a road race and is um cheaper too.
The basic fact is a TSX is a very expensive 4 banger and performs like a heavy 4 banger. A v6 Accord is a better performance buy and has better MPG on regular too.

The topic of the tread is can a supercharged TC spank a TSX and since a stock TC can spank a TSX I would think the answer is um a SC TC can and should easily do a 14.9 at say 93 mph which is much faster then R&T says a TSX can do 15.8@87 MPH. That is a SPANK.

Fish

Dude you seriously need to chill out. This guy obviously doesn't want some random guy on the internet to whine and cry about how their diesel jetta could "spank" a TSX.

"What's up tc'ers? I'm a megamod on a tsx forum and just wanted to weigh in on the topic and say the respect is reciprocated. Most of us really dig the looks of the tc and think it is a great car for the money with lots of potential for customizing. "

They respect our cars. Show some for theirs.

"I killed a few TSX with my Jetta, I do agree they seem to handle well, but in a straight line street fight um, they are not very fast."

Considering thats the first reply this guy gets when he comes here, I think the troll call is absolutely right.

TinkySD

lol you guys are great. You take thing so personally. This was a thread about tsx vs. tc so I chimed in. Seems pretty on topic to me. I called no names and refuted a few points that were incorrect. If you want dynos you shall have them. And yes, the fastest time slip i've seen is 16.3 on this site. That is all I ever claimed, not all tc, or fastest tc, or research on anything. First post I asked for timeslips or reported runs and that's all I've desred since. The fasted non time slipped run was 15.6. I can accept that, you should accept we have users running 15.3. And i never claimed all drivers were capable of that. But there are obviously some. (and it can't be that hard if there are three people doing it) Just so you know they don't have tsx in japan. Different car with different motor. If you need numbers validated by a magazine c&d ran the tsx at 15.6 and I think the tc at 15.7. Not like it matters, but just wanted to refute that one point of yours. I see no proof that a tc can spank a tsx stock. I see the best stock run 15.6 vs 15.3 according to track runs. If no one can take it to the track and beat a heavy 4 banger iwth the same displacment that doesn't say much for the significantly lighter tc's motor and gear box.

I never claimed any way shape or form the tsx was fast or a drag car or could run with a gto? where do you guys get this stuff? I refuted a point about g ratings and not being reality when concered with handling. I've driven one in corners, it's floaty. I made no reference to it's power, which was obiouvsly fantastic.

You never defined a "bonzai launch" -- I guess it's assumed i would know?. You obviously dont' have experience with the k24a2. It's a bit of a departure form normal honda fair. Toque peak 2700 rpms and again at 4500 falling off to redline and fuel cutoff. So your "obiouvsly knowing how vtec works" doesn't really apply here. THe k24a2 makes more torque at 2700 rpms than 6500...definitely not your normal honda motor!

Just becuase you race a car on the street doesn't mean he was racing too. (also a good way to kill people )

Now if you want to respond to anything i said without emotional outbursts and actually paying attention to the details of what I said that would be great!

TinkySD

PS I said a sc'd tc would be faster from the start.

TinkySD

P.P.S My initial mag race call out was directed at slowpoke for his insightful comments on arguements.

mach5

so far the fastest stock tc run i've seen was 15.5 something
stock for stock its a drivers race with the edge going to the tsx more often than the tc
a supercharged tc would blow away a stock tsx but then we have a FI vs NA STOCK car
apples to oranges. this debate is stupid
stock rsx are doing high 14's with good drivers so a stock tsx which is a bit heavier, doing low 15's is believable


and most tc owners would love to have the "crappy" michelins that come on the tsx, we have the crappiest bridgestone tires stock on our vehicles

TinkySD

I agree man, I never wanted a flame war. I came here to talk a little abou the discussions said the sc tc would be faster. I personally dont thinkt he trd setup will drop the car much below 14.8 or so...maybe i made a poor choice of word by saying marginally..but a 300 lb light er car with the same displacement s/c beating another by 5 car lenghts over a quarter mile didn't seem like a spank to me. Sorry if I seemed alittle caustic in my previous post. NOt my intention, but oldman aggravated me his inability to even listen to another point of view. Sorry to the rest of you!

Are the stock tires on the t/c summer? I know they are z rated. We get the pilot sport energy a/s(same as mazda 6) which

Simez2003

Tinky dont let this jackass oldman get to you, welcome to the TC boards. I own a T/C and yea even though its faster and performs better i would much rather have a TSX. Oldman is under the assumption that because a car is faster that its better. Its like saying a SRT-4 is a better car than a porche boxter because its faster and cheaper. WRONG. A TSX is a beautiful car and should be appreciated for its looks, and luxury and not for its speed. Oldman go race your moms jetta u turboed... it might up your mood a little bit and help you not be such a dick.

TinkySD

Agreed! Apologies to everyone for the rude entry to the board. Hope to keep up to date around here to see how the aftermarket/track runs/dynos develop for your car.

oldman

I'm under no assumtions, the topic is will a SC TC beat a TSX, why yes it will, by a good margin. My inital reply was that a SC and a good set of tires the TC will easily outperform the TSX, a completely true statement.

here it is:

"I mean sure the TSX is nice but it ain't like there is a blow out here stock vs stock and give the TC a new set of tires and a supercharger. Um TC baby.... "


and this is true nuff:
"so far the fastest stock tc run i've seen was 15.5 something
stock for stock its a drivers race with the edge going to the tsx more often than the tc"


lastly I think a SC TC is a fair comparison because we are talking about cars that retain their factory warranty, now if we are talking aftermarket vs factory then I would agree complete apple to orange nonsense. But a factory backed car for $20,000 compared to $27,000 factory backed car is far enough, Bang for the $$$ clearly favors the TC.

I've never said the faster car is the better car as the Neon is clearly the fastest car for the $$$$, I like the whole package, and the TSX is a better car then a SC TC, but it is a much more expensive car too. I think bang for the $$$ clearly favors the SC TC as an entire package, hence I purchased one.

sl0wp0ke

lol, im an _______. Look man Ive been to the track around FL Bradenton to be exact. I personally watched along with a few others, a tc run a 15.8. Stock 5spd. Now I did fast read this post and I might not have got the exact point and im sorry, but im just stating what the car mag said. Ive seen both cars run and thats what they ran at the track "REAL PEOPLE" lol!

oldman

The TC is rated at 15.6 I can easily believe +/- .25 seconds even with a good driver.
So you saw a 15.8, and I think we will see 15.4 stock TC this year.

The TSX is rated at 15.8 by the same mag I can easily believe +/- .25 and since this is a VTEC banzai lanches, power shifting etc may even yeild - .5 yeilding your eye witness 15.3. I should also note that VTEC GS-R are know to bend valves on miss shifts and it ain't an easy engine to work on. I sure the same goes for the K engines.

Clearly the two two cars are in the same performance envelope stock, which I've already said. Clearly an extra 40+ WHP and 40+ ft-lbs added to the TC would dominate the TSX.

Dyno runs the best dyno run for a TSX is 170 WHP, 153 ft-lbs
The best for a TC is 143 WHP, 138 ft-lbs.

these are both dynojet numbers.

The TSX is very peaky meaning the average power under the curve thu the gear is much less then a flat HP engine like the TSX

Here are two dyno, they are not dynojet so their power can't be related but the shape of the curve can.

http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/tsx_catback.pdf

You can see that the VTEC peak is very sharp applied HP under the curve is about 15 HP under peak. Meaning that the TSX would put an average of 155 WHP thu the gear (dynojet measurement), a major draw back to VTEC as it is the average applied HP that moves a car, not the .10 second peak and it is easy to see the average HP is about 10% down from peak due to the steepness of the curve.

http://suzukird.com/scion-tc-perform...er_exhaust.jpg


Here is a dyno of a TC, check how flat the curve is. Peak to trough thru the gear is maybe 8 HP and the average thu the gear is maybe 5 HP below peak. Starting with a 143 WHP dynojet graph, -5 HP from peak means the average applied TC WHP is 137 WHP though the gear. A nice flat curve that the average applied HP is only 4% below the peak for the entire run. A MAJOR advantage of variable overlap timing.


So the average applied 137 WHP is 18 WHP down from 155 WHP, not 27 WHP or so that you would expect looking at peak numbers.

Power to weight is:

TC 137 WHP average for 2930 + 180 lbs driver = 3120 lbs per 137 WHP = 22.77 lbs per average WHP.

TSX 155 WHP average for 3318 + 180 lbs driver = 3498 lbs per 155 WHP = 22.57 lbs per average WHP.

Hence as stated above by mach5 it is a drivers race with a slight edge, a very slight edge going to the TSX. A major draw back about twin cam VTEC is high HP but no torque. Hence the area under the power curve for a VTEC is FAR less then it is for a conventional engine. The TSX has a mere 3 ft-lbs more then the TC. Also noted the TC should be easier to master as it has a flat power curve.

A supercharged TC should perform similar to the Ion and /or Cobalt and these are high 14 second cars in the 94 MPH+ range (magazine numbers which will be +/- .25). A performance band clearly superior to a stock TSX.

TinkySD

That's the weight of an auto tsx, 6mt weighs 3200. Regarldess I still think you are incorrect on some of your technical points which I will reference below.

I would be wary of using aftermarket dynos as opposed to user dynos. THey have profit incentive to make stock dynos look bad and their product look good.
Here are two stock dynos at the same location. I see the tsx cranking 150lbft to the wheels all the way from 2200-5000rpms. Hardly peaky. Now what is a "banzai" launch and why do your estimation of what a car "might" gain from some altered launch technique have any basis in reality? It's all just speculation. Looks to me like the tsx has more like 15 lbft more at the wheels stock than a tc, not 3.(probably 20 at the crank) Your comments about high horsepower/no torque don't apply to this engine. As are your arguement about the flat power curve. Maybe with previous gen bseries this is true but not the ivtec series which has camchanging as well as continuosly variable valve timing.(vvtli in toyotas)



What I still dont' understand is why took issue with saying the sc tc would be faster in the first place. I was nver argueing about "bang for the buck" or anything of the sort, only how we have users running 15.3s which you fail to accept as reality.

oldman

you will not find a lower torque 200 BHP engine PERIOD.

You can look at the graph and see that from 5000 to 7100 there is a 20 WHP swing, in fact the is a huge sag from 5000 to 5500 RPM, a full 33% of the power run under the curve, Hence the peak 170 WHP has a MUCH lower average HP. I said 155 WHP which is a reasonable number.

Find me one link to 3200 lbs curb weight,

The Scion TC of course has an almost FLAT power curve. The TC has been TESTED by ever magazine to be faster then a TSX.

Lets crank the new numbers shall we?

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/scion...ecs.html?p=ext

2905 lbs from like 5 sources

now the TSX here: 3230 lbs

http://www.acura.com/models/model_sp...ule=tsx&bhcp=1

lets say there is 155 WHP average for the TSX
3230 lbs / 155 WHP = 20.84 lbs per HP

lest say there is 137 WHP average for the Tc
2905 / 137 WHP = 21.20 lbs per HP

.36 lbs per WHP less wow ! NOT…. IF the Scion had 2 more WHP average it would have the same power to weight. So maybe toss in a TRD exhaust. Clearly +40 bhp +40 or 50 ft-lbs would allow the SC TC to completely dominate the TSX in performance. QED

TrafficinLA

While I was driving down the freeway, I saw a nice BMW speed by me at a high speed. Definitely faster and more acceleration at high speeds. We come to a freeway interchange with a 50 mph (sign-posted) curve with two lanes. He went into the curve first but I came out first at 75 mph. You can dyno and compare all you want but it's about the driver bringing out the potential of the car.

Jettas, TSXs, tCs are all good cars with comparable performance. TSXs are not sold to young teenage racers but caters to a more mature, near-luxury crowd. Jettas and tCs are entry level cars that caters more to the sport import crowd. Like what TinkySD said, fewer people buy TSXs for quartermile races than Jettas/GTIs and tCs.

Both the S/C tC and the TSX offer the best value for their class. Their performance is close so it's down to the drivers, as in whoever weighs less! XD

TinkySD

http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3044?m...52644&mime=asc

Curb weight 3230.

Incorrect, the celica gts and rsx-s both make near or more than 200 hp with less torque. also the s2k and rx8. I think it's safe to say either the tsx torque was underrated or the tc torque was overrated. You don't get 15lb ft difference at the wheels from a 3lbft difference.

It's all about area under the curve. the avg. hp metric you want to use is too innacurate. (this includes are large area from 6200rpms to 7100rpms( where the tc can't rev.) UnfortunatelY I can't find a dnyo jet of any stock tcs. But I have the feeling you would find at every point in the rpm band the tsx creates higher torque Including above 5000 rpms. I'd rather hve that extra 10-15lb fot of torque through most of the power band then fall off to nearer the tc torque curve than not have it for sake of a "flat" curve. It's obvious the tsx creates a statistically significantly larger area under the curve.

C&D Tested the tsx as faster.

I never claimed one had a better toque to weight ratio(even though it appears we do from dynos, and the power to weight ratio is also better), only that we have users runnign faster than you are willing to accept. It's also fun blowing holes in your arguements. (you were 0-3 there )

TinkySD

It was nver an issue of the trd sc tc would be faster. When will you realize this. But youare dreaming to think you will get 40 lbft out of a centrifugal sc like the trd is rumored. 40hp and 15-20lb ft is more likely all in the top end of the rpm band. If it was a roots type it would be a different story.

Stop with the avg hp metric, it's meaningless. QED

TinkySD

oops, didn't mean to post this. ignore