oldman

and when I get tired of my Volvo I'll get a TSX for the oldlady.. I hope Acura has some good A spec parts out by then.

I've seen the posted 214 WHP TSX dyno with S intake, header, exhaust and prototype Hondata. I'm a long time GS-R racer and I stoped NA at about 180 ish WHP, which is candy today. So I know there are huge power gains with VTEC NA.

Now if the topic is full bolt on NA TSX vs a TRD supercharged TC, um gut feeling they would be in the same envelope but a good VTEC driver is going to get an extra .25 out of the TSX meaning low14s full NA bolt on while good or great TC SC will still be into the mid to high 14s. but hey I'm too old to power shift.

TinkySD

I wasn't going to bring up any mods for the tsx as I didn't think it was really releavant fo the topic. But yeah , as soon as hondata comes out 215 hp and 180lbft at the wheels will be reality for man tsx owners which is pretty sweet....all on stock internals.(and of course no warranty)

oldman

The average HP is what moves the car down the track or street. VTEC guys like peak cause it shows their ride to be bad action, but peak is meaningless, it is the average HP under the curve and push comes to shove a VTEC does not cut it. My Jetta depending on tune may make 165 WHP but it is completely flat, so that is 165 average WHP under the curve hence it is faster then a 170 WHP TSX by a good margin.

This is a big 4 banger, gut feeling the supercharger will add MORE torque then peak HP, yes I know it is a turbine based unit. I've worked on enough blowers to understand that Vortex can be putting out boost just off idle and reach full chat by 2400 RPM which is FAR below peak torque on the Tc.

TinkySD

No one is arguing that area under the curve moves the car. The point is your abitrary averages are innacurate. Find a stock dynojet and we will overlay them. Like i said I thinkw e'lls ee the tsx cranking higher torque at everpoint at the rev range. As well as a significant amount from where the tc can't rev. In this case peak HP numbers don't make the engine look any better than it is, per your comments. as the motor slowly falls off to redline and doesn't make any type of large jump in torque on the second cam. The torque curve of the tsx is of similar shape to the tc, only higher at each point(from what we can gather without a complete stock dynojet). So all this talk about "banzai" launches and what not is irrelevant. In fact, if anythign were to benefit it would be the tc since the tsx cranks so much more torque under 3000 rpms.

Hey no hard feelings from me about this stuff. I just think youre experience with previous generation honda motor is cloulding your opinions here.


I'm not supercharger expert so I'll defer to you there. I personally ahven't seen a centrifugla sc crank more than marginal torque down low but maybe that's feasible.

oldman

fair enough, I'll find cartest and program in TSX and TC if they are not already there, this should give us a ball park estimate of where the shift points lie and what is the true RPM range of the engines applied through the gear. From there a reasonable estimate can be given to the average HP used thru 4 gears.

the only comapny I know of with a turbin SC vortec type for a Toyota is ripmod

http://www.rippmods.com/products/pro...s&productId=99

The get some crazy numbers from the stock 115 HP.


How much torque or even HP is pure speculation, I should have said can produce more torque then WHP.

TinkySD

Don't use the cartest data on the tsx as is, i've ben bugging the guy to update but he still has incorrect data about the tsx final driver(4.76) and the torque curve is off. I can send you a tsx data file for cartest 2000 with a dyno already input if you are interested!

Would you accept this as a fairly indicative stock dynojet dyno?
it was listed on a cardomain site.

I might not have time to do the overlay this afternoon or tonight as I have plan but will work on it tomorrow when I get teh chance.(have to pass the time at work somehow)

miraclecreator

imma have to say s/c tC b/c Acura TSX is a piece of ____. a stock tC can be equal to TSX is placed in the hands of a good driver. So I'd say a s/c would beat the ____ out of the TSX unless a retard drives it or a pro drives the TSX.

TinkySD

This is just an eyballed set of comparison points. I tried to be fair to both cars but it of course could be a couple percent off. Assuming of course, this is an acceptable stock tc dyno. So these numbers and conclusions might not be entirely accurate, but it's a good point of discussion
Figure there is an 8% of so weight difference between the two. The tsx is obviously cranking more torque throughout. In the low end and top end it's torque advantage outshiens it's weight deficit. In the midrange it should still have a slight advantage, but it's more or less negligible. In terms of gearing 1st and 3rd are in favor of the tsx, but the tc has a better second gear which is what accounts for the closer times. This also shows why in rolling races(specifcially the 5-60 from c&d) the tsx pulls to the front when the tc can't make use of "banzai launches" ;)

Woodyear

Look my best friend has a TSX. It's definetly a nice car, but pretty much all of our friends agree my tC with ground effects, TRD springs, red leather interior is nicer cosmetically. I've raced him a lot of times, and I always win. I've got a stick, he's in a auto but he still can shift the auto and he still gets whooped. His gearing just isnt all that agressive and he doesnt know how to launch. Bottom line is, he spent like 7k or 8k more than me and got a car that doesn't get any looks, isnt particularly fast, and sounds like a remote control car. He HATES the sound of his car, and everyone comments on it. Mine sounds aggressive with TRD exhaust. tC hands down, better car, and if supercharged it would eat a tsx for breakfast.

Somnambulated

TinkySD, thank you for posting in our forum, especially in such a conspiratorial tone. I was surprised by it, and it's nice to see different car forums exchange ideas instead of saying things like: "NAW DAWG MY RIDE WOULD SMOKE YOUS ALSO U SUK"

I apologize for some of our... Members.

The TSX is not in our same class, it's a luxury vehicle, and a very nice one at that. Once again, I appreciate a head-nod from a luxury car driver any day.

also, rbloedow, your user icon is awesome.

Beantowntc

http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5543

Speedpunk

Agreed! The reason why I read everyday, but post very little is I have no interest in getting into unsolicited ____ing matches with internet bad asses who run off at the mouth Props to you for remaining civil and tolerating 's.

TinkySD

I can pull timeslips from the other sicon site of a tc running equally as bad. it doesn't really matter. Not everyone can drive to the full advantage of car. Anyone who gets a 2.95 60' time obviously has some problems. In that run they both ran with traction control on and the auto didnt' even break torque. haha.

The 15.3s we have we with a 2.43 60' which means on a perfect run or with upgraded tires we will most likely be seeing 15.1 or 15 flat stock.

Autos, of course, aren't a real comparison. Fastest a stock tsx auto will run is low 16s. It just doesn't have the gearing to take advantage of the hp.(plus the extra 100lbs doesn't help)

brian

Agreed.

Scion_Dealer

Why is everyone comparing a TSX to a tC??? If you want a more realistic comparison (luxury car to luxury car) Go look at an IS 300. The tC is meant to be an entry level car, and with the money you save over buying a TSX you can tunerize and make the interior look damn good. I understand the power numbers between the 2 are the same but it really looks like you're comparing oranges and grapefruits... Just my 2 cents

oldman

yeah that grpah shape looks good, but the numbers look low, I've seen most TC charts (what few are out there) have 139 to 143 as peak HP. Is this an auto?

Use this one:

alphawerks.com

lets say there is 155 WHP average for the TSX
3230 lbs / 155 WHP = 20.84 lbs per HP
with driver
3410 lbs/ 155 whp = 22 lbs per HP

lest say there is 137 WHP average for the Tc
2905 / 137 WHP = 21.20 lbs per HP
With driver
3085 lbs / 137 WHP = 22.52


Test weight the TSX is 11% heavier don’t know where you got 8%

3085 x1.1100=3424
Since you are using the difference from TC base line.

Here I’ve used the Alphawerks dyno to recalculate.




rpm tsx tq tc tq difference(percent of tc tq)
3000 150 - not measured
3500 147 142 5 (3%)
4000 150 148 2 (1%)
4500 150 145 5 (3%)
5000 145 140 5 (3%)
5500 140 139 1 (0%)
6000 130 137 7 (5%)
6500 140 -- past TC red line
7000 125 --



Clearly the TC has more torque per weight in ALL driving ranges. Also I have no problem with a economy car with 148 ft-lbs to the wheels. Thus the TC feels faster too!

Please double check all my math, I did it in my head, which is um old.


you can FTP the .dat file so we all can down load, I'll try to get a reasonable dyno from a turbine based TC and see how it matches up. I figure a Focus or some other 4V engine with a variable overlap cam design should work, there are VERY few turbine supercharged based 4V engines.

Of course there are a few roots supercharged ones but they wield a very differnt curve. You could of course just use the "turbo" setting in cartest as a reasonable base as the turbine based Vortec would tend to behave like a very small turbo. It would be intresting to switch between turbo and supercharger to see the changes in 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

Last bit about cartest you can go into optional setup and tweak the traction settings to more mimic a good track and a good set of tires. It would be intresting to see how tracktion alone would affect the setups: TC, SC TC, TSX, TSX- Hondata

i64X

I'm with this guy. There's a reason the TSX costs $10K more than a tC. I own and tC now, and before that have owned MANY Hondas and Acuras. The tC wouldn't touch a TSX in terms of handling. Acura has handling down pat on cars like that - I wouldn't put my tC up against any 30K+ Acura - blown or not.

oldman

I have to wait till my OZ superleggera rims and good tires go onto the TC, I too have had a few Acuras and yes handling is very good, near BMW like, which I've also owned. I really think the TC tires are that poor, my car slides out way before lean etc comes into play. But yes you can only get so much from a $16,000 car with a strut suspension vs a TSX with A-arms!

http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/...integrals.html

This is the only example I could find of a Vortech supercharger on a non VTEC 4 valve. This is a 1.8 DOHC with no funky valve changing and these cars have a really small exhaust too.

The TC has a VVT setup so it can vary the overlap adding lots of low end torque, it is a much bigger engine with much bigger OEM exhaust so I would expect a larger gain and an even broader torque band. The TC has a higher CR though.

Anyway the 1.8T went from 140 HP to 201 HP with no intercooler
and from 140 to 226 HP with intercooler

Like I said I above I would expect a bigger gain with this exact same type of setup on the Toyota because of VVT and because of the much larger Tc exhaust.

Yes torque gain is not as much. To be honest I'm glad the Tc will have a Vortech unit as the roots supercharger are full of hot air. Sure they have more instant flow but they are archaic and no where near as elegant as the turbine setup. Plus the Vortech units can have intercoolers which are very hard to plumb on a roots. Bet the Tc will need the battery located to the trunk for a water to air intercooler. BTW.

TinkySD

Now this is my kind of dicussion! :thumbsup: I hope no one get bored as I tend to go for these tedious tech debates.

I fully admit I thought the tc was a heavier..the difference between the two is 10.4%!(although c&d, which weighed the cars, got 3016 for the tc and 3242 for the tsx or 7.6%)

I do have an issue with yoru dyno though. I've combed this site, and the other for stock dynojet dynos. I found the one above and this one for stock 5mts.(there are others for autos)

And the numbers were very close to the one I posted above. I thnk the one from alphawerks is not representative of most cars on the road. Just like we have stock tsx dynos that show like 175hp and 157lb ft of torque but I didn't include those as I didn't think it was relevant. The two Included had similar numbers , just as the two tc dynos i've provided show similar numbers. I would believe those are the correct values for most stock tcs as opposed to the ouliers with higher figures.
I still don't think the avg horsepower metric is accurate. You can't just discount the area at 3000 rpms because it does come into affect in a launch with two cars with motors such as these. On all the stock dynos i've see the tc really struggles below 3500rpms where it starts coming on strong. This would definitely come into play. (and that strong low end is probably one of the reason the tsx has such traction problems)

Traction: I can't tell you anything about the tc tires(are they a/s?) but the stock tsx michels are really, truly terrible. They are the same ones used on the entire acura line(and some hondas) to improve gas mileage! They also are a "60,000" mile tire if that tells you anything. :barf: I think it's safe to say both cars would benefit from sticker rubber. Stock tsx autos can burn out if that tells you anything! Still, even on stock tires our users hitting 15.3 had a 2.44 and 2.39 60' time meaning with some better rubber and or better launches that number will be surpassed.

So now we come to the last great issue. Gearing!
TC


1st 3.54:1
2nd 2.05:1
3rd 1.33:1
4th 0.97:1
5th 0.78:1
Final drive 4.24:1

gear x final drive
1 15.01
2 8.962
3 5.6392
4 4.112

TSX

1st 3.267
2nd 1.880
3rd 1.355
4th 1.028
5th 0.825
6th 0.659
Reverse 3.583
Final 4.76

gear x final drive

1 15.55 +3.3%
2 8.949 -3.3 %
3 6.45 +17%
4 4.90 +19%



PS I found cartest 2k on my work machine. I'll input a dyno of a tc and see what it finds.

oldman

C& D screw up as curb means no driver and the scion curb M5 is 2905 lbs here:

http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/ScionTC/

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/n...x.cfm/id/38233

http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/3176.html

These guys really measure the curb as it is needed in testing of side impact!


I did not include tq for the Tc at 3000 lbs cause the dyno run did not go that low.

Also some cars if not many cars just slip the clutch vs dump and the launch RPM is never below 3000 RPM, once again that should show up in cartest.

The stock Tc tire is poor, but many Tc come with better tires, there are three types, and two optional TRD tires / rims kind of like Acura Spec-A.


You are looking at two runs in the WinPeP? Are these from the same car, or did you get one from them from different sites? Please post link to run, also run does not show SAE or STD ? Dunno

The auto run one page ago shows 131 WHP, the Alphaworks M5 shows 143 WHP, it is believable that an auto loses 10 WHP, Lets say 139.00 for now.


Here is one at 138 WHP SAE

http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87914

Here is the NexusIndustries / Alpha works one at 140 WHP SAE
http://www.clubsciontc.com/ftopicp-19171.html

Here is Jotech of a TC 139 WHP SAE

http://www.jotechracing.com/html/pro...ctVehicleID=55

http://www.clubsciontc.com/ftopicp-19171.html

Don’t know where the Aplha 143 WHP is?

I think the Megan header one at base of 130 WHP SAE is from an auto.