Hi all,
What are tC( with s/c) chances competing with Acura TSX performance wise?
Both have 200 hp/ 166 tq. tC curbweight is much less than TSX.

http://www.modernracer.com/acuratsx.html

curb weight for the TSX is about 3300 LBS and 2950 for the tC. I'd saya supercharged tC would probably beat the TSX but it would be close...if you factor in the driver, it can go either way i guess.

The sc tc could be a bit faster, but you never know since the acura has a 6speed close ratio gearbox and a really long powerband. In terms of handling that's a tossup. Really would not be able to tell until the tc comes out, in my opinion.

Handling on the accor...I mean TSX, will probably be better on the TSX. Whe I drove one, the handling was amazing - the car stayed firmly planted with hardly any body roll. Power/Speedwise, I'd say it all depends on the driver - the cars are pretty much neck and neck with engine specs, but the Acura does have a better transmission, as stated above.

Also, why are you compairing these two cars?

The sc 2.4 should have similar hp/torque numbers, within 10-15 of each other. So, you are looking at at least 200/185... most likeley closer to 200/200 for the tC.

Straight line I'd bet on the tC. Add suspension upgrades with some of the amount of money uou save versus buying a tsx, and tC anytime, anywhere.

Excellent reply, jjp!


Also, why are you compairing these two cars?

because both are Euro-Asian products (Avensis, Euro Accord), almost same dimensions, same HP/Tq. All the websites and forums about tC say it is a competitor for Civic Si and RSX. I just wanted to know why tC can't be a potential competitor to TSX(minus luxury) ? I am also assuming that a $7000 price difference can't be attributed just to luxury.

From unrealii and rbloedow replies, i think i've got some info i need.

Excellent reply, jjp!


Also, why are you compairing these two cars?

because both are Euro-Asian products (Avensis, Euro Accord), almost same dimensions, same HP/Tq. All the websites and forums about tC say it is a competitor for Civic Si and RSX. I just wanted to know why tC can't be a potential competitor to TSX(minus luxury) ? I am also assuming that a $7000 price difference can't be attributed just to luxury.

From unrealii and rbloedow replies, i think i've got some info i need.

I don't know, if I had the money to buy a TSX, I wouldn't even consider the tC. The TSX's interior is godly, rivaling any interior from VAG (Volkswagon Auto Group). The transmission is perfect, smooth, and it makes a solidfying "snick" as it enters each gate for each gear. The leather is soft and supple, and the whole interior design is great! The optional navigation system is one of the best in the industry, and the largest screen from ANY manufacturer. Everything about the car is in a cabiler above the rest.

That said, I just don't understand why these two cars would be compaired to each other. They are different cars in different classes. Not to put down the tC - it's a great car for the money, but it's like comparing a Corolla to a Lexus ES300. :P

i own a scion, and i dont have anything against the car, but i am personsally a honda person. without a doubt, the tc honestly would not meet up to the standards of the tsx. one might wiegh less than the other but hondas simply are all out better performers. 200 hp from a 2.4L stock is amazing. especially for a honda. the tc is better compared to a civic si or rsx. they have more incommon. but undoubtedly, the tc would probably be best compared to those two cars since they will all be considered in the same class.

http://thehollywoodextra.com/Scion/scion.html

The all new Scion Tc is based on the Japanese mid size, Avensis. A car smaller than the Camry, but larger than the Corolla. The Avensis is available in sedan or wagon, but not as a coupe. It has been engineered for the European market. Which means the sC should feel very much like a European car. Much like the Acura TSX, which is a European Accord.

It looks a lot from the Acura competition, the TSX. And it is almost the same size.

The guy who wrote that on his site may not be the best car expert as some people are in this forum, but still he thinks the same.

I still think my argument cannot be outrightly eliminated.

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.

I think most people that drive tsx's realizes it's not a drag car(a little to heavy) but handles well and is quite well rounded. WE dont' have many people take them to the track, but with the ones that have we have seen a best stock time of about 15.3 in the 1/4. But those are all stock including the crap michelin tires and I think 2.4 60' times. WE all figure with good tires we can drop those down a tenth or two narrrowing in on a 15.1 or 15 flat for a stock tsx with upgraded tires.

What do stock tcs run? Realize you are down on hp but also weigh a good 8-10 percent less. I have no doubt a sc tc will probably hit high 14s which would make it marginally quicker than a stock tsx!

Does anyone have a good dyno of a tc stock or with i/h/e? I'm interested in how tunable the 2.4 in it is.

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.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.aspx?modelid=10737&trimid=-1&src=vip

Says here mid 16 to 17s which is NOT good


http://acura.jbcarpages.com/TSX/2004/index3.php

OK we have one at 15.6 I've seen times from here to 16s. The ones that I've raced seem slow enough on a straight line.


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1589&page_number=3

Looks like R&T got only .78 g out of a TSX, dunno, I like the car but what is base price for a TSX vs a TC?

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....

here too:
http://www.matrixowners.com/forum/about32107.html

So the TSX may have 40 more HP but it only has 3 ft-lbs more torque and people buy HP but drive torque.

Like I said I like the TSX but for the $$$ I can have a lot of TC and a lot of toys car and other types.

haha. Dont' believe magazines, believe timeslips from users. Weve had 3 hit 15.3 all stock including tires. also why i noted it's not a drag car, but it's silly to think it's that slow.

I dind't write to start ____ing match but don't be ludicrious about the handling. It's a very good setup, multilink at all wheels. G ratings have very little do with handling ability and lots to do with the width/grip of stock tires. (other wise explain a boaty gto getting a higher G rating than an is300)The tsx stockers are terrible all seasons. Much more telling is slalom/lane change numbers which the tsx excel at. All magazines praise it for it's balance and neutral handling.

Now if you ant to talk about power output you need to start including dynos and gear ratios so you can get an accuate picture of what a car is putting down to the pavement. Stock tsxs put down 175 hp and 155lbft at the wheels. Makes it seem the hp and torque figures were alittle underrated. With just an intkae we have one user making 183hp and 162lbft of torque at the wheels.

Your statement about hp and toque is too simplistic. You need to know hp, toue, where they occur and the gearing involved to know what a car puts to the ground.

agree on the tires, same goes for the TC, Magazine times are tested without Banzai launches and power shifts etc I'm sure there will be some fast TC when the weather clears a little. It is safe to say they are stock for stock these cars are in the same performance range, based on independent test. Meaning a SC TC is going to put a major smack down on a TSX.

Come now we are talking base TSX MSRP at 27,500 vs TC MSRP or 16,400 base, $11100 can buy a lot of toys.... tires, supercharger, 100,000 mile warranty, dates, TV, gamebody, computer, xbox, trip for two to Vegas, more dates,

Also I'd take the boat GTO over a TSX anyday. FYI.

Good for you! I for one like tcs and would buy one if I was looking for a car in that price range. Just like if I wanted to spend a few k more in the gtos price range I'd be in a g35c most likely. I was just pointing out a phallacy with taking mag numbers too literally. I don't think anyone would say a gto out handles an is300. It's obvious no one bought a tsx because it's fast or to race it. If we wanted to do that we could have saved money and bought a srt4! The "i could put on this mod and save this money" arguement i played out. I could buy a 85 previa supercharged tune it up and blow the doors off either car. for probably 2 grand. haha.

I never made any claims to the speed of the two cars vs eachotehr other than we have timeslips of the tsx hitting 15.3 as opposed to the numbers you saw in a mag and was questioning what stock tcs run. It will undoubtedly be faster with the sc. But just remember, even being 1 second faster in the 1/4(which is a little optimistic I think for a tc running a 14.3) that's only about 10 car lengths. If it wasnt a bit faster(in fact, alot faster!) having the same displacement, a sc and 200 less pounds it would be laughable. I think mor erealistically it would hit about 14.5 or so...or 8 car lenghts over a stock tsx.

Feel free to resond to any of the technical points I made earlier concerning timeslips of actual cars, dynos, gear ratios. I was actually interested in that information which is why I posted in the first place.(note: it won't be found in any car magazines)

agree on the tires, same goes for the TC, Magazine times are tested without Banzai launches and power shifts etc I'm sure there will be some fast TC when the weather clears a little.

I disagree with that statement. I think most magazine launch whatever way they think will get them the best times. FYI tsxs get their best times launched at about 3krpms slipping the clutch, not dumping. (stock torque peak is 2700rpms and again at 4500) If it was rwd car maybe a "banzai" dump would be beneficial but with the tsx it would just get you an ugly burnout without going anywhere.

Now as I said before i'm not much for mag racing -- dont' think it tells the whole story - but they have another stat which is more useful for gauging day to day driving, the 5-60 test. It takes launching/tires out of the equation. While tests conducted on different days in different conditions aren't directly applicable c&d managed a 5-60 of 8 seconds with the tc and 7.7 with the tsx. That's alot of time to put on a car in a short sprint. And if it continued to a full 1/4 mile the tsx would continue to walk away with it's much stronger top end. I think that shows if anyone is benefitting from a burning launch in that comparison of 1/4 miles times it would be the tc.

agree on the tires, same goes for the TC, Magazine times are tested without Banzai launches and power shifts etc I'm sure there will be some fast TC when the weather clears a little.

I disagree with that statement. I think most magazine launch whatever way they think will get them the best times. FYI tsxs get their best times launched at about 3krpms slipping the clutch, not dumping. (stock torque peak is 2700rpms and again at 4500) If it was rwd car maybe a "banzai" dump would be beneficial but with the tsx it would just get you an ugly burnout without going anywhere.

Now as I said before i'm not much for mag racing -- dont' think it tells the whole story - but they have another stat which is more useful for gauging day to day driving, the 5-60 test. It takes launching/tires out of the equation. While tests conducted on different days in different conditions aren't directly applicable c&d managed a 5-60 of 8 seconds with the tc and 7.7 with the tsx. That's alot of time to put on a car in a short sprint. And if it continued to a full 1/4 mile the tsx would continue to walk away with it's much stronger top end. I think that shows if anyone is benefitting from a burning launch in that comparison of 1/4 miles times it would be the tc.


Lol this post is hilarious! Look according to Motor Trend and Car and Driver the tsx 6-spd manual runs a 16.0 flat. We run a 15.7 do the math.

mag racing = teh coolest thing evaaaar! FOr every magazine you can find another that says something different. What matters is what real people do at real tracks.

I come here praising the tc and trolls come out of the wood work because I say mag racing doesn't tell the whole story and back it up with timeslips and dynos from actual users along with analysis as to why. A guy talks about mag races and cluth dropping starts so I say why I think that was incorrect, and again back it up with facts and analysis.

Best iv'e seen in the timeslips thread is 16.3 . Granted taht's a good time for an auto, but you all need to be a little less defensive about your cars or people might start thinking you are insecure about them not being fast. :) (and before anyone chimes in from my first post I noted the tsx is not fast nor a drag car by any means and just wanted to talk about them in reference to eachother per the thread topic)

would a tsx and a toyota solara be a better comparo? I'm debating whether to get the TSX or SOLARA. they're both in the same price range (well, the SOLARA SLE is) and i just wanted to know, since we're in the topic of the TSX, which car you guys prefer in terms of value, longevity, quality and overall likeliness for each car.

I say it depends on what you really care for in your car. Are there certain features you need to have? xenons? I can't comment on things like resale or value since it depends on the deal you get. You won't know what's right for you until you take a test drive. No doubt the solara is a good bit quicker, that 330 is nic emotor! But I personally would put handling, exterior, interior and features in the tsx side, subjectively of course.

I personally think the tc is not a bad comparison for the tsx either if people are really cross shopping those two cars.

Is the TSX's ride quality as smooth as a Solara? When i test drove the Solara, it felt like i was driving a Lexus.

mag racing = teh coolest thing evaaaar! FOr every magazine you can find another that says something different. What matters is what real people do at real tracks.

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 come here praising the tc and trolls come out of the wood work because I say mag racing doesn't tell the whole story and back it up with timeslips and dynos from actual users along with analysis as to why.

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.


A guy talks about mag races and cluth dropping starts so I say why I think that was incorrect, and again back it up with facts and analysis.

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/album.pl?photo=torque_actaul.jpg

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




Best iv'e seen in the timeslips thread is 16.3 . Granted taht's a good time for an auto, but you all need to be a little less defensive about your cars or people might start thinking you are insecure about them not being fast. :) (and before anyone chimes in from my first post I noted the tsx is not fast nor a drag car by any means and just wanted to talk about them in reference to eachother per the thread topic)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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-performance/nfoscomm/catalog/Dyno_charts/4_air_int_header_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.

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)
http://photos.imageevent.com/provench/acuratsx/miscpics/websize/jab31169_dyno.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/provench/acuratsx/miscpics/websize/04tovtsxdyno.jpg

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.

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, :blah:

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_tc_sportcoupe_2005/15290/style_specs.html?p=ext

2905 lbs from like 5 sources

now the TSX here: 3230 lbs

http://www.acura.com/models/model_specs_index.asp?module=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

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

http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3044?mid=2004090152644&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 ) :)

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

Clearly +40 bhp +40 or 50 ft-lbs would allow the SC TC to completely dominate the TSX in performance. QED

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 :)

oops, didn't mean to post this. ignore

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.

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)

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.

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.

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/products_list_details.asp?menuid=3&vehcName=Toyota+I4+5SFE+Solara+99-01&vehcCat=Engines&vehcDesc=Supercharger%20for%205SFE%20Powered%20cars&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.

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/products_list_details.asp?menuid=3&vehcName=Toyota+I4+5SFE+Solara+99-01&vehcCat=Engines&vehcDesc=Supercharger%20for%205SFE%20Powered%20cars&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.

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?
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/4/web/628000-628999/628602_50_full.jpg 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)

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.

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

rpm tsx tq tc tq difference(percent of tc tq)
3000 150 125 25(20%)
3500 147 132 15 (11.3%)
4000 150 141 9 (6.3%)
4500 150 137 13 (9.4%)
5000 145 132 13 (9.8%)
5500 140 125 15 (12%)
6000 130 112 18 (16%)
6500 140 95 45 (47.3%)
7000 125 -- 125


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" ;)

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.

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.

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

I come here praising the tc and trolls come out of the wood work because I say mag racing doesn't tell the whole story and back it up with timeslips and dynos from actual users along with analysis as to why.

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 :blah: Props to you for remaining civil and tolerating :loser: 's.

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

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)

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.
Agreed.

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

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! :clap:

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

i own a scion, and i dont have anything against the car, but i am personsally a honda person. without a doubt, the tc honestly would not meet up to the standards of the tsx. one might wiegh less than the other but hondas simply are all out better performers. 200 hp from a 2.4L stock is amazing. especially for a honda. the tc is better compared to a civic si or rsx. they have more incommon. but undoubtedly, the tc would probably be best compared to those two cars since they will all be considered in the same class.

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.

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/products/yourcar/96-01integrals.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.

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)
http://www.d-ky.org/signaturearts/dynorun.jpg
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.

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/new/reviews/full/index.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/projectcars/projectcar_details.asp?ProjectVehicleID=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.