Honda Car Forum

Car & Driver in the July issue indicates 133 and a 0-60 of 7.2. While the
handling is compared with the Prelude, the performance in general falls
short of the numbers I have seen for that car. But, then the TSx is a heavy
car at 3250.

"Holden" <craymore@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AE11C9A688EbeHoldenhomecom@66.185.95.104 ...
> has anyone heard of top speed numbers for the tsx? i've searched high and
> low but cannot find any data.

twaugh5 wrote:

> Car & Driver in the July issue indicates 133 and a 0-60 of 7.2. While the
> handling is compared with the Prelude, the performance in general falls
> short of the numbers I have seen for that car. But, then the TSx is a heavy
> car at 3250.

yep for sure, I test drove the six speeds and it felt a little slow
compared to the rsx-s (same hp), lot more weight indeed. That's why I
estimated the top speed to 125mph at first. Probably weight is
negligible for top speed and the additional torque might compensate. Or
it doesn't make it to 133mph without going downhill ;-)

Handling is great and double wish bone suspension feels a lot smoother
than the struts on rsx-s. Let's say it's two totally different cars,
hard to compare. TSX is a great car but I did not feel it was a
"performance car" when I test drove it. It sure has enough power for
normal day to day usage although. I am probably used to the rsx-s
performance having been driving it for almost 2 years now.

During these 2 years, apart from the tsx, I tried one of my brother
volks diesel, and my other brother base model nissan (sentra??), and
that's about it. It felt like they had 50 hp engines ;-)

-john


>
> "Holden" <craymore@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93AE11C9A688EbeHoldenhomecom@66.185.95.104 ...
>
>>has anyone heard of top speed numbers for the tsx? i've searched high and
>>low but cannot find any data.
>>
>
>

Top Speed is a product of gearing and aerodynamic and not weight. If you
had two cars that are identical in every way.. aerodynamic, gearing, etc...
but one weights twice as much... they both would have the same top speed but
the heavier one would take much longer to get to that terminal speed.

"john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
news:3F08ACD6.5080402@mistralaero.com...
>
>
> twaugh5 wrote:
>
> > Car & Driver in the July issue indicates 133 and a 0-60 of 7.2. While
the
> > handling is compared with the Prelude, the performance in general falls
> > short of the numbers I have seen for that car. But, then the TSx is a
heavy
> > car at 3250.
>
> yep for sure, I test drove the six speeds and it felt a little slow
> compared to the rsx-s (same hp), lot more weight indeed. That's why I
> estimated the top speed to 125mph at first. Probably weight is
> negligible for top speed and the additional torque might compensate. Or
> it doesn't make it to 133mph without going downhill ;-)
>
> Handling is great and double wish bone suspension feels a lot smoother
> than the struts on rsx-s. Let's say it's two totally different cars,
> hard to compare. TSX is a great car but I did not feel it was a
> "performance car" when I test drove it. It sure has enough power for
> normal day to day usage although. I am probably used to the rsx-s
> performance having been driving it for almost 2 years now.
>
> During these 2 years, apart from the tsx, I tried one of my brother
> volks diesel, and my other brother base model nissan (sentra??), and
> that's about it. It felt like they had 50 hp engines ;-)
>
> -john
>
>
> >
> > "Holden" <craymore@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93AE11C9A688EbeHoldenhomecom@66.185.95.104 ...
> >
> >>has anyone heard of top speed numbers for the tsx? i've searched high
and
> >>low but cannot find any data.
> >>
> >
> >
>

Fluffy wrote:

> Top Speed is a product of gearing and aerodynamic and not weight. If you
> had two cars that are identical in every way.. aerodynamic, gearing, etc...
> but one weights twice as much... they both would have the same top speed but
> the heavier one would take much longer to get to that terminal speed.
>

you forgot internal friction... the car with twice as much weight would
bring in more friction on the wheel bearings, thus lower top speed ;-)))
hehe...

yep, that's exactly what I suspected and what I tried to say after
re-thinking about it, unless your additional weight brings in some
additional friction, whether air-friction (aerodynamic) or internal
parts friction.

For example a same model with FWD and AWD, the AWD should be a little
slower because of the additional internal friction of the AWD drive
train and the additional friction that the additional weight cause on
the wheel bearings, not because of the additional weight itself.
hehe..

Mass is part in the acceleration formula only, once you have accelerated
a mass to a given speed, the energy supplied only fights friction. In
space, you can turn off your engine after you have reached 133 mph and
just keep going and going and going... like the energizer rabbit because
there is no air friction to fight.

Of course as you mentioned, you also have to have appropriated gearing
to allow you to reach the top speed, but playing with the gearing won't
allow you to go any faster than the force supplied by your engine.

Top speed is only a function of friction and engine supplied max force.

( f=ma )

engine force = ( mass * acceleration ) + total friction force

(less weight you accelerate faster with same force)

at top speed it more like:

engine force = total friction force

because ( mass * acceleration ) = 0.

No mass parameter in there, did not want to sound too technical in prior
message, that's all.

I also know air resistance grows exponentially with speed while internal
parts friction remains more or less constant, so the internal parts
friction in my example would probably rip you off only 2 or 3 mph. Air
resistance is definitely the most important parameter in "total friction
force" at 130mph !

Chow,

-john


;-)


> "john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
> news:3F08ACD6.5080402@mistralaero.com...
>
>>
>>twaugh5 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Car & Driver in the July issue indicates 133 and a 0-60 of 7.2. While
>>>
> the
>
>>>handling is compared with the Prelude, the performance in general falls
>>>short of the numbers I have seen for that car. But, then the TSx is a
>>>
> heavy
>
>>>car at 3250.
>>>
>>yep for sure, I test drove the six speeds and it felt a little slow
>>compared to the rsx-s (same hp), lot more weight indeed. That's why I
>>estimated the top speed to 125mph at first. Probably weight is
>>negligible for top speed and the additional torque might compensate. Or
>>it doesn't make it to 133mph without going downhill ;-)
>>
>>Handling is great and double wish bone suspension feels a lot smoother
>>than the struts on rsx-s. Let's say it's two totally different cars,
>>hard to compare. TSX is a great car but I did not feel it was a
>>"performance car" when I test drove it. It sure has enough power for
>>normal day to day usage although. I am probably used to the rsx-s
>>performance having been driving it for almost 2 years now.
>>
>>During these 2 years, apart from the tsx, I tried one of my brother
>>volks diesel, and my other brother base model nissan (sentra??), and
>>that's about it. It felt like they had 50 hp engines ;-)
>>
>>-john
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Holden" <craymore@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns93AE11C9A688EbeHoldenhomecom@66.185.95. 104...
>>>
>>>
>>>>has anyone heard of top speed numbers for the tsx? i've searched high
>>>>
> and
>
>>>>low but cannot find any data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>