[drdingo21]

Originally posted by V8killimports
First off you are really starting to sound like an idiot.

A) You say it's unlikely that my car runs those times, yet I have found and showed you sites stating mid 14s by reputable testers.

and i showed you sites stating differnt. And how come im sound like an idiot when you post the site, but when i post this sites its because "i live on the internet". Kinda a hyprcirt huh?

B) You tell me your car runs 14.1 because you found it in some thread written by some other idiot who thinks his FAMILY sedan is a race car.

I don't think you understand, we aren't talking about the sedan. we are talking about ex v6. thats like me saying your TT is the VW beetle. idiot

C) You car runs 15.7.. fastest I have found on the net so far.

oh. Alright. And again you an idiot.

First run ever: 14.562 @ 95.34 mph
My launch was pretty decent: 2.279 60 foot- I let out relatively slowly at about 2000 rpms and had mad wheel hop (thank you Honda for no LSD )
My 1->2->3 shifts were good but my 3->4 was too early, and it sucks I had to shift right before hitting the 1/4 mile mark (my 3->4 shiftpoint is 92 mph).

Saw a stock 7th gen. run a 14.1 at E-Town Sunday. I spoke to the guy later that day and I told him about this site. Hope he posts his slip here. I couldn't believe it was stock! Those 6 speeds are pretty damn quick!

75 degrees and 80% humidity

R/T .855
60' 2.33
330 5.996
1/8 9.105
MPH 78.95
1000 11.905
1/4 14.311
MPH 98.69


I ran a total of 7 times ( 3-14.3's, 2-14.4's, 1-14.5's, and one 14.703 w/2.6 60' time

2nd run. Skipped the water, did a dry whole shot. Launched at about 1000rpm and went into the throttle real easy. As the tires spun, I kind of feathered the throttle. Tires still spun too much, but turned out the best run out of the 4.
r/t .265
60' 2.241
330 5.967
1/8 8.983
mph 79.16
1000 11.640
1/4 13.845
mph 102.02
With some wider tires, like a 245/40 on a 17x8in. rim, I dont see what would stop me from lowering my 60' down in the 2.oxx time and get me a 13.6x 1/4. I would be able to launch around 1200-1500rpm and wot, plus I would be running a smaller diameter tire for quicker rpms and my wheel/tire combo would be a little lighter then what I have now.


3rd run. I thought I would be able to beat my 2nd run and got to anxious on the throttle. Again, couldnt keep control of the tires spinning.
r/t .511
60' 2.592
330 6.591
1/8 9.671
mph 77.22
12.365
1/4 14.606
mph 99.93

This guy wasn't stock, intake and exhast, and hyper ground wires.
http://board.accordtuner.com/showthread.php?t=7014 Notice a trend here?

And for kicks heres a comparsion on the sedan, i bolded the intresting part.

Originally posted by SteVTEC
I developed a custom Excel application that will auto plot about a zillion different things all by just entering in the dynos and basic specifications for two different cars. I decided to give it a test run on these two cars because I was curious about it myself.

2003 Honda Accord V6 Sedan 5AT vs 2004 Acura TL 5AT

So we start off with the two stock dynos for the Accord V6 5AT and the new 04 TL 5AT from VTEC.net and dump them into Excel. Power is nice, but the power to weight ratio is what really matters because a heavier car needs more power to accelerate it at the same rate as a lighter car. Basic F=ma physics. So that gives us the two plots below.



Powerband Analysis

Just as important as "how much" peak horsepower or torque you have is "where" exactly it is made. Although this can be seen in the main dyno comparison chart, there is also an 0.2L displacement difference here, so what we can do is normalize the torque output vs RPM of the engines to a percentage of their maximum and then plot over all RPM. The result is below.



Now it's much easier to see the advantage of the TL's variable intake manifold since this shows that the TL is able to produce a higher percentage of its peak torque over a wider range than the AV6 can. Again, this is especially important for initial off the line acceleration.


So What are The Numbers?

My Excel application does a pretty good job of creating lots of comparison charts and various analysis' relative to the two cars. But to get hard numbers, CarTest Software is still the best option. My application basically derived the "core" of CarTest and allowed me more flexibility to make different types of analysis'. But CarTest does many more things. By feeding it all of the same specs and chassis dyno data and calculating itself what I did here, it will then take that data and also estimate weight transfer and launch traction (60' times), torque converter multiplying effects, shift times, and then it can finally give you the "hard" numbers that you're looking for, and that is as follows.


continued in next post.....

Originally posted by SteVTEC
Part 2

Performance Analysis

Time to Distance

Dist          AV6                   TL
60'   :  2.33 @ 30.55 mph     2.32 @ 30.77 mph
330'  :  6.31 @ 59.20 mph     6.28 @ 59.75 mph
1/8th :  9.62 @ 74.55 mph     9.55 @ 75.32 mph
1000ft: 12.51 @ 85.63 mph    12.41 @ 86.61 mph
1/4m  : 14.94 @ 93.17 mph    14.81 @ 94.49 mph
1/2m  : 23.50 @ 113.22 mph   23.26 @ 113.90 mph
1 mile: 38.12 @ 131.11 mph   37.86 @ 131.45 mph

Time to Speed

Speed     AV6      TL
0-30 :   2.28s   2.25s
0-60 :   6.44s   6.31s
0-100:  16.86s  16.20s

You may think those times for the AV6 are a bit fast, and they probably are. However, these times were calculated with 6800 rpm shifts and it seems as though the AV6's shift mapping has the engine shifting at only 6500 rpm instead of 6800 rpm like it ought to. Our resident 7th gen track whore, 03LXV6guy (Larry) has proven that if you manually shift at redline and precisely nail each of the shifts such that you don't spend any time bouncing off the rev limiter, you can pickup a tenth or slightly more on your ET. This is how he ran his 14.58 with intake only. On the same night his other runs were 14.7's and either autoshifting, or hitting the limiter. A host of other AV6ers have been able to run about 15-flat with auto shifting (apparently at 6500 rpm). If we reconfigure CarTest to shift at 6500 rpm also, we then get a 0-60 of 6.52s and a 1/4 mile of 15.06s @ 92.66 mph with the same 2.33 60' time. This is within a few hundredths of what other 7g owners have been able to accomplish while stock and verifies that our simulated times are accurate.

Furthermore, since CarTest will also give you speed in gear, acceleration curves in G's, and top speed estimates as well, I can then use the results from CarTest to cross-check my Excel application calculations. CarTest estimates a maximum acceleration of 0.55g's for the TL in 1st gear and 0.53g's for the AV6, which is almost exactly what I calculated here (0.56g and 0.54g). In 2nd gear it sees in the low 0.3g range for both which again is consistent. Maximum speed in gear calculations are accurate, and the top speed estimated in CarTest is actually a tad slower than my estimates. So my results here are skewed very slightly higher. This likely traces back to my tire drag calculation, which can be roughly estimated as a constant percentage of the vehicle weight. I used 1% here, when 1.5-2.0% is probably a little more honest, especially at higher speeds. Changing the spot where I calculated this in Excel to 2% brings my estimates back in line with the proven CarTest software, and then CarTest and my Excel app are then in agreement. However, since this variable was held constant between the two cars, both are still on a level playing field to each other. Every tiny little thing has a small effect no matter how insignificant it may seem. And when multiple little things are added up, they can all combine to make significant difference in performance. Oh yeah, you have to add in the driver weight for the cars also, otherwise your results will be skewed even higher. I used 160 pound "test drivers" for each car.

Look at the dynos, keep in mind stock the ex v6 is putting right around 212 to the wheels.

You can will not out handle mine. I can guarantee you better weight distribution, as well as quattro and 4 wheel traction control... not just 2 wheel. And on a side note, we chose the TT over the 350Z because it completely out handled the Z.

sigh.... again i went by skid pad numbers

Your car cost $8000 less than mine?? Well not including tax and all the other misc crap you have to pay, that comes out to $23000. I doubt you paid $23000.. as for options, wife wanted what she wanted. Didn't want the navigation, and everything came with it. Kinda hard to choose options when we were looking for last years model, in a specific colors, with specific options. And I dunno if you can compare things like the premium Bose system that came in the TT to your honda system lol.

I did a car that campares to my car (ie: same options). Not your stipped down model.
And the "crappy honda system" is Bose.... see there you go again talking about shit you know nothing about.

If you drive something like an accord you might as well get something cheap an economical like the civic.. or a stratus. And you need to get the figures straight on your own car. Show me where it says your car runs 14.2 STOCK, and not by some random idiot. [/b]

Right. and where was you slip? I missed it.