2003 vs 2004 - S2000 Gearing, Max Speed, Acceration and Power Efficiency + more...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: Fullerton
2003 vs 2004 - S2000 Gearing, Max Speed, Acceration and Power Efficiency + more...
I just finished posting this report. You will find lots of interesting stuff here. It turns out that the 03 has better power efficiency than the 04 because of the lower revs. Check it out.
POWER EFFICIENCY, MAX SPEED, CHARTS & MORE- TECHNICAL PAGE
POWER EFFICIENCY, MAX SPEED, CHARTS & MORE- TECHNICAL PAGE
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
I don't know what the original poster meant, but "power efficiency" is quite unambiguous. (Eout/sec)/(Ein/sec)
For the example of the propulsion system:
Energy out per second is power (at the wheels, accounting for energy lost due to wheel slip). Energy in per second is (fuel flow x the energy value of the fuel).
Any system or subsystem would have a similar efficiency. I guess if the original poster's website ever recovers we can find out just what system he is talking about.
-Mike
For the example of the propulsion system:
Energy out per second is power (at the wheels, accounting for energy lost due to wheel slip). Energy in per second is (fuel flow x the energy value of the fuel).
Any system or subsystem would have a similar efficiency. I guess if the original poster's website ever recovers we can find out just what system he is talking about.
-Mike
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: Fullerton
Originally posted by kitwetzler
just curious, which dyno charts did you use?
and what is "power efficiency?"
just curious, which dyno charts did you use?
and what is "power efficiency?"
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Lebanon
Isn't the '04 a few pounds heavier? Nothing drastic, but you have them listed identically.
Also, the new rear tire diameter for the '04 isn't reflected accurately on the bottom chart, looks like you've got the 00-03 number in there by accident. And won't the rear tire diameters affect your final torque number? I don't see that calculated in.
Also, the new rear tire diameter for the '04 isn't reflected accurately on the bottom chart, looks like you've got the 00-03 number in there by accident. And won't the rear tire diameters affect your final torque number? I don't see that calculated in.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Johninator, you can call anything anything, but unless you use the same terminology as everyone else you might as well be on Mars.
force * velocity = power
So torque/weight*velocity = power/weight, not "power efficiency"
Any real efficiency is going to be a non-dimensional factor (as I gave an example of above).
-Mike
force * velocity = power
So torque/weight*velocity = power/weight, not "power efficiency"
Any real efficiency is going to be a non-dimensional factor (as I gave an example of above).
-Mike
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,061
Likes: 0
From: Sunnyvale
Plus, you are measuring only peak torque which complete ignores area under the curve.
Not to mention, my 04 dyno'd at 152 ft lbs at the wheels which is a whole lot more than 165 at the crank.
Not to mention, my 04 dyno'd at 152 ft lbs at the wheels which is a whole lot more than 165 at the crank.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
From: Murfreesboro, TN
152 torque at the wheels!!! boy am I glad I traded in my 00 for the 04!!!
I was reading an article and they were saying how Honda under-rates their motors. Obviously they under-rated the 04 because like kitwetzler said, 152 to the ground for torque is way over 165 at the crank.
i guess the 245's in the rear also help a little
I was reading an article and they were saying how Honda under-rates their motors. Obviously they under-rated the 04 because like kitwetzler said, 152 to the ground for torque is way over 165 at the crank.
i guess the 245's in the rear also help a little