TL-S vs S2k
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: queens village
Zoran, my bad, I misread what he originally said. I thought he said the S2k had a higher 4th gear maximum speed than the CL but he obviously meant the other way around. My bad doing a poor reading job. So I apologize to lurker as well. And you're right, the S2k must be geared much more agressively in 4th gear for this to happen.
But on the other hand, gears are nothing but torque multipliers, and the CL already has more torque to begin with. Although I don't see torque as what makes a car fast, but I believe it helps you stay near your peak power longer. The more torque you have across the band, the more you'll be able to reach and stay near peak power.
Although the shapes of the curves of these two cars might be similar, the CLS puts down much more area under the curve, which means it will put down more average horsepower during a fourth gear pull. It's almost like it doesn't need a super agressive fourth gear, since the engine already has plenty of torque.
I also understand your whole idea about the frontal area, but to me a soft top, or even an open window, increases drag tremendously. The CL doesn't have enough frontal mass to negate the drag resistance from the soft top S2k IMO.
So that said, I'm still standing by what I said, and if I get proven wrong by watching that race happen, then so be it. But I highly doubt it. I've seen these two cars in action, and like I said earlier, a CL-S auto with the headers will trap 98-99mph. S2ks don't trap much higher than that stock at my track. That is why I'm positive the 6 speed CL will trap slightly higher than a stock S2k.
But on the other hand, gears are nothing but torque multipliers, and the CL already has more torque to begin with. Although I don't see torque as what makes a car fast, but I believe it helps you stay near your peak power longer. The more torque you have across the band, the more you'll be able to reach and stay near peak power.
Although the shapes of the curves of these two cars might be similar, the CLS puts down much more area under the curve, which means it will put down more average horsepower during a fourth gear pull. It's almost like it doesn't need a super agressive fourth gear, since the engine already has plenty of torque.
I also understand your whole idea about the frontal area, but to me a soft top, or even an open window, increases drag tremendously. The CL doesn't have enough frontal mass to negate the drag resistance from the soft top S2k IMO.
So that said, I'm still standing by what I said, and if I get proven wrong by watching that race happen, then so be it. But I highly doubt it. I've seen these two cars in action, and like I said earlier, a CL-S auto with the headers will trap 98-99mph. S2ks don't trap much higher than that stock at my track. That is why I'm positive the 6 speed CL will trap slightly higher than a stock S2k.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: queens village
Originally posted by smccurry
Excuse me, but it sounds like YOU'RE the one with the bias
Excuse me, but it sounds like YOU'RE the one with the bias
I don't own neither of these cars.
If I was to choose between the two I would pick an S2k
I'm simply giving my opinion based on simple facts that I know.
So please post and say how I am biased. I look forward to laughing while reading about it.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: queens village
Fine, I chose to discount what he said because of what I've seen in real life with my own eyes both on the track and on the street and because of the power to weight ratios I laid out.
I'm not going to throw that at the window because some guy on the internet who "put 1000 miles on a CLS", ****ed around on the street with one S2k, owns an S2k himself, and concludes the S2k is the faster car
And obviously you're not going to believe some guy on the internet who drives a Civic and claims that your car is slower than you think. Where does that belief come from?
Biasm.
If you didn't have an S2k, would you care about what I think?
No.
Which prove if there is any biasm, it comes from you guys.
They wouldn't have an American judge in a Holyfield vs Tyson boxing match. I wonder why? Maybe because of potential biasm?
An S2k owner that discounts simple facts that are unfavorable to his car to me is just biased.
Hey, you can call me stubborn if you want, but I'm far from biased in this case.
I'm not going to throw that at the window because some guy on the internet who "put 1000 miles on a CLS", ****ed around on the street with one S2k, owns an S2k himself, and concludes the S2k is the faster car
And obviously you're not going to believe some guy on the internet who drives a Civic and claims that your car is slower than you think. Where does that belief come from?
Biasm.
If you didn't have an S2k, would you care about what I think?
No.
Which prove if there is any biasm, it comes from you guys.
They wouldn't have an American judge in a Holyfield vs Tyson boxing match. I wonder why? Maybe because of potential biasm?
An S2k owner that discounts simple facts that are unfavorable to his car to me is just biased.
Hey, you can call me stubborn if you want, but I'm far from biased in this case.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 1
From: You wish
Kleefton,
1. If we're talking about power to weight comparisons for acceleration contests, the only way they are remotely useful is if the cars have a similar speed in each gear, and have similarly shaped torque curves. If these two conditions hold true, the car with the better power/weight ratio will be quicker. In the case of the S2000 and CL-S, it just so happens that the gearing and torque curve shapes are similar in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear. When I say similar gearing, I mean speed in gears, since the hp/weight comparison removes the need to compute average torque at the wheels. BTW, here is an auto Type-S dyno.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/attachment.p...p?postid=240148
Notice the shape of the torque curve with headers, and compare the shape to the S2K. They both roll off similarly on the top end. If anything, the S2K is flatter. The stock Type-S is at a noticeable disadvantage.
Why does this work? Think of it this way. The CL-S and the S2K have vastly different peak torque levels. The CL-S 6spd we tested put down 201 lbs-ft to the wheels. The Comptech header seems to add about 10 lbs-ft peak, and about 20 lbs-ft in the critical acceleration range (5000-7000 rpm) - so lets call it 220 lbs-ft and be optimistic. A typical S2K puts down 135 lbs-ft. However, the S2K has an extra 2100 rpm to work with (9200 rpm vs. 7100 rpm). So, if the cars both reach the same absolute speed in each gear (such as third, for example), then the S2K must be geared 9200/7100 = 1.296 = 29.6% tighter. This takes into account gear ratios and tire sizing.
So, if we assume the CL-S gearing to be the baseline (call it a multiplier of 1 for simplicity's sake), it will put down 220 lbs-ft to the wheels (its higher than this of course, but we're only concerned with relative changes). The S2K, OTOH, will put down 135 * 1.296 = 178 lbs-ft. Now, compute a torque/weight ratio and you get 3447/220 = 15.67 and 2810/178 = 15.79. Hey, what do you know, pretty close, eh? Just like the power/weight calculations. I think if you actually did an integration of area under the curve and did the wheel torque vs. weight calcs you'd see the advantage shift slightly to the S2K.
If you'd like, you can pull the gearing numbers for the CL-S 6spd from the Acura site and get the S2K numbers here. There are dyno sheets all over for the S2K, and if you bump the torque numbers on the CL sheet I posted by 20 lbs-ft everywhere, you'll get a good approximation of the CL 6-spd dyno. Then figure out what rpm you'd start at in 3rd gear if you had just shifted from 2nd at redline. Compute average torque every 100 rpm to the limiter and multiply those numbers by gear ratios. Take an average and divide that by weight. But in the end, I think you'll see that the S2K and CL-S have similar enough curves that the area under the curve for wheel torque corrected for weight is very similar. Which is just a long way of saying the power/weight comparisons work pretty well in this case.
2. The aero calculation is as straightforward as it comes. Drag is a function not only of Cd, but of frontal area, which gives us CdA. You must look at both. You can get a rough approximation of frontal area by multiplying height x width x 85% for a car. Pull the numbers for the CL-S and S2K and you'll see the CL-S has 15% more frontal area. If the CL-S has a Cd of 0.33 (pretty reasonable assumption) and the S2K has a Cd of 0.36-0.37 with the top up - well, the math speaks for itself.
3. The CL-S 6-spd only traps a little faster than an auto. Why? It has to shift to 4th gear whereas the auto stays in 3rd through the quarter. Plus, the auto can shift just as fast as the 6-spd due to teh clutch issues. I would expect a CL-S 6-spd with headers to trap about as quickly as the S2K. But it will lose in 4th gear. Again, a driver's race.
UL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]
But on the other hand, gears are nothing but torque multipliers, and the CL already has more torque to begin with. Although I don't see torque as what makes a car fast, but I believe it helps you stay near your peak power longer. The more torque you have across the band, the more you'll be able to reach and stay near peak power.
1. If we're talking about power to weight comparisons for acceleration contests, the only way they are remotely useful is if the cars have a similar speed in each gear, and have similarly shaped torque curves. If these two conditions hold true, the car with the better power/weight ratio will be quicker. In the case of the S2000 and CL-S, it just so happens that the gearing and torque curve shapes are similar in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear. When I say similar gearing, I mean speed in gears, since the hp/weight comparison removes the need to compute average torque at the wheels. BTW, here is an auto Type-S dyno.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/attachment.p...p?postid=240148
Notice the shape of the torque curve with headers, and compare the shape to the S2K. They both roll off similarly on the top end. If anything, the S2K is flatter. The stock Type-S is at a noticeable disadvantage.
Why does this work? Think of it this way. The CL-S and the S2K have vastly different peak torque levels. The CL-S 6spd we tested put down 201 lbs-ft to the wheels. The Comptech header seems to add about 10 lbs-ft peak, and about 20 lbs-ft in the critical acceleration range (5000-7000 rpm) - so lets call it 220 lbs-ft and be optimistic. A typical S2K puts down 135 lbs-ft. However, the S2K has an extra 2100 rpm to work with (9200 rpm vs. 7100 rpm). So, if the cars both reach the same absolute speed in each gear (such as third, for example), then the S2K must be geared 9200/7100 = 1.296 = 29.6% tighter. This takes into account gear ratios and tire sizing.
So, if we assume the CL-S gearing to be the baseline (call it a multiplier of 1 for simplicity's sake), it will put down 220 lbs-ft to the wheels (its higher than this of course, but we're only concerned with relative changes). The S2K, OTOH, will put down 135 * 1.296 = 178 lbs-ft. Now, compute a torque/weight ratio and you get 3447/220 = 15.67 and 2810/178 = 15.79. Hey, what do you know, pretty close, eh? Just like the power/weight calculations. I think if you actually did an integration of area under the curve and did the wheel torque vs. weight calcs you'd see the advantage shift slightly to the S2K.
If you'd like, you can pull the gearing numbers for the CL-S 6spd from the Acura site and get the S2K numbers here. There are dyno sheets all over for the S2K, and if you bump the torque numbers on the CL sheet I posted by 20 lbs-ft everywhere, you'll get a good approximation of the CL 6-spd dyno. Then figure out what rpm you'd start at in 3rd gear if you had just shifted from 2nd at redline. Compute average torque every 100 rpm to the limiter and multiply those numbers by gear ratios. Take an average and divide that by weight. But in the end, I think you'll see that the S2K and CL-S have similar enough curves that the area under the curve for wheel torque corrected for weight is very similar. Which is just a long way of saying the power/weight comparisons work pretty well in this case.
2. The aero calculation is as straightforward as it comes. Drag is a function not only of Cd, but of frontal area, which gives us CdA. You must look at both. You can get a rough approximation of frontal area by multiplying height x width x 85% for a car. Pull the numbers for the CL-S and S2K and you'll see the CL-S has 15% more frontal area. If the CL-S has a Cd of 0.33 (pretty reasonable assumption) and the S2K has a Cd of 0.36-0.37 with the top up - well, the math speaks for itself.
3. The CL-S 6-spd only traps a little faster than an auto. Why? It has to shift to 4th gear whereas the auto stays in 3rd through the quarter. Plus, the auto can shift just as fast as the 6-spd due to teh clutch issues. I would expect a CL-S 6-spd with headers to trap about as quickly as the S2K. But it will lose in 4th gear. Again, a driver's race.
UL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]
But on the other hand, gears are nothing but torque multipliers, and the CL already has more torque to begin with. Although I don't see torque as what makes a car fast, but I believe it helps you stay near your peak power longer. The more torque you have across the band, the more you'll be able to reach and stay near peak power.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 1
From: You wish
O.k., I was going to be nice, but apparently that isn't justified.
Acura gave my organization that car to test for a week - yes, Acura the corporation saw fit to give us a car for testing and photo purposes. They also gave us an RSX-S. We put them on the dyno. We drove them at the drag strip. We took them through the canyons. We drove them on the freeways. We used an S2K as a camera car and happened to make the comparison runs I mentioned. We also had an automatic TL-S on hand for some side by side comparisons.
Roll your eyes all you want, but I've given you every last bit of information you could want. Short of actually dynoing a CL-S 6-spd with headers, we've done it all - and since the shape of the power curves is the same between the auto and manual, I think its a pretty fair assumption that the header will have similar effects on the manual. Compare power to weight? Been there. Aerodynamics? Tried to explain how that works to you. "But a soft top just adds a lot of drag" - who the hell is discounting simple facts here? You think the Cd measurements on the S2K were made with a hard top back in 1999? Gearing? Yep. Area under the curve? Just addressed that.
The sad part about this is, I'm the one that was posting here that S2K owners should beware the 6-spd. Its quite quick. My only disagreement with you was that it would pull on the top end with headers. Based upon my personal experience with the car, its a driver's race. But you can discount all that because I'm just "some guy on the internet". I think I've more than established my credibility as a straight shooter on this site, and those who actually know me (not just my alias) will back that up. But, more importantly than anything else, I've driven the damn car in a variety of venues with instrumented testing. When you see my comments in the test article about how much I liked the CL-S ("thinking about buying one even though I really need a 4dr" is one of them) you'll feel like even more of an ass.
You know, I thought people jumped on you kinda hard in some of the previous threads you participated in, but maybe I just wasn't seeing what they saw - until now.
UL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]
I'm not going to throw that at the window because some guy on the internet who "put 1000 miles on a CLS", ****ed around on the street with one S2k, owns an S2k himself, and concludes the S2k is the faster car
Acura gave my organization that car to test for a week - yes, Acura the corporation saw fit to give us a car for testing and photo purposes. They also gave us an RSX-S. We put them on the dyno. We drove them at the drag strip. We took them through the canyons. We drove them on the freeways. We used an S2K as a camera car and happened to make the comparison runs I mentioned. We also had an automatic TL-S on hand for some side by side comparisons.
Roll your eyes all you want, but I've given you every last bit of information you could want. Short of actually dynoing a CL-S 6-spd with headers, we've done it all - and since the shape of the power curves is the same between the auto and manual, I think its a pretty fair assumption that the header will have similar effects on the manual. Compare power to weight? Been there. Aerodynamics? Tried to explain how that works to you. "But a soft top just adds a lot of drag" - who the hell is discounting simple facts here? You think the Cd measurements on the S2K were made with a hard top back in 1999? Gearing? Yep. Area under the curve? Just addressed that.
The sad part about this is, I'm the one that was posting here that S2K owners should beware the 6-spd. Its quite quick. My only disagreement with you was that it would pull on the top end with headers. Based upon my personal experience with the car, its a driver's race. But you can discount all that because I'm just "some guy on the internet". I think I've more than established my credibility as a straight shooter on this site, and those who actually know me (not just my alias) will back that up. But, more importantly than anything else, I've driven the damn car in a variety of venues with instrumented testing. When you see my comments in the test article about how much I liked the CL-S ("thinking about buying one even though I really need a 4dr" is one of them) you'll feel like even more of an ass.
You know, I thought people jumped on you kinda hard in some of the previous threads you participated in, but maybe I just wasn't seeing what they saw - until now.
UL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]
I'm not going to throw that at the window because some guy on the internet who "put 1000 miles on a CLS", ****ed around on the street with one S2k, owns an S2k himself, and concludes the S2k is the faster car
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: queens village
UL,
You still haven't adressed that a CLS makes much more torque than an S2k. Because of that, it will get to its peak hp faster and stay around there longer. . Ever wonder why the S2k feels so weak below 6000rms? Only 153lbs that need to peak 240hp. That's why. It doesn't matter what the shape of the curve is, if the S2k made anything close to 232 lbs/ft, you'd have a much faster car. End of the story
And why are you multiplying the S2k's gear ratios and not the CL-S. Anyway, after a little research, these are the gear ratios and final drive ratios for each car:
CL type S 6 speed
1st - 3.933
2nd - 2.478
3rd - 1.700
4th - 1.250
5th - 0.976
6th - 0.771
Reverse - 4.008
Final Drive - 3.286
s2000
I 3.13 43 mph (8900 rpm)
II 2.05 65 mph (8900 rpm)
III 1.48 90 mph (8900 rpm)
IV 1.16 115 mph (8900 rpm)
V 0.97 138 mph (8900 rpm)
VI 0.81 18.5 146 mph (7900 rpm)
Final drive- 4.10:1
You can see that the CL actually has taller gears from 1st to 4th , but the difference is in the final drive, which is why the S2k's gearing is ultimately more agressive, but the CL is not exactly a conservatively geared car, although its FD is a lot lower than I expected.
And ever wonder what an overlapping CL vs S2k dyno would look like? Try to picture it, and then tell me who has more area under the curve. No matter what shape, a 153lbs curve is a 153lbs curve, and a 232lbs curve is a 232 lbs curve, it hovers all over the S2k's curve.
I'm sorry but almost all the issues you think you've addressed I disagree with. For example, you're multiplying S2000's wheel torque number to a random 1.29 number? What is that a gear multiplier? Well using the ratios I provided why don't you do the same for each car? You just lost me on that one. The CL's gearing must be multiplied as well, after all, it does have gears too, last time I checked.
And about the aerodynamic thing, I don't believe Cd takes into account a ragtop at speeds of 100-120mph. The thing will probably change shape at those speeds and cause some unwanted added drag. Why is this not obvious to you? A 15% frontal mass disparity is not going to offset the way a rag top will hurt you on the top end.
And about the biasm thing, I'm sorry, but I don't know you and you don't know me. You came off as biased to me because of how strongly I feel about what I said, and how obvious I think about what I said is true. If I hurt your feelings, then I'm sorry, but no harm was intended. I just like to get my point across.
Finally I am not going to base my opinion on your real life experience, which to me, defined how a relatively new CL-S (and possibly not fully broken in) performed against an S2k that might have been more broken in, better driven etc.... I believed your story though, but I can not make it the rule. Sorry.
Once again, because I know people with both of these cars, I've watched S2ks perform for over a year now at the drag strip, and on the street. I've seen the type S 6 speed in action too. Forgive me if I think I've got plenty of knowledge about how fast these cars are, what they can and what they can't do.
And I could care less about what anybody on the internet thinks about me, wants to be my buddy or not... I just voice my opinions in a rather loud way. That's just the way I am. So feel free to join those against me on this forum, no problem at all.
You still haven't adressed that a CLS makes much more torque than an S2k. Because of that, it will get to its peak hp faster and stay around there longer. . Ever wonder why the S2k feels so weak below 6000rms? Only 153lbs that need to peak 240hp. That's why. It doesn't matter what the shape of the curve is, if the S2k made anything close to 232 lbs/ft, you'd have a much faster car. End of the story
And why are you multiplying the S2k's gear ratios and not the CL-S. Anyway, after a little research, these are the gear ratios and final drive ratios for each car:
CL type S 6 speed
1st - 3.933
2nd - 2.478
3rd - 1.700
4th - 1.250
5th - 0.976
6th - 0.771
Reverse - 4.008
Final Drive - 3.286
s2000
I 3.13 43 mph (8900 rpm)
II 2.05 65 mph (8900 rpm)
III 1.48 90 mph (8900 rpm)
IV 1.16 115 mph (8900 rpm)
V 0.97 138 mph (8900 rpm)
VI 0.81 18.5 146 mph (7900 rpm)
Final drive- 4.10:1
You can see that the CL actually has taller gears from 1st to 4th , but the difference is in the final drive, which is why the S2k's gearing is ultimately more agressive, but the CL is not exactly a conservatively geared car, although its FD is a lot lower than I expected.
And ever wonder what an overlapping CL vs S2k dyno would look like? Try to picture it, and then tell me who has more area under the curve. No matter what shape, a 153lbs curve is a 153lbs curve, and a 232lbs curve is a 232 lbs curve, it hovers all over the S2k's curve.
I'm sorry but almost all the issues you think you've addressed I disagree with. For example, you're multiplying S2000's wheel torque number to a random 1.29 number? What is that a gear multiplier? Well using the ratios I provided why don't you do the same for each car? You just lost me on that one. The CL's gearing must be multiplied as well, after all, it does have gears too, last time I checked.
And about the aerodynamic thing, I don't believe Cd takes into account a ragtop at speeds of 100-120mph. The thing will probably change shape at those speeds and cause some unwanted added drag. Why is this not obvious to you? A 15% frontal mass disparity is not going to offset the way a rag top will hurt you on the top end.
And about the biasm thing, I'm sorry, but I don't know you and you don't know me. You came off as biased to me because of how strongly I feel about what I said, and how obvious I think about what I said is true. If I hurt your feelings, then I'm sorry, but no harm was intended. I just like to get my point across.
Finally I am not going to base my opinion on your real life experience, which to me, defined how a relatively new CL-S (and possibly not fully broken in) performed against an S2k that might have been more broken in, better driven etc.... I believed your story though, but I can not make it the rule. Sorry.
Once again, because I know people with both of these cars, I've watched S2ks perform for over a year now at the drag strip, and on the street. I've seen the type S 6 speed in action too. Forgive me if I think I've got plenty of knowledge about how fast these cars are, what they can and what they can't do.
And I could care less about what anybody on the internet thinks about me, wants to be my buddy or not... I just voice my opinions in a rather loud way. That's just the way I am. So feel free to join those against me on this forum, no problem at all.