0-100km/h tests with my S2000....
02-12-2001, 03:32 PM
#11
Registered User
Sev and DavidM, how did you guys break in your motors? Short of dyno sheets and clutch performance maybe that would give some insight? quite simply did you break them in 'easy' or 'hard'? Im just thinking about seating the rings . . .
02-12-2001, 06:01 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
Hi Sev,
Thanks for the reply .... I was thinking that there could be maybe 0.3 sec that we could make up by having better road, conditions and less fuel. Though, that's what I'd concider absolutely ideal run and conditions.
With the 'high revs' launch we have already managed something like 5.75 secs for the 0-60m/h run. I can see .3 sec being taken off by all the things you mention - that will bring us down to about 5.5 ... as you said. That is 'only' 0.4 secs of your best time (though that 0.4 is the hardest and most dificult to see at the moment).
It's the 'idle' launch that has me really puzzled. It looks like we managed about 6.9 - 7.0 for the 0-60m/h 'idle' launch time. That is about 0.8 secs of your 6.21 time. I find it so hard to see that there could be 0.8 secs to be gained ... time will tell I guess. Also, concidering that some of our 'high revs' launches were about 6.5 secs (0-100km/h) it is hard to see how an 'idle' launch'ed S2000 could actually match (or even beat) that ...even though it wasn't the best possible run.
Sev, could you describe in detail how you do an 'idle' launch?
ps. 2kturkey's S2000 has already more than 20,000km and it didn't seem any quicker than mine.
Hi Sev,
Thanks for the reply .... I was thinking that there could be maybe 0.3 sec that we could make up by having better road, conditions and less fuel. Though, that's what I'd concider absolutely ideal run and conditions.
With the 'high revs' launch we have already managed something like 5.75 secs for the 0-60m/h run. I can see .3 sec being taken off by all the things you mention - that will bring us down to about 5.5 ... as you said. That is 'only' 0.4 secs of your best time (though that 0.4 is the hardest and most dificult to see at the moment).
It's the 'idle' launch that has me really puzzled. It looks like we managed about 6.9 - 7.0 for the 0-60m/h 'idle' launch time. That is about 0.8 secs of your 6.21 time. I find it so hard to see that there could be 0.8 secs to be gained ... time will tell I guess. Also, concidering that some of our 'high revs' launches were about 6.5 secs (0-100km/h) it is hard to see how an 'idle' launch'ed S2000 could actually match (or even beat) that ...even though it wasn't the best possible run.
Sev, could you describe in detail how you do an 'idle' launch?
ps. 2kturkey's S2000 has already more than 20,000km and it didn't seem any quicker than mine.
ANother thing you forgot to mention is your elevation.
6.9 to 6.2 is a 0.7 difference.
Remove the spare and extra fuel. = 0.1
Lower temperatures = 0.2
Engine geting stronger= 0.2
Thats allready 0.5, the rest can be attributable to shift speed and possible elevation.
By off idle start, i mean a completely regular everyday driving start.
02-12-2001, 06:04 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by cmnsnse
Sev and DavidM, how did you guys break in your motors? Short of dyno sheets and clutch performance maybe that would give some insight? quite simply did you break them in 'easy' or 'hard'? Im just thinking about seating the rings . . .
Sev and DavidM, how did you guys break in your motors? Short of dyno sheets and clutch performance maybe that would give some insight? quite simply did you break them in 'easy' or 'hard'? Im just thinking about seating the rings . . .
No WOT
No constant speeds
No 5500 RPM +
At 600 miles. I gradually started reving higher and higher. and by about 605 miles i hit redline.
From there on i was aggressive on the car untill about 1000 Miles and then i went crazy.
I make sure, to hit redline a few times every time i drive.
I believe its an important part of keeping the car fast. No theory, that i know off, to prove it though.
02-12-2001, 06:42 PM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I broke my car in exacly like Sev ... took it eazy below the 1000km (600 miles) mark. Though, I had my oil replaced by Honda at 1000km. Once the oil was replaced then over the next 100 km or so I wound the VTEC up gradually. Now I go into the VTEC zone regularly and at least once while I drive (I'm if the same belief as Sev that you should use that part of the rev-range in order for the engine to perform better).
Sev, we did our tests only about 5 - 10km from the coast and there's no real elevation change around. I'd say that we were as close to sea-level as you could possibly get ... could not be more that 50m above sea-level (I'd say closer to 30m) ... that is about 10 to 17 feet.
Sev, we did our tests only about 5 - 10km from the coast and there's no real elevation change around. I'd say that we were as close to sea-level as you could possibly get ... could not be more that 50m above sea-level (I'd say closer to 30m) ... that is about 10 to 17 feet.
02-12-2001, 07:20 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
I broke my car in exacly like Sev ... took it eazy below the 1000km (600 miles) mark. Though, I had my oil replaced by Honda at 1000km. Once the oil was replaced then over the next 100 km or so I wound the VTEC up gradually. Now I go into the VTEC zone regularly and at least once while I drive (I'm if the same belief as Sev that you should use that part of the rev-range in order for the engine to perform better).
Sev, we did our tests only about 5 - 10km from the coast and there's no real elevation change around. I'd say that we were as close to sea-level as you could possibly get ... could not be more that 50m above sea-level (I'd say closer to 30m) ... that is about 10 to 17 feet.
I broke my car in exacly like Sev ... took it eazy below the 1000km (600 miles) mark. Though, I had my oil replaced by Honda at 1000km. Once the oil was replaced then over the next 100 km or so I wound the VTEC up gradually. Now I go into the VTEC zone regularly and at least once while I drive (I'm if the same belief as Sev that you should use that part of the rev-range in order for the engine to perform better).
Sev, we did our tests only about 5 - 10km from the coast and there's no real elevation change around. I'd say that we were as close to sea-level as you could possibly get ... could not be more that 50m above sea-level (I'd say closer to 30m) ... that is about 10 to 17 feet.
Anyways, so we are both at low elevation.
Just give the car time and you will see.
02-12-2001, 07:54 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: newport beach
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi David M
Based on my experience with my car, I can tell you that over time the variations in a car's quickness can be very substantial. I think the variation from car to car is likely to be great as well. My runs were timed with a hand held digital stop watch. I've been timing my cars for many years and am pretty good at it, but probably not as good as with a Gtechpro. When I can, I will mount and figure out how to use my Gtechpro and report back with some more 0-60 (not 0-62) results. In any case, good luck with yours and I look forward to putting some harder numbers on the table.
2x6spds
Based on my experience with my car, I can tell you that over time the variations in a car's quickness can be very substantial. I think the variation from car to car is likely to be great as well. My runs were timed with a hand held digital stop watch. I've been timing my cars for many years and am pretty good at it, but probably not as good as with a Gtechpro. When I can, I will mount and figure out how to use my Gtechpro and report back with some more 0-60 (not 0-62) results. In any case, good luck with yours and I look forward to putting some harder numbers on the table.
2x6spds
02-12-2001, 10:20 PM
#17
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sev, missed the 'extra 0' at the end of the feet ... 30 -50m is more like 100 - 170 feet .... my bad. Also, I'll give something like this a go once my car has more than 10.000km and see if the results are any different (ie better).
2x6spds, timing runs manually is not accurate at all ... no matter how good you're at it. You can make the times almost anything you like when you're timing it by hand. There's easily 1 sec error margin times that you get by using a stop watch. Though, I hope you sort out the Gtechpro soon so that you can get some 'consistent' numbers - would love to se what you can manage. the more serults we can get the more we'll know about this car :-)
2x6spds, timing runs manually is not accurate at all ... no matter how good you're at it. You can make the times almost anything you like when you're timing it by hand. There's easily 1 sec error margin times that you get by using a stop watch. Though, I hope you sort out the Gtechpro soon so that you can get some 'consistent' numbers - would love to se what you can manage. the more serults we can get the more we'll know about this car :-)
02-12-2001, 11:58 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne!
Posts: 3,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David/Sev, as far as elevation goes we were right next to Morrabin airport and I know from my flying training that the airport is exactly 12 feet above sea level so that is not an issue.
Our off idle launches were not true off idle - I think the 8.3 figure was more realistic from that perspective, however, I think this is a very subjective test as 'off idle' can mean many things to many people. The 7.3 (6.9) off idle launch was in actuality probably about a 3k launch.
Sev, one of the things we haven't really considered here is road surface. As an ex-Torontonian I have a fairly good apprecation of Canadian road surfaces but was your test road anything special in terms of grip or just your average piece of bitumen (asphalt)?
Our off idle launches were not true off idle - I think the 8.3 figure was more realistic from that perspective, however, I think this is a very subjective test as 'off idle' can mean many things to many people. The 7.3 (6.9) off idle launch was in actuality probably about a 3k launch.
Sev, one of the things we haven't really considered here is road surface. As an ex-Torontonian I have a fairly good apprecation of Canadian road surfaces but was your test road anything special in terms of grip or just your average piece of bitumen (asphalt)?
02-13-2001, 03:06 AM
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2kturkey - what difference would the road surface make for the 'idle' launch? It's not like you can bag it up from idle :-)
Though, 2kturkey is right ... I kinda forgot about that - the 7.3 secs that we got for the 'idle' lauch had about 3k revs and maybe a little bit of a clutch slip. That is not really a true 'idle' launch. True idle launch should be where you fully release the clutch at idle and then feed the power in (definatelly should not have more that 2k revs and minimal clutch slipping). I think with launches like that we were getting times between 7.5 and 7.9 secs depending on how smooth the clutch to power transition was. Sev, is this your idea of 'idle' launch as well, or is it different?
[Edited by DavidM on 02-13-2001 at 04:57 AM]
Though, 2kturkey is right ... I kinda forgot about that - the 7.3 secs that we got for the 'idle' lauch had about 3k revs and maybe a little bit of a clutch slip. That is not really a true 'idle' launch. True idle launch should be where you fully release the clutch at idle and then feed the power in (definatelly should not have more that 2k revs and minimal clutch slipping). I think with launches like that we were getting times between 7.5 and 7.9 secs depending on how smooth the clutch to power transition was. Sev, is this your idea of 'idle' launch as well, or is it different?
[Edited by DavidM on 02-13-2001 at 04:57 AM]
02-13-2001, 03:23 AM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne!
Posts: 3,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi David, I was thinking of the road surface differences from the perspective of fast launches rather than idle - sorry if I confused you there.
I've just realised we have another variable too - the roof. our roofs were down whereas I think Sev and others had their roof up - I certainly believe this will make a difference for 400m times but I'm not sure if there would have been any negative effect (aerodynamic inefficiency) at 100km/h, thoughts anyone??
I've just realised we have another variable too - the roof. our roofs were down whereas I think Sev and others had their roof up - I certainly believe this will make a difference for 400m times but I'm not sure if there would have been any negative effect (aerodynamic inefficiency) at 100km/h, thoughts anyone??