quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by asu_lee
Wow....up 26hp at peak.....Torque up 21ft/lbs at peak.

Gosh I guess this is a dumbed down, softened s2000.....Can't really argue the numbers.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-a...ticle_id=171514
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Something seems a little fishy with the dyno numbers. Why is the MY04 only losing 3.5 ft lbs(158.5) of torque from the claimed (162) from Honda? But the MY00-03 is losing 14.6 ft lbs (138.4) of torque from the claimed (153) from Honda. I understand that you lose some when seeing it at the wheels, but why would one (MY00-03) lose soooooo much more than the other (MY04)? Shouldn't they both lose about the same percentage of torque?

 

inovatv, I think you're missing the point. The claim is that Honda is underrating the 2004 motors. That would be why the percentage dropoff is less on the new engine.

 

inovatv, the '04 car dynoed at 159.5 lb-ft of torque, which would put it at about 176 lb-ft of torque at the crank, fully 14 lb-ft more than what official Honda marketing claims. As wickerbill said, it's not about the F22C1 loosing less through the drivetrail - Honda simply isn't owning up to how well it performs.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Legal Bill
...
First, I beleive most european countries tax cars on displacement.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 3ngin33r1
So you are dragging this on and on simply because you like to debate?

 

This is an interesting thread, but it's eleven pages. I tried reading, but way too much sh8 talking. Any one care to summarize! He He

 

11 pages? change your settings to show 50 posts per page and it's only 6 pages.

 

TOV's analysis of the 27HP anomaly has been incomplete from the day the article was posted. Supporting one's conclusions with insufficient (irrelevant...) data is something I wouldn't expect to see from TOV, especially in a published article.

http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.p...threadid=164688

It is not conclusive, but the data is far more unbiased.

 

"but the data is far more unbiased."

Unbiased - how so? How was the TOV analysis biased?

 

Why are so many of you just dismissing the actually dyno graph that the guys in Dallas had done this past weekend? I don't get it. No one is saying that UL's info is wrong, no one is saying that it's right. All these guys have done is give all of you exactly what you have been begging for, an actual dyno from a dynojet. I also agree that UL is a pretty intuitive guy and about 95% of what he has to say you can take to the bank, but that's still not 100%. His words aren't the "final words of god written in stone", but most of you seem to think they are. Don't be blind followers, try to question what you read and learn.