Russ, the simple facts are this:

1. No one is measuring or controlling IATs and Coolant temperatures sufficiently. Some have measured one or the other, but even in those cases, no attempt was made to control the variables - and you have to in order to obtain accurate and repeatable results. In TOV's testing of the 04s (and every other S2000 I've tested), all these factors were controlled.

2. When using an inertia roller dyno, there are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. First, the heavier wheels and tires on the 04. These will certainly cost power on a roller dyno - how much has not been determined, but I'll bet its at least a couple of hp. Additionally, there is the acceleration ramp time. The addition of more hp and tighter gearing will shorten the ramp, increasing driveline losses.

3. In instrumented, on the road acceleration testing, which I know you are a big fan of, an 04 consistently outran an early model in any particular measure of acceleration testing except 0-60 (where the 04 must make an extra shift). Even in that test it matched the early model. That testing was performed same day (within 20 minutes), same road, same test equipment and same driver. The acceleration differences correlated nicely to the hp differences observed on the dyno (when fed into an acceleration simulation program).

4. While magazine testing has not conclusively shown faster 1/4 mile times yet, we know that standing start testing is always questionable with this car. Car and Driver has recorded times ranging from 14.3 to 15.1 seconds in the 1/4 mile for the old models for example - due to break in and launch issues. We don't know how the new model has fared with respect to miles on the clock when tested. However, in-gear acceleration testing has shown a dramatic advantage for the 04, more than could be explained by the simple gearing change (which is virtually non-existent when you make top gear roll-on tests).

5. The 04 ECU has definitely different tuning than the older cars. In particular, it does not roll off the timing near the redline like the old cars. This has been documented on an actual Honda PGM-FI scantool tablet PC. The 04 consistently showed 3 deg more timing on the top end than the early model - with both the press car ECU and a separate dealer purchased ECU. And then there's the fact it does not roll off the fuel as aggressively as the early model.

6. The 04 model produces its peak power at a consistently higher rpm than rated. The previous models are spot on their power peaks at 8300 rpm (as rated). The 04s produce peak power right near 8200 rpm rather than the rated 7800 rpm. I suppose if you were to take the measured power at 7800 rpm, the old and new cars might be closer , even though the new car continues building power past that point.

7. Increasing evidence from multiple sources begins to suggest that the 04 does make more power. Sport Compact Car recorded higher numbers on a dynojet (despite the heavier wheel/tire combo). Increasing numbers of owners are showing higher hp as well (on Dynojets). And the 3 04's I've tested have all been within a hp or two of each other. Yes, the N. Texas folks did not show a difference. And there have been other private testers who showed little difference. However, we already know that dyno testing this car can produce widely varied results if not done correctly. Remember the older models producing 190 whp instead of the normal 200 whp on a Dynojet? I've never seen one that far off on the Dynapack, but incorrect dyno procedures could account for it - fortunately most of the issues associated with roller dynos are avoided by the Dynapack, so getting consistent results is easier for me by deint of the equipment. So now we're seeing 200-212 whp on Dynojets on 04's. Strange now how people have conveniently forgotten the abnormally low results from some early models.

When you add all the known information together, the preponderance suggests the 04's make more power. You may debate how much more, but adopting the position that there is no power difference is becoming increasingly untenable.

UL

 

In our Dyno on Saturday (granted we were unable to monitor coolant and intake temps) we dynoed 2 04's about 2 hours apart. One maid 211 and 144.5 the other made 210.2 and 144.5. SCC dynoed their car and got 210 and 146.

Talk about no variation. And when I finally get the chart from the Dyno Shop, you'll see the two 04's overlayed...the curves are identical!!

When was the last time anyone got 3 of the earlier cars to dyno at those numbers bone stock?

 

I have no doubts the '04's are making more power. What I deter from is the stated
amounts. I believe in "real world" situations, the '04 is not significantly quicker in
the 1/4-mile and once again, bring it back to a "driver's race." Nobody drives on rollers
so until I see a video where an '04 is putting 20+hp of distance between itself and
an earlier model, all this discussion of what it makes on a dyno is just mental masturbation,
as my man, Cabo Wabo Sammy would say.
UL, you are right about one thing. I once owned a Camaro SS that was nipping
at 400hp. It could dyno high numbers all day long but was a bitch to launch because of
all the torque. Once moving, it was insanely quick however I think the variables in drivers
make more difference than the variables from the 2.0L and the 2.2L, at least in the 1/4.
Now, using a rolling start, where the driver is pretty much removed from the equation,
I could see where the gearing and aggressive ECU would assist the '04, I don't doubt
that but nobody is going to convince me, across the board, they are 20+hp stronger
than the 2.0's.

80's boy, I've seen several 02's dyno at 203-207hp so with that in mind, I'll be more
apt to agree it looks like, on average, the newbies are running about 6-10hp higher
and that could very well be from the facts as UL discussed. I don't think there is
any "magic" here fellas...just common sense from the variations in the ECU and
gearing.

 

From what I hear from the dealer is that the HP numbers are virtually identical. The enlarged displacement accounts for more low and mid range TQ an area where the S2000 is lacking. Honda doesn't reverse performance on there vehicles. They tend to improve upon it. People complain about the low and midrange power so they addressed it. They did this without adding weight (I think) and giving us a little more go off the line. pk horsepower means nothing without the tq.
I wish there was a way to increase the TQ dramatically without upsetting the balance of the car and taking away from it's present engine characteristics in the high RPM.

 

all-trick'd-out - you simply cannot listen to the dealer. They [generally] know nothing.

 

Here is a new slant on this.

All things being equal, wouldn't the increased diameter of the wheels and tires create a higher moment of inertia, and consequently require more power to maintain comparable acceleration? The weight may be the same, but since it is distributed farther out, it is requires more force to overcome. Wouldn't Honda have to have raised the power and lowered the gearing to give equal or greater performance?

If wheel/tire weight is higher, than this would be even more of an issue. I would estimate 5-7 HP eaten that would need to be made up somewhere, and that is in one place: more snot in the MY04.

 

Temple did a 30-70 comparison... or something like that and the MY04 ate the MY00-MY03 for breakfast.

The MY04 is a quicker car, period. I'm not talking about drivers, I'm not talking about mods, I'm just talking about power to weight in similar vehichles. There's more power down which will result in better times.

I'm no grease monkey and I can't talk mechanics, however, I have a basic understanding of physics and mathmatics and can tell you that after reading these dynos and write ups about the MY04, that it's quicker than the MY00-MY03's.

 

Not that we live in a magazine world -- but the numbers so far don't back that statement up -- not to mention the various ways you could skew such results by gear and speed to speed selection in either car.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c

 

Not really -- the car has 10lbs more torque -- but different gearing, and thus a different multiplier.

I'm not one to make the comparison "difficult" -- it's just that the real world results seem to be all over the place with no indication as to which car is "faster." -- and your justifications as to why one "is" faster don't hold much water.