It's generally better to directly compare cars at the same time, with the same driver and road.

Here's an example. If I do a brake test on my M3 on a good day and a good raod it can do 60-0 in about 115 feet. Repeats within a few feet each time. Go to a different road and voila, now I'm better or worse and this repeats.

The numbers above show it's about the same when driven in anger. And faster the rest of the time in normal driving - less demanding of downshifts from a crusing gear at a given speed. Likely small hills won't require a downshift for example. The 5-60 time seems puzzling as you'd expect the first 15-20 MPH to go decisively to the '04 what with the displacement, torque cam and gearing advantages. It would be nice to compare 2s and 2,2s with the wheels swapped amongst them. Apparently most of the weight increase is wheel/tire related.

Stan

 

It's 9 ft./lbs. at peak...IIRC, the difference is quite a bit more at other parts of the powerband.

 

I'm not too surprised, more weight is the worst, particularly if it's unsprung (wheels/tires).

That'll debilitate overall performance (accel, handling, AND braking).

C'est la vie, when you change perfection, the only place to go is down! Heh..

Randy

 

Top gear tests with manual transmissions make about as much sense as
a condom in Larry King's wallet.
My Camaro SS had 385hp but the sixth gear was so tall (30mpg on the highway), any top gear time with that automobile would be incredibly deceptive.
However, my brother's '87 Grand National has a top gear time that would knock your head back.
Best indicator of such a performance parameter would be 30-80 in 3rd gear.
What kind of Honda owner passes another car in 6th gear?
Christ, I half expected these goobers to do another 0-60 run while shifting at 5000 rpm.

Also, braking distances increased most probably due to the increase in unsprung weight with the 17-inch tires/wheels.

 

These are the two most valid posts made in this thread. Different days, temps, atmospheric conditions, road conditons, drivers etc, etc. all can make a significant difference. We don't know that until somebody weighs them. The additional bracing probably accounts for a significant portion of the 25lb increase as well.

ron

 

I would expect the '04 to do better than that, maybe 6.5 or so.

 

>>>It would be nice to compare 2s and 2,2s with the wheels swapped amongst them. Apparently most of the weight increase is wheel/tire related.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't know that until somebody weighs them. The additional bracing probably accounts for a significant portion of the 25lb increase as well.<<<

Honda is the one saying it's mostly from the wheels. The additional bracing is mostly things like gussets, which don't weigh much. I think there is a new crossmember at the extreme front, but that is likely a stamped steel box section and so light.

Stan

 

Possible sources of additional weight:

* Performance rod added to front cross member.
* Brackets added to the front A-arms.
* Front cross member reinforced.
* The rear wheel housing has been reinforced.
* The clutch has also been beefed up.

 

Stan, I think it's probably right that the wheels and tires account for the majority of the gain. But I wouldn't be surprised if the additional bracing/gusseting makes up a fair amount of the total either. 25 lbs really isn't that much. It will be interesting to find out though.

ron

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rai
No one.