Car & Driver '04 test results
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally posted by Red_Ohio_Rocket
I will say this ONLY once
Japan
Europe
rest of world get a engine that was designed by a Jap who build 6 F1 world champ engines.
I will say this ONLY once
Japan
Europe
rest of world get a engine that was designed by a Jap who build 6 F1 world champ engines.
, IMO what Honda should have done was bump up the red line and offer owners an option for final gears.Imagine, 10K rpm redline, 4.77 gears right from the factory....DAMNIT HONDA, I would have been first in line for this car
.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
A couple of points:
I started the thread, and I should have emphasized that there are certainly variables like sample-to-sample variation, ambient conditions, track surface, driver, etc that have a strong impact on numbers. Witness how 2.0L 0-60's have ranged from about 5.3 to mid 6's. So while I wouldn't take these results as gospel, I thought it worth sharing anyway.
Based on simulations, and common sense, I expected 0-60 and 1/4 to be about the same, so I was not surprised by these results.
Top speed is strongly dependent on wind, slight road grades, top up/down and some sample-sample variation. So, I'd just take these C&D results as indicating nothing untoward about the vehicles. BTW, any testimonials here I'd just throw out. Speedos aren't accurate (plus the grade/wind issues).
Street start:
I believe it means they get it moving along in 1st, then hammer the throttle. So, no clutch dump or slip. Both cars will be suffering since they'll be at about 1000 rpm or so. The 2.2 should have a significant advantage due to: extra torque, gearing, less rotational energy to supply due to lower revs. Sure, it loses some of the benefit when the 2.0 is in first and the 2.2 is in second. Thus expectations for a near-equal clutch-dump 0-60. But my simulations show about 1 second advantage in the street start, thus my surprise at these results.
Maybe partly explained by an added 2-3 shift. Fuel cutoff is going to be very close to 60. Hard to tell without exact numbers for wheel dynamic radius. Maybe they shifted at redline (sub-60) anway.
I started the thread, and I should have emphasized that there are certainly variables like sample-to-sample variation, ambient conditions, track surface, driver, etc that have a strong impact on numbers. Witness how 2.0L 0-60's have ranged from about 5.3 to mid 6's. So while I wouldn't take these results as gospel, I thought it worth sharing anyway.
Based on simulations, and common sense, I expected 0-60 and 1/4 to be about the same, so I was not surprised by these results.
Top speed is strongly dependent on wind, slight road grades, top up/down and some sample-sample variation. So, I'd just take these C&D results as indicating nothing untoward about the vehicles. BTW, any testimonials here I'd just throw out. Speedos aren't accurate (plus the grade/wind issues).
Street start:
I believe it means they get it moving along in 1st, then hammer the throttle. So, no clutch dump or slip. Both cars will be suffering since they'll be at about 1000 rpm or so. The 2.2 should have a significant advantage due to: extra torque, gearing, less rotational energy to supply due to lower revs. Sure, it loses some of the benefit when the 2.0 is in first and the 2.2 is in second. Thus expectations for a near-equal clutch-dump 0-60. But my simulations show about 1 second advantage in the street start, thus my surprise at these results.
Maybe partly explained by an added 2-3 shift. Fuel cutoff is going to be very close to 60. Hard to tell without exact numbers for wheel dynamic radius. Maybe they shifted at redline (sub-60) anway.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
Probably just a mathematical calculation of max speed in gear (ie rpm-limit). But they'll be power-limited, so top speed will be lower than those numbers, and similar for both. To me, top speed doesn't matter much anyway.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
Sleepwalker,
A excellent starting place for those not afraid of eqns is the Physics of Racing series of articles. One url:
http://www.miata.net/sport/Physics/
A excellent starting place for those not afraid of eqns is the Physics of Racing series of articles. One url:
http://www.miata.net/sport/Physics/
:
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
>>>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<<<
My point is not the 25 pounds, it's where they are situated. On the car, it's of essentialy no consequence. On the wheels and they are "big pounds". Cuz they are unsprung weight and hence aren't good for bumpy road grip and ride. And since they are rotating mass acting like flywheels, they are harder to get up to speed. Some folks say that as a rule of thumb wheel/tire pounds are like 2-4 regular pounds. Not that simple but the idea is right.
Stan
My point is not the 25 pounds, it's where they are situated. On the car, it's of essentialy no consequence. On the wheels and they are "big pounds". Cuz they are unsprung weight and hence aren't good for bumpy road grip and ride. And since they are rotating mass acting like flywheels, they are harder to get up to speed. Some folks say that as a rule of thumb wheel/tire pounds are like 2-4 regular pounds. Not that simple but the idea is right.
Stan