Car & Driver Article on S2000 and Bonneville Speed Record
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
From: Washington
Car & Driver Article on S2000 and Bonneville Speed Record
Stopped by a bookstore yesterday for a little catchup on frivolous reading (i.e. - the 50 car magazines my wife won't let me subscribe to!). Came across an article on a recent attempt by C&D to attempt a G/GT class speed record on the salt flats with S2000. My memory on this is fuzzy, so don't call me to task. Here is what I remember:
1) Car was relatively unmodified; had AEM computer, some modified cams (they didn't say which), and a lowered VTEC to 5500 (I assume using AEM, no mention of VAFC). I think some other work may have been done on the block too. They said it dyno'd at about 246. Had a hardtop.
2) Most they could get out of the car was 154 and change. Did not break the record. I was suprised they couldn't do better, but in retrospect I think it was because there was some unfamiliarity on their part with the nuances of the car.
I had some concerns about their testing method. First, they showed a picture where the ENTIRE front end (literally, the whole front end) was covered in tape for the test. I believe this effectively starved the engine of air. CAI debates aside (this car didn't have one from the pics), we all know how critical it is to get good air into this engine, epecially in a high altitide setting. Is my logic flawed?
Could someone get a copy of the article (with pics?) and put it here? It made for an interesting read. I think we could collectively come up with some reasons why the car underperformed. Jeez, I think a stock machine could have probably past 154 if the whole front end hadn't been taped up.
1) Car was relatively unmodified; had AEM computer, some modified cams (they didn't say which), and a lowered VTEC to 5500 (I assume using AEM, no mention of VAFC). I think some other work may have been done on the block too. They said it dyno'd at about 246. Had a hardtop.
2) Most they could get out of the car was 154 and change. Did not break the record. I was suprised they couldn't do better, but in retrospect I think it was because there was some unfamiliarity on their part with the nuances of the car.
I had some concerns about their testing method. First, they showed a picture where the ENTIRE front end (literally, the whole front end) was covered in tape for the test. I believe this effectively starved the engine of air. CAI debates aside (this car didn't have one from the pics), we all know how critical it is to get good air into this engine, epecially in a high altitide setting. Is my logic flawed?
Could someone get a copy of the article (with pics?) and put it here? It made for an interesting read. I think we could collectively come up with some reasons why the car underperformed. Jeez, I think a stock machine could have probably past 154 if the whole front end hadn't been taped up.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento
There is a previous thread on this article. The car had ported heads, exhaust, AEM with stock cams, 110 octane fuel and a N20 system which was not used for the run. The duct tape and unused N2O system were used to get the car into the modified category (G/FMS) where the speed record is actually lower than the straight G category. Record in G is still held by a Ford EXP with a 1.6 liter normally aspirated motor.
Nice article on the difficulty of such runs. It seems the altitude (4200 ft) is tough on the na cars.
Nice article on the difficulty of such runs. It seems the altitude (4200 ft) is tough on the na cars.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,675
Likes: 0
From: Fairfield County
Originally posted by 97 GTS
There is a previous thread on this article.
There is a previous thread on this article.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...ille%20userid47
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Fanman
Car and Bike Talk
12
Nov 11, 2002 02:09 PM