Car & Driver comments on 2004 S2000
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis
Originally posted by BrotherRex
For all those who are rev happy. Peak hp on the existing motor is 8300rpm and torque peaks long before that- not at the redline 9k. There's a cliff effect after 8300. You gain nothing except more wear and tear on your precious little engine by taking it to 9k. Is that what you want? Reaching peak hp and torque on this engine a little sooner and for a longer duration is a good thing. I don't care how you slice it. Go talk to an automotive engineer if you need further convincing.
For all those who are rev happy. Peak hp on the existing motor is 8300rpm and torque peaks long before that- not at the redline 9k. There's a cliff effect after 8300. You gain nothing except more wear and tear on your precious little engine by taking it to 9k. Is that what you want? Reaching peak hp and torque on this engine a little sooner and for a longer duration is a good thing. I don't care how you slice it. Go talk to an automotive engineer if you need further convincing.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 2
From: Midlothian
[QUOTE]Originally posted by STL
[B]Here it is:
"[I]Jeremy Hall, a principal engineer in Honda's engine design department, notes that the S2000's power peaks at 8,300 rpm, and the engine has a race-inspired 9,000-rpm redline. The key is meticulous engineering and production
[B]Here it is:
"[I]Jeremy Hall, a principal engineer in Honda's engine design department, notes that the S2000's power peaks at 8,300 rpm, and the engine has a race-inspired 9,000-rpm redline. The key is meticulous engineering and production
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis
Originally posted by Road Rage
Thanks for the citation - now I need to get a hold of Mr. Hall and ask him what the heck he is talking about - it is certainly possible that he was talking hyperbole in order to make a point - I searched my archives and cannot for the life of me determine what mechanical principle he is basing that number (2X) on. It is unquestionably higher - even my more reserved piston speed "stress indice" acknowledges that - I am questioning hsi order of magnitude.
Still
Thanks for the citation - now I need to get a hold of Mr. Hall and ask him what the heck he is talking about - it is certainly possible that he was talking hyperbole in order to make a point - I searched my archives and cannot for the life of me determine what mechanical principle he is basing that number (2X) on. It is unquestionably higher - even my more reserved piston speed "stress indice" acknowledges that - I am questioning hsi order of magnitude.
Still
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: STOCKTON
Since the car does not rev into infinite, there is a certain detonation point. Let's for the sake of discussion it is 11,000 rpms. At that point the engine explodes.
Consequently the stresses on the engine as rpm increases are not linear, but geometric. At the 11,000 rpm point the stresses are 100%, or total destruction. The closer you get to detonation, the stresses increase 2 or three fold with every 1k increase in rpms.
What the formula is, I have no clue, but it is certainly based on a certain fail safe point on the tach.
Consequently the stresses on the engine as rpm increases are not linear, but geometric. At the 11,000 rpm point the stresses are 100%, or total destruction. The closer you get to detonation, the stresses increase 2 or three fold with every 1k increase in rpms.
What the formula is, I have no clue, but it is certainly based on a certain fail safe point on the tach.
