06 S2K vs 03 RSX-S
#31
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 1Ferris,Jun 20 2006, 11:05 PM
I don't think you know what you are saying. Even from a roll there is a large bias in drivetrain. You can't put a fwd against a rwd/awd from a roll and truly expect that to judge each engines power. Now if both vehicles being compared are fwd or rwd or awd, then a somewhat decent comparison can be made....,but weight,gearing,traction,aerodynamics would still make a huge dent into any theory about which engine makes more power.
Want to see which makes more power? Dyno both vehicles on the same dyno and look at the power curve....even then powertrain will have an effect, but at least you have eliminated aerodynamics,weight, and gearing.
For example, let's say you have an STI that has been converted to FWD (God forbid I know ) that is going to roll on race a regular AWD STI. My money would be on the FWD STI. Is it because because the FWD car's engine is more powerful?...no, exact same engine. Drivetrain loss would be significantly different (theoretically) with the FWD having the advantage, regardless of engine power.
I think it is much more important to look at a vehicle as whole. Roll racing merely hides a car/driver's shortcomings.
Want to see which makes more power? Dyno both vehicles on the same dyno and look at the power curve....even then powertrain will have an effect, but at least you have eliminated aerodynamics,weight, and gearing.
For example, let's say you have an STI that has been converted to FWD (God forbid I know ) that is going to roll on race a regular AWD STI. My money would be on the FWD STI. Is it because because the FWD car's engine is more powerful?...no, exact same engine. Drivetrain loss would be significantly different (theoretically) with the FWD having the advantage, regardless of engine power.
I think it is much more important to look at a vehicle as whole. Roll racing merely hides a car/driver's shortcomings.
What you said is more than correct and I apologize for my lack of verbal choice.
So let me restate... as far as traction goes, I think it is a lot better to go from a roll.
Andre
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 8kGoodENuff,Jun 21 2006, 04:43 AM
Damn... I probably worded that in the wrong way. Instead of using "drivetrain", I probably should have used the word "traction".
What you said is more than correct and I apologize for my lack of verbal choice.
So let me restate... as far as traction goes, I think it is a lot better to go from a roll.
Andre
What you said is more than correct and I apologize for my lack of verbal choice.
So let me restate... as far as traction goes, I think it is a lot better to go from a roll.
Andre
#33
Registered User
Originally Posted by 8kGoodENuff,Jun 20 2006, 12:27 PM
What you said about the track is absolutely correct but... we never spoke about a track. We were strictly talking about going from a dig as opposed to going from a roll. Yes... you are right that it depends on how long the race goes for. But most roll on races seem to last for a while, which I think by then would determine which is faster.
I saw this video of a Lambo Gallardo vs a C6 Z06... and at the start (from a roll) the gallardo instantly pulled on the Z06, but the Z06 came back right after and reeled him back in.
Man... I don't want to argue anymore... lol. Whatever race happens, then it happens... lol. I'm tired of typing... lol.
Andre
I saw this video of a Lambo Gallardo vs a C6 Z06... and at the start (from a roll) the gallardo instantly pulled on the Z06, but the Z06 came back right after and reeled him back in.
Man... I don't want to argue anymore... lol. Whatever race happens, then it happens... lol. I'm tired of typing... lol.
Andre
I just look at the overall picture, thats all. Of course the most important aspect is the driver. There are a few others too.
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, my '06 S had no problem with a RSX-S last night. my car is bone stock. i had my GF with me and a 1/2 tank of gas. i have no idea what the RSX-S had, just some random dude at a red light.
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RadioZero,Jul 19 2006, 09:21 AM
FWIW, my '06 S had no problem with a RSX-S last night. my car is bone stock. i had my GF with me and a 1/2 tank of gas. i have no idea what the RSX-S had, just some random dude at a red light.
-Chris
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ItalianBucwheat,Jun 25 2006, 12:14 PM
Cool! I like the RSX! Not sure why Acura is discontinuing the line.
RSX is a great little coupe.
RSX is a great little coupe.
-Chris
#38
I raced all kinds of Rsx's. Fact. A 2005 Rsx with I/H/E can beat a stock s2k. If anyone says different then the Rsx driver was not a good driver. Ive seen Rsx's with I/H/E hit 14.1 at palmdale Ca. 2710Ft above sea level. With my 05 s2k i hit one of the best if not the best times for a stock s2k at 14.4. AND REMEMBER 2710Ft Above Sea level. It is known palmdale is half a second slower then sea level I ran a friends Rsx with Intake with my 06 with just Exhaust and ill have the videos up today
#39
[QUOTE=8kGoodENuff,Jun 20 2006, 10:26 AM] I beg to differ because from a roll, it is plain obvious what car has more power and which can accelerate much faster without there being any bias of drivetrain.
For near perfect comparison of engines, I think a roll on is the best bet.
For near perfect comparison of engines, I think a roll on is the best bet.
#40
Registered User
[QUOTE=bs2k,Jul 22 2006, 11:45 AM] I raced all kinds of Rsx's. Fact. A 2005 Rsx with I/H/E can beat a stock s2k. If anyone says different then the Rsx driver was not a good driver. Ive seen Rsx's with I/H/E hit 14.1 at palmdale Ca. 2710Ft above sea level. With my 05 s2k i hit one of the best if not the best times for a stock s2k at 14.4. AND REMEMBER 2710Ft Above Sea level. It is known palmdale is half a second slower then sea level