S2000 CNC Cylinder Head
07-25-2003, 11:40 AM
#21
Former Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Paradise Valley, AZ miss NYC
Posts: 13,831
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Ok no offense but that 332hp number is probably wrong. Look at the quote that Fongu posted "even though Baechtel saw this as "a little optimistic," .." I'd bet they are no where near 332hp more like 300hp and remember this is at the crank not at the wheels. As for the speed, let's not forget that the speedo on the cars is wrong so it's very possible to see 150 to 160. The speed they posted was more accurate since they were using different testing gear.
07-25-2003, 12:14 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: STOCKTON
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point although they used narrower tires on the Speed run, so that could have offset some of the additional drag(if any)associated with the lake bed.
In any event it sure makes you wonder if the S2000, with 50 less HP than the Bonneville car, could ever approach 150 MPH in stock form.
In any event it sure makes you wonder if the S2000, with 50 less HP than the Bonneville car, could ever approach 150 MPH in stock form.
07-25-2003, 02:25 PM
#25
1) The C&D article was whack; there were several errors that indicated the author just got a few technical details confused.
2) Even if you believe the C&D guys got what they claimed on the dyno, it's meaningless because there's HUGE variance from dyno to dyno. (And yes, 332 at the crank is just a ridiculous estimate for 255 at the wheels.)
3) The reason they couldn't manage a great top speed is primarily the altitude at Bonneville, which is something over 4000 ft. This robbed them of a lot of power, and they ran out of running room to get those last few mph.
And last:
4) Still waiting for the before/after dyno plots of the R&D head. (Isn't "Dyno" in their name?)
2) Even if you believe the C&D guys got what they claimed on the dyno, it's meaningless because there's HUGE variance from dyno to dyno. (And yes, 332 at the crank is just a ridiculous estimate for 255 at the wheels.)
3) The reason they couldn't manage a great top speed is primarily the altitude at Bonneville, which is something over 4000 ft. This robbed them of a lot of power, and they ran out of running room to get those last few mph.
And last:
4) Still waiting for the before/after dyno plots of the R&D head. (Isn't "Dyno" in their name?)
07-25-2003, 05:57 PM
#27
Registered User
In any event it sure makes you wonder if the S2000, with 50 less HP than the Bonneville car, could ever approach 150 MPH in stock form.
07-25-2003, 08:58 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: none of the above
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by smccurry
Not only that, but remember also that they are running on a dried up lake bed as opposed to a paved surface. I'm no expert on the subject, but there was a thread on that article when it came out, and there was mention of the fact that additional drag is created by that surface. Also, don't they average the speed for both directions to negate the effects of wind aiding in the final result?
Not only that, but remember also that they are running on a dried up lake bed as opposed to a paved surface. I'm no expert on the subject, but there was a thread on that article when it came out, and there was mention of the fact that additional drag is created by that surface. Also, don't they average the speed for both directions to negate the effects of wind aiding in the final result?
True softer surfaces cause more drag.... and what about the altitude and temp you most take those into perspective likewise
