His launch was only alright, His GSR is by far the strongest one I've ever scene. It just pulls like mad. we speculated that the previous owner did internal engine work. We don't know.

 

yes true...but i seriously doubt he put down 290 fwhp w/ a t3/t4 at ONLY 6 psi, especially if his compression was 9:1

i dont know if his friend knew much about cars, but he should find out what his wastegate spring was. thats what determines the lowest boost level, not the ebc (assuming he had an ebc). i think he put down those numbers and ran that time, but at higher boost, and probably on slicks.

 

Hey now, I was guessing that he had it at 9.0:1 because I don't remember him saying 8 anything. I'm purely going off memory. I know he couldn't run any higher then 6lbs because his fuel system couldn't handle it.
He is very knowledgeable about cars But i'm certain he had his friend (the shop owner and owner and driver of a 9 second civic hatch drag car which now has his Block) did all the work on the car.
Also he's not the type of person that would lie or be off on the numbers. He's the kinda guy that when he says something you know it's true.

That engine probably didn't make beans for bottom end torque but think of it like this. Launch keep it above 5K . shift at redline, back to 5K. when the hell would you need bottom end torque at the drag strip. I could regularly run sub 2.0 60ft's in my miata and never drop below 6000rpm in 1st gear. It's all about peak HP something the Z severly lacks. The T3/t4 on his integra was bascially acting like a centrifugal supercharger with out the obvious loss from the drivebelt. S2000's are regularly making over 300rwhp (one did it in Road and track a few months back) with centrifugal SC's with less boost, less effecient intercoolers (or aftercoolers) and a drivebelt loss. Where as Integra's can pretty easily match S2000's HP with cams and I/H/E. For an integra to do it with less drive train loss and a turbo should just be logical. I also forgot he had a civic type R intake cam which he speculates probably hurt him more then helped due to overlap. And yes he ran that time on Nitto 555R's.

 

um....right dude...

Why don't you go out and tune a motor to make 400 PEAK HP at 7000rpms, but make absoultely no power up to that point...or after that point....

Making a car fast is NOT all about peak hp...it's about hp and TORQUE UNDER THE CURVE...and gearing to match it.

If you are alluding to the Z lacking top end, you are sorely mistaken. The engine peaks a mere 350rpms before redline and only drops off about 5whp in those last 350rpms...I can say from experience that the Z has PLENTY of top end and more "peak power" stock than any honda currently made (short of the $90,000 NSX by 3hp).

BTW - Thanks for the laugh..Thats about the funniest thing I've read on here ever...

 

Allow me to show you what I'm talking about....
0 to redline in 2nd gear.

Some of those cars fall off up top big time. The Z, the E46 M3, the MR-2 (because of a small turbo). Just imagine what kind of numbers the car would pull if it could hold it's acceleration all the way to redline. One of my good friends (nissan fanatic) test drove a Z yesterday and got out sorely disapointed in how it gave up after 5000 rpm. He also noted how the gearing was terrible for a car that gave up up top. When he shifted to 2nd it would pull for a split second and then Nothing. A centrifugal supercharger would really help that engine out. But if your soo all about torque explain this. Roots type blower (jackson racing) on a miata and the car will still run 15's. It just gets torque it doesn't actually get much fast because it has no top end, and it still doesn't make enough torque to be hard to launch. Now a centrifugal running the same boost knocks 2 seconds off the 1/4 mile on a miata. the Jackson gives more torque so it's nicer in town and autoxing but nothing at the drag strip.

And yes you are correct if the gearing is correct then the car can be just as quick. Honda's are geared for HP hence a huge turbo on the GSR with low boost allowed it to drop into the 12's with a novice drag racer. My wagon for instance is not. I'm hoping to make well over 400 ft/lbs and that will fall off big time very quickly and I'm not trying to spin it out to the 6200 redline, 5000 rpm is as far as it will go. IMHO The Z should be geared taller to use it's torque.

 

Your friend says the Z gives up up top....hmmm....

When I test drove the Z, I actually wasn't impressed at all with the acceleration (although I really didn't get on it) I thought my bolt-on maxima would be about to give one a run for it's money. BOY WAS I WRONG..now that I have the Z BROKEN IN...the thing flies...and it pulls hard to redline everytime. It's funny that 2 of the three cars that you claim have no top end are two of the FASTEST on the highway of the bunch. I understand what you're saying about how forced induction would help...but forced induction would only help in a situation where a car has plenty of power down low, and needs power up top, but ALSO can breath enough in the upper RPMs to make that power. If it doesn't, then you'll experience the same drop off in power that you did BEFORE the forced induction. It's a constant win-lose situation...the Z is a much more "daily driveable" car power wise than a single turbo supra, yet the supra is a MUCH faster car overall. In most cases with cars, you're going to trade a good bit of low end power, to have a sick top end. Your S2000 is a good example of this.

What you "SHOULD" have said before was not that "it's all about peak hp", but that you PREFER cars that have a high torque peak, or hold their torque in the upper powerband. This will subsequently allow the car to pull you back in the seat more in the upper RPMs. That's what the Z doesn't do, the torque drops off after about 4500, BUT the hp on the Z continues climbing until it's peak just before redine which allows the car the keep accelerating at a very good rate from 4500-redline.

I think the Zs gearing is just about perfect from the 2000 miles that I've already put on the car, and you'd have to own one to understand why. I've given up on trying to decide if I like a car or not simply by a 5 minute test drive...you don't even get comfortable in a car in 5 minutes...how are you going to decide if you like it or not in that same time?


BTW- I was looking about your "G" graph...and if I'm reading it correctly, the Z is the third from the top...what you should look at on that graph is NOT how much a car "falls" off...but AVERAGE the Gs over the powerband...and see which cars come up with more...the graph is VERY decieving because the top of the Zs second gear is 62mph and the top of a lot of the other cars looks to be higher..thus giving the impression that the Z "dies" at 60mph and the other cars keep pulling. If you modified the graph to have the cars exactly match powerbands, you'd see that the Z would out "pull" all the cars short of the E46 M3 and Z06 throughout it's ENTIRE powerband.

 

Funny, My friend that test drove the Z ( I test drove an automatic months ago and felt the same feeling of it dying off) Also has a maxima with a few bolt on's. On the way home he kept making comments about how he felt the maxima could give it a good run. Just kind of ironic that you said the same thing.
Let me dig up the graph of 1st -2nd gear. It shows just how tall the S2000's gearing is. But think also if the car was geared to do 67 or so in 2nd like the other cars on the graph the G's would be lower. Anyway since we know the S and the Z will run roughly the same times we can automatically assume that the Average G's including the shifts will be roughly the same. What really amazed me about the 1-2 graph was the Z06 in 2nd gear still out pulled all the other cars in 1st gear. Some of the Z06 guys claim stock weight about 150lbs lighter then a Z. I drove a Z06 this summer and got out of the car thinking it felt under powered. It left me with a kinda unsatisfied feeling. The same feeling I got when driving a Z and my old miata and even my wagon. I know the Z06 and my wagon are rockets but they don't leave me with a gratified feeling of power the way the S2000 (and every rotory i've driven) does. I think it's personal preference but I really like the feeling from the flat torque curve. It leaves me satisfied.

 

Mrsideways,

What you've posted is basically the torque curve, but scaled with road speed instead of engine speed, and G's instead of torque (you probably already knew this, but I thought I'd point it out just in case).

Therefore, if you change the gearing, the overall shape of the curve will be very similar, but the speed axis (y) would be spread out and the G's axis (x) would be reduced. This would give the impression of a less peaky powerband, but would actually make the car slower in many respects because of the taller gearing.

The close ratio six speed transmission of the Z is nice because you can maintain power better, and in many cases you can have a couple gears to choose from in a given situation. I've done some calculations a long time ago, and even at redline in 2nd, you would be pulling a higher G than at peak torque in 3rd. Therefore I see very little need to make the gearing taller (unless you are running on a 67MPH track and don't want to hit the rev limiter in 2nd - which has happened to me).

However, I agree that it would be nice if the Z could maintain the torque up high as well as it currently does down low. However, that would also mean that you would have a much more powerful car, which would in turn skew the numbers even more.

So, I guess I agree with you somewhat (in that the Z is not optimized at engine speeds above 5000 RPM), but at the same time, would just say that more power is more power, and that's always nice no matter how it is derived.

I don't know how you made that graph, but what would be really cool to me would be to see the graph for an entire 1/4 mile run (including shifts). I think this would give good insight into why the Z4 has similar times as the Z, even though it has a lower power/weight ratio (at least using the Z4 HP numbers).

Plus it would allow you to see how the shifts affect the times and the accelerations.

Do you have any graphs like that?

-D'oh!

 

I'm sorry i can't take credit for the graph, It was made by someone else. But it's all basic math. If you have the torque curve, the gearing and the weight it's not to hard from there.

 

And what have we learned from this??? The car with the flatter torque curve loses

BTW - Mrsideways...didn't want you to get the wrong impression with the Maxima comment...my Z is much faster than my bolt-on max...even faster than the bolt-on max with a 50-shot of nitrous...I ran the first any ONLY 4th gen (95-99) maxima to hit 13s all motor (13.9@98.4) last weekend..and from a 80-120, I put approximately 6 carlengths on him...the car that "feels" faster is not necessarily always faster.

 

We expect his Max to hit High 13's if he ever figures out how to get it off the line. He ran my S2000 and we were dead even But I hit Vtec at almost the same time he had to shift to 2nd. I think Vtec is like 27 mph and his shift to 2nd is like 32 or something. It seemed like the same time. So combined with hitting Vtec and him shifting it was like I rocketed away. We also did a few interstate runs. My 6th to his 5th. He wins, my 5th to his 5th. I win. My 5th to his 4th, I win, My 4th to his 4th, I win, His 3rd to my 4th it's dead even. My 3rd to his 3rd. I dust him pretty badly. He claims he's got all the bolt on's to run high 13's I just don't see it happening. I'd say he's about as quick as a G35c right now. His last trip to the strip was 15.4 @ 98mph spinning most of 1st and 2nd. He's got the MEVI, (home made CAI designed and made by yours truely $60 total cost) Catman Y pipe, Catman B pipe, and HKS muffler.

 

15.4@98!!!!!!!

Check out my sig...with the same mods I ran 14.4@97 (on street tires)..Your friend needs to learn how to launch. Just FYI...I never lost to any S2000 that I ran (ran 3 I think)...they all must have "sucked" at driving because they always lost...

 

Yeah, he only got 2 runs, first time at the drag strip. First run he wasn't looking when the lights came down so he rolled off to a 16.1 the 2nd time he launched at 4K and roasted the tires then grabbed 2nd and roasted them again (205/50 15 falken azenis) When he ran me it wasn't like there was any skill involved we did races without gear changes or launching involved. Mine was clearly faster.

 

Please quit posting about this topic.....You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. To even say that a Z06 was underpowered and then comparing it a 14.0 second S2k is quite hillarious. Thanks for a good laugh and move along.

 

Hello and welcome to earth, You'd notice that I said it felt unsatisfying. Like when drive a big truck with Tons of torque. Yeah the Z06 is fast but it wasn't satisfying it felt like it could use More.

 

Pretty much every car short of a 9 second dragster or an F1 car "feels" like it could use more power. Your S2000 that you talk so highly of is a HUGE culprit of this problem of needing "more". Like how bout some better pull than a civic below 6000 rpms???

 

Have you driven an S. It's not massive bottom end but it's fine for getting around. And it spins the tires easily in the rain out of Vtec. Infact it pulls away from a Maxima out of vtec. But if you look at the chart is has more bottom end then both boxsters right off the bat. and more bottom end the entire way then a base boxster. The S2000 is not the best car in the world by anymeans. But when I was looking to spend $30K or less and I went car shopping I drove alot of cars. Camaro SS, a Z06 with mods being sold for $32K, Mustang Cobra, 350z, Rsx type S. WRX, 3rd gen Rx-7, 300zx, cooper S, M roadster, E36 M3. E46 330ci, and even a Lotus Elise 111s JPS. and of all those I personally like the S2000 best. I felt the S2000 was my car of choice that satisfied me enough to spend the next 5 years of my life making payments. The lotus was my next choice but I would never have been able to drive it on the street (it's a jail sentence now thanks to some jerk off on E-bay) and the Autox class for the lotus was less then favorable. Next choice was the Rx-7 but I don't enjoy replacing engines. Most of these cars I got to Autox, A few were just short stints around town. I didn't pick the Vette for 2 reasons. It doesn't fit in my garage, And it was really rough around the edges. Idle sucked dash was shaking on hard throttle. I couldn't see out that well and it was unsatisfying top end. It reminded me of driving a Pick up truck. Just with good handling. The Z felt like a refined Vette with more Understeer, less power and similar gas miliage and insurance. The cooper S was amazing and the power felt great But the normal Cooper was So slow I wanted to get out and push. Very satisfying very smooth. But FWD. the 300zx I drove had 40,000 miles and was full of problems. The camaro felt like a dinosaur, the Mustang felt better but just didn't suit me. All the BMW's pushed like Cows (need camber up front). and the E36 M3 (4 door) didn't feel any faster then my friends Maxima. The S2000 was briliant, it oversteered without the use of gas (only the elise would do this of the rest) it felt tight. The one I drove had 25,000 miles many of them autox and was still tight with no rattles and ran perfect. It's competetive in it's class for autox. It had enough torque to keep me happy around town and when I want it the power is enough to get me in trouble when I get on it. It's gratifying to get on it where with most of the other cars you get on it and it would give you instant punch then feel dead. The only thing I don't like is how pricey all the goodies are. So there's my reasoning, take it or leave it.

 

I never said you that your choice in car was a bad one...you don't have to get all defensive about your car. Yes I have driven an S2000...and it was a fun little go-cart...it would be an awesome weekend/track car..but that's not what I was shopping for, plus with the top up, me being 6 foot it felt REALLY REALLY small inside, no tilt steering wheel, stereo sucked, etc. etc. Most of all...I will stick by my statement that the S2000 has NO LOW END AT ALL..I really don't care what that little chart "says", to really know how much a car will pull you have to physically MEASURE IT with an accelerometer, not do a mathmatical calculation using factory torque numbers. Launch an s2000 at 1500rpms at the strip and you'll be LUCKY to run low 15s....

I wasn't ripping on your car before, just explaining that you're view of "pull" and "power" made no sense to me. Obvisouly we have different tastes in cars, and as such we will always disagree. Please don't be one of those people who comes onto a car forum and talks down the car that the forum is all about, and talks up their car....

 

A Geo Metro will spin the tires in the rain...come on now. Comparing a Z06 to a S2k is a joke. S2K's DONT have power down low and have very little torque. To get respectable performance from the car you have to litterally beat the crap out of it.

 

And thats why gear for gear my S2K pulls away from my friends 96 maxima out of Vtec. Wanna talk no power. Drive a 96 maxima under 2500 rpm, talk about lacking torque. The S2000 may not be tons of torque but it's more then enough to get the job done. Oh and a geo metro won't spin 245/40 17's. Well most. I saw a Geo Metro on Crack at the drag strip back in november. It ran a Low 10 something.