gareth Posted May 15, 2003 Author Share Posted May 15, 2003 Peter Is it the dyno figures you don't beleive or me ?? Here is the post from the owner of the rolling road ChurchAutoTest They brought their street kit in yesterday for testing and tuning (Hondata) before the big Car and Driver test today and tomorrow. I'll post graphs later on today when I get back in the shop and scan them, but the car definitely was making more than your normal bolt-on RSX-S. Peak numbers came in at 264.5 hp and 173 lbs-ft to the wheels. By comparison, Edo's average runs are in the 239 whp and 166 lbs-ft range. That's also 92 hp and 49 lbs-ft better than the last stock RSX-S I tested. The biggest difference though was in the breadth of the torque curve. They actually had to drop the VTEC point to 3800 rpm. The torque curve is virtually flat between 5000 and 8000 rpm (whereas Edo's car peaks very sharply). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 The bit I don't believe is "at the wheels" for the torque. Because of the final drive, you get a multiplication of the engine torque at the wheels, so I have made my usual smartass comment about "torque at the wheels" not being a measured quantity. The motivation behind the smartass comment is that I want people to have a really good understanding of what was actually measured rather than just bandying figures around the place. Besides anything else, the torque looks like a flywheel figure. A US horsepower is the same as any horsepower anywhere. Approx 750 Watts. 264hp at the wheels would more than likely indicate more than 300 at the flywheel. From the Hondata website they talk about a race engine making 268 hp at the wheels at 10,000 rpm. Bull****ometer is off the scale at this stage because any at-the-wheels figures will show peak at much lower rpm because the rate of increase of losses to the rollers exceeds the rate of increase of power. Besides it is reasonable to get 300bhp at the flywheel from 2 litres at 9200. This is robust criticism of what I perceive to be loose use of inflated numbers. If they can be justified fair enough, but as you have a commercial interest in talking up the proposition for Honda engines you should expect the odd tough question or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted May 15, 2003 Author Share Posted May 15, 2003 Peter When I said "USA hp is not the same as UK power" I was being sarcastic as American power figures are always "generous", I also said "I am building the same spec engine for my car - just for fun and to check the figure out" In other words this engine will be put onto a engine dyno so I will know true flywheel numbers ..for that particular dyno. What is not in doubt is the "tuning potential" of this engine and at so little money compared to XE and Rover K, a reflash of an ECU and a set of cams for 255 hp read on a hub dyno .. Just as a correction - all Hondata numbers are not done on a rolling road but a hub dyno ( dynapack ) so there are no rollers to tyre contact I think you will find that the figures quoted were posted to the net by a third independant party who provided the dyno, had nothing to do with Hondata, me or the cam supplier, head porter etc. I just repeated these figures because they were interesting to chat about, because someone is making 300bhpish flywheel hp at dirt cheap money. This is a dream to all club racers like myself and may just make my se7en competitive against BEC and radicals etc I will extend an invitation to you to come to the engine dyno session when my engine is built to validate the numbers Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 OK, that clears up a lot. I concur 100% that the engine has great potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 For what it's worth (square root of bugger all probably, but never mind ! 😬) rolling road "dynos" in the US tend to be a bit different to UK ones in that they only have one roller. The car perches on top of the roller (rather than sitting in the trough between a pair of them) and it has to be securely strapped down to prevent it disappearing out of the back wall of the workshop !! 😬 😬 Now, I've no idea if just having one roller means there are less losses to consider, or if it makes them more accurate or repeatable, but it strikes me as being slightly closer to "real world" driving than twin roller set ups in that the contact patch is the same as it would be on the road. Sadly the one I took my car to recently looked at me blankly when I mentioned things like coast down tests to establish transmission losses ! "At the wheels figures are what you need" was the stock answer I got.... But let's no go there, eh ?!! 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken elle Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Did this ever make it in a 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Woods Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 ISTR that it didnt and Gareth sold the rolling chassis a while ago. Its a pity because I was quite interested (in an academic way - I cant afford it and certainly cant handle 250bhp even if my insurers would let me) Nick Red and Black 1.6K supersport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmandsd Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 What at first appeared to be high power readings at the wheels suddenly becomes logical if you consider that they were recorded on a Dynapack. However there's no substitute for an engine dyno. HTR recenty had a 2.3lt RS2000 engine on the dyno with standard hydraulic cams a very small amount of head work keeping the standard size valves (the head was a 2.0lt version which automatically raised the compression to 11 to 1) Bottom end was completely standard - the standard pistons are very nice on these engines. Exhaust was simple 4>2>1 design which just happened to come with the dyno. Induction was standard apart from 3lt throttle body. Engine showed 220 unadjusted bhp @ c 6500 rpm and 180 ft lbs at c 5,000 rpm on the Superflow. Standard engine is 145 bhp apparently...or 5bhp less than the 2.0lt equivalent. HTR are renowned for building some of the most powerful Pinto engines around which show as much as 230/240bhp on most rolling roads. On a Superflow a good 2.1lt Pinto will struggle to show 200bhp. However such an engine in a Mk2 Escort is capable of running 11.9 secs @ 110 mph over a standing quarter mile - This et is actually the same as an R500 will runat best and the ts is about 7 mph shy. The point of all this is that true power is best measured by performance. Personally I don't think the dyno lies and HTR's 2.3lt RS2000 engine is likely to be a serious performer despite the relative lack of tuning and a bhp number most people wouldn't get excited about. Home of BDR700 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonbell Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I can print an autocad file to pdf if you like Email me offlist FOR SALE Birkin S3 2.0 Zetec 170bhp FOR SALE I`ve seen the future.....and it`s powered by duratec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Biddle Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Gareth, what is the weight of this engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now