30th September 2006 Rolling Road Day

[Paul]

Indeed ... a great morning ... shame my new air box actually reduced top end bhp rather than aid it ... albeit only a reduction of 3bhp at the very top end of the rev range ... however every one counts ;-)

Having studied the two runs (Apexi 'v' OEM filters) on the combined printout the difference is so slight and overall there really is very little difference on the whole ... I think I'll swap the OEM one out again and put the Apexi filter back on ... the more enjoyable cabin sound from around 4,000rpm will be worth it.

The OEM filter provides smoother plot lines and under 3,500rpm it has roughly a 5bhp and 10lbs/ft advantage over the Apexi ... but from 3,500rpm to around 7,200rpm there really is so little to choose between them it's hard to tell them apart ... both the bhp and lbs/ft lines are better with the Apexi from around 5,900 to 7,000rpm ... albeit only about 5bhp and 5lbs/ft ... so I'll be keeping revs over 3,500rpm when I want and enjoy the sound and enjoy the extra lbs/ft and bhp between 5,900 and 7,000rpm :-)

There were seven NSX's in total ... I think Simon made notes on types and bhp figures etc so I'll leave him to put up the 'results' as it were ... good job I've got strong shoulders as I think I had to hold up everyone else above me :!:

There didn't seem to be a shortage of cameras, still and video, so I would imagine there will be some additional shots in the gallery, or here soon but for the time being ... here's the line up of NSX's ... minus Mitch who had to depart around midday ... plus SportyKing's mad mad MAD MAD Ariel Atom!

Note the shot of 'Biggles' making his departure ... shame I didn't get any of him screetching off down the road ... mind you I'd have to have been quick ... he was down the road amid wheels struggling to get grip and a wonderful howl from the exhaust ... I don't know who was smiling more ... him or us as we watched :!:

[Kevin]

OK so I guess you're waiting for the movies;


I could do with someone giving me the power figures, mods etc for each of these cars.

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/S5NSX.mpg

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/X626BLB.mpg

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/BLUE.mpg

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/K194EGM.mpg

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/N5XPW.mpg

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/S2NSX.mpg

http://www.nsxcb.co.uk/movies/ARIEL.mpg

And of course, the loudest and the best (IMHO) is last. I like the start of this video where there is a low rumble fromt the exhaust, it reminds me of Jaws for some reason. My wife says my car sounds like a plane.

http://nsxcb.co.uk/movies/J14NSX.mpg

[simonprelude]

Running order..........

S5NSX 3.2 274hp 218lb/ft
X626BLB 3.2 269hp 215lb/ft
N5XPW 3.0 254hp 189lb/ft
W2NSX 3.2 275hp 216lb/ft
J14NSX 3.0 279hp 210lb/ft
S2NSX 3.2 289hp 224lb/ft
K194EGM 3.0 262hp 195lb/ft

[Martin]

Are these at the wheel, or estimated at the flywheel?

Cheers
Martin

[Kevin]

These are 'calculated' figures at the flywheel. The dyno measures the losses while the wheels coast back down to rest.

Simon did you record at what rpm the peak power was made at?

[Minch]

Really good day! Sorry I had to disappear early. Got a few images for you. Also got my graph (although I was slightly disappointed with the results) for everyone to look at. It seemed that the 3.2's were reaching peak power at approx. 6800RPM and the 3.0's were slightly higher at around 7300RPM.

and Paul . . . . 289bhp! You git!!!

[Minch]

. . . a few more!

[simonprelude]

I have photo's of all the graphs so I can do the rest of the information during the week :)


These are 'calculated' figures at the flywheel. The dyno measures the losses while the wheels coast back down to rest.

Simon did you record at what rpm the peak power was made at?

[Paul]

Kevin ... I can confirm all figures from my graph - I'll use the one when the OEM filter was in ;)
N5 XPW ... 254bhp @ 7,400rpm ... 189lbs/ft @ 5,700rpm

I think my problem has been many of the horses getting severely sea sick as the car made it's way from Japan to Cyrpus, then from Cyprus to England ... I'm sure I'll get a better reading once they've recovered and are feeling like going for a gallop again ;)

[Senninha]

A great day with a great result for me and S2 :D, even beating the CSL!!!

A special thanx to Paul for taking my mate Terry out in his dream car, the RS4. Thanx also to Kevin for recording and loading the video's and sound-bites, its nice to know what everyone in the rear view mirror is listening too ;)

Luke, I still think we should have set Bessie loose on the rollers :lol:

Here's a few photo's from Terry, the best one IMO is of Matt, which still has me laughing, sorry Matt.

regards

[Senninha]

Kevin,

Data confirmation for S2, 289bhp at 6824rpm, torque was 224lbs/ft :D

Paul & Paul, exhaust details are http://www.haywardandscott.co.uk/ plus I'm running with the Procar AI Scoop and airbox with the Apexi air filter.

regards

Paul

[AR]

Congratulations to Kevin and Paul for such good numbers.

I wish I could have been there, I just got back and was anxious to see the numbers.

Paul is this with the Procar box?

Cheers

AR

[AR]

Kevin,

Data confirmation for S2, 289bhp at 6824rpm, torque was 224lbs/ft :D

Paul & Paul, exhaust details are http://www.haywardandscott.co.uk/ plus I'm running with the Procar AI Scoop and airbox with the Apexi air filter.

regards

Paul

I'll venture to say that most of the gains are from the exhaust system.

Cheers

Ary

[Lankstarr]

I'll venture to say that most of the gains are from the exhaust system.

Cheers

Ary

I'd say that was a pretty safe guess as Paul's Apexi took 3hp away from his car!! That run with and without filters was a really useful one, shame we couldn't catalogue the other gains (losses) in hp from the other mods.

[TheQuietOne]

Agreed, thanks to all who attended it was a lot of fun and a thoroughly nice atmosphere!

I'm now starting a 'get my car above 270bhp fund' so some breathing mods and a repeat trip to Uxbridge will be on the cards over the next few months. I have a feeling that the fact my car had only covered 13,000 miles in the first 5 years of being born might not have helped it's case if all the other Vtec's I've owned from new and have been driven properly out of the box are anything to go by!

Anyway, thanks to Simon for organising a great day, and to everyone else for making it a lot of fun!

Cheers, Matt.

[simonprelude]

OK details I have (only have pictures of 4 printouts ??) and mine from May.

J14 NSX 279bhp at 7360rpm, 210lbs/ft Peak Torque
N5 XPW 254bhp at 7400rpm, 189lbs/ft Peak Torque
S5 NSX 274bhp at 6933rpm, 218lbs/ft Peak Torque
X626 BLB 269bhp at 6716rpm, 215lbs/ft Peak Torque
W2 NSX 275hp at XXXXrpm 216lbs/ft Peak Torque
S2NSX 3.2 289hp at XXXXrpm 224lbs/ft Peak Torque
K194EGM 3.0 262hp at XXXXrpm 195lbs/ft Peak Torque

P27 OLU 286bhp at 7253rpm, 221lbs/ft Peak Torque

[simonprelude]

A few pictures :)

[AR]

Does it seems that the 3.0s make more power in the higher range rev than the 3.2s.

Cheers

AR

[simonprelude]

And for the rest to not feel left out :)

[Lankstarr]

Simon,

Your figures seem very inconsistent with the other 3.2s... your peak power is at 7200 which is around the range that the 3.0s have their peak power and your bhp is a lot higher than the other std 3.2s.

I know that overall your car is the slowest as after compensating for your weight you probably have a job keeping up with my wife's CTR;) but why do you think there is such a difference?

I know that calibration times for the RRs can make a big difference to figures and also general atmospheric changes but 10 hp is quite a lot. a shame we didn't see yours tested in the sa,me conditiond as ours ... do you think that being the test car you have got a better engine?

L*

[Lankstarr]

Does it seems that the 3.0s make more power in the higher range rev than the 3.2s.

Cheers

AR

results generally suggested this but Simon's figures seem a little "odd"!?

L*

[Minch]

Hi Simon,

Cheers for organising a really good day. I'm slightly disappointed my NSX only put out 262bhp but hey not to be sniffed at. I'd still like to know why Pauls is producing 289bhp, that is a really good figure! (Obviously the 200cc over mine has a little to do with it)

Anyway I have attached the prinout for my NSX. (PS, its on its side for best resolution as the forum doesn't like the same res in portrait!)

Thanks again
Nathan

[Senninha]

Nathan, its a shame you haven't any reference figures pre your upgrades, I'd guess you may be more pleased with the numbers.

Simon's numbers do seem at odd's with the other non modified 3.2's but this could be down to different tester running in a different gear, weather condition on the day, a REALLY good engine to start with.

I was pleased with mine and most of the gains would be the exhaust. Importantly though, I think I have now 'balanced' the system as the car is much smoother and quicker with the scoop/filter install. My thinking is that more in = more out so this IMO shows that there are no quick fixes; exhaust alone will not release true potential without the inlet side being addressed (I'll probably get shot by someone far more technical than me for saying that)

I also think a special mention is required for the remarkable little ITR. Its clearly been used as Mr Honda intended, plus its been modded, demodded and whatever else in its 110,000 mile 8yr life and yet pushed out virtually factory new bhp figures demonstrating what a great car the DC2 is and the merits of regular servicing.

[AR]

Any chance that Minch's could have been an Automatic transmission engine?

[Lankstarr]

When going out in Minch's car I noticed the chrome inserts next to the window, I know Paul's also has these but thought they were only on JDM cars. are they on all 3.0s>?

Comparing Minch's figs to Pauls and takiong into account the mods I would say that they look about right, is it just the power output that makes you think it might be an auot engine?

L*

[Kevin]

Would running in a different gear make any difference to the power measured? I would think it wouldn't, at least it shouldn't otherwise this whole exercise would be invalid. Power is torque X speed, so although the wheel torque would be higher in a lower gear, the speed would be lower.

I have a chrome trim running across the top of the door, inside along the window if that is what is being referred to.

Minch's car ovbviously has been babied during its life. It needs to be taken to a track and given a damn good thrashing, at least 6 times a year. Then it will produce the power that the other high power cars have, that have been thrashed (mine, Simon's and Paul's). So stop worrying about what damage a track day does to a car, it obviously does it good!

[Minch]

Hey Kevin I'm not opposed to getting it on the track. I have my crash helmet waiting. Just give me the nod!

[EdLeake]

Whats with the M3 making 60-70hp less then factory figures and even more shockingly the RS4 dropping some 100 ponies? :o

Nice selection of NSX's though, some sounding even nicer then they look. :cool:

[simonprelude]

Indeed, as the magazines show, mine was thrashed from day 1 !!

My dyno run was done on 95 Ron fuel, would that make a difference as to where peak power is achieved ??


Minch's car ovbviously has been babied during its life. It needs to be taken to a track and given a damn good thrashing, at least 6 times a year. Then it will produce the power that the other high power cars have, that have been thrashed (mine, Simon's and Paul's). So stop worrying about what damage a track day does to a car, it obviously does it good!

[Lankstarr]

Whats with the M3 making 60-70hp less then factory figures and even more shockingly the RS4 dropping some 100 ponies?

Was just teasing my bro about that very fact but he assures me that the tester said it was because the front wheels were not spinning and that new cars such as the RS4 and M3 are hard to test because theya re too clever!

He says that if the M3 was only 280 then it wouldn't be as fast as it is - I don't know the figs but surely it is much heavier than the NSX so if it were putting out the same power it would be slower?

Assuming a good thrashing is the key to more bhp then I'm off for a good cane :cool: Think I'd rather spend money on track days increasing my power than on air filters taking away my power:lol:

[Minch]

Interesting what the Times has to say about the CSL

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14129-1113536,00.html

[Lankstarr]

If not too big can you paste it here as I can't access it ... I really need to get promoted and get these resstrictios lifted!!!

[Minch]

The CSL weighs in at 1,385 kg (110kg lighter than the standard M3). I think Kevin said his stripped out NSX was around 1200kg. Not sure what the standard weight of the NSX is?

[Minch]

Here you go Luke (Kevin you can delete this post if you want tomorrow)

The discovery that BMW’s new M3 CSL would be different arrived some days before the car. I received a letter stating politely but firmly that I was not to let anyone else drive the CSL and that they’d not release the car to me until I’d agreed as much in writing. You might think this a routine procedure among car manufacturers lending cars to the motoring press but it’s not: in 15 years and a thousand tests, this was the first time I’d heard of it. I wasn’t bothered, but it did make me curious.

Then the car arrived, its carbon fibre roof, spoilers and inserts looking as purposeful as its fabulous 19in wheels. Inside, more paperwork. This tranche warned me the car was fitted as standard with very special Michelin tyres that would detach my retinas before losing grip on a warm, dry surface but which consequently required considerable caution on anything else. I also learnt that this particular car had had the 155mph electronic restrictor that is fitted to all other fast BMWs removed and, if a customer wants the same, they’ll have to produce a racing licence.

At first it was hard to see what the fuss was about. This M3 CSL (Coupé, Sport, Lightweight) may be a little more powerful than the standard M3 (360bhp opposed to 343bhp) and 110kg lighter, but its power to weight ratio is still not as great as, say, a Porsche 911 Turbo, while its 0-62mph time of 4.9sec is entirely unremarkable these days; indeed independent tests have shown it to be little quicker than a standard M3. The biggest difference between the two appeared to be the £18,720 more it costs to buy the £58,455 CSL.

But then I drove it and discovered, for want of a better description, a racing car. The modifications required to earn an M3 a CSL badge are legion. Alongside that engine and all the carbon fibre comes revised suspension, modified brakes, quicker steering and a paddle-operated gearbox capable of swapping one cog for another in 0.08sec or, to put it another way, three times faster than you. Inside, racing seats ensure your body can withstand 1.5G of lateral acceleration without depositing you on your passenger, while those who want a tape machine or air-con will need to ask. They’re free but not standard. A CD player is extra.

So forget the mildly disappointing performance statistics and concentrate on the fact, undeniable in these eyes, that the CSL is one of the most hard-core supercars ever sold. Inject some heat into those Michelins and you can negotiate smooth curves at speeds that are, frankly, astonishing. Various buttons allow you to choose the speed of the gearchange, sharpen the throttle response, disable the stability control or programme it for the race track.

And on the track, no doubt, all this works very well. On the road, the CSL is too extreme for its own good as the very things designed to make it go faster than a standard M3 actually contrive to slow it down. In particular, the suspension is so unyielding that, instead of soaking up the everyday lumps and humps, it tends to bounce and skip off them. And the ride is truly terrible. Over one of my favourite roads in Wales I travelled one way in the CSL and the other in a Ford Focus RS — a car with more than 100bhp less and costing little more than a third the price — but what the Ford lost in on-paper power it more than regained by inspiring confidence in its driver. In the end the Ford was just as quick, too. Though I did not try it, I would be amazed if the same could not be said of a standard M3.

So those who have already bagged the 500 CSLs coming to the UK expecting a still faster M3 should prepare themselves: out there in the real world it’s probably scarcely any quicker at all. More significantly, it’s not really like an M3 at all, a car that has bedazzled me with its speed and sophistication since the day I first drove one. An M3 is a road car, an M3 CSL a road-legal track car, and the two should not be confused. The CSL is as harsh, uncivilised and uncompromising as the M3 is smooth, urbane and versatile. There is no doubt at all that, for the money, the M3 is several streets the better car.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that for most people, most of the time, the CSL is a waste of money. Like many things that are bad for you, the CSL is addictive — it possesses a focus that, of its ilk, only Porsche’s more expensive GT3 would recognise. Its non-negotiable demand for your undivided attention can make every departure an occasion, every journey an adventure, every arrival an event. It’s also rare, beautiful and beautifully engineered. To me that is enough to forgive it its many and manifest failings. Just.

VITAL STATISTICS

Model: BMW M3 CSL
Engine type: Six-cylinder, 3246cc
Power/Torque: 360bhp at 7900rpm / 273 lb ft at 4900rpm
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Suspension: (front) MacPherson struts, anti-roll bar (rear) multi-link rear axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar
Fuel/CO2: 23.7mpg (combined) / 287g/km
Acceleration: 0 to 62mph: 4.9sec
Top speed: 155mph
Price: £58,455
Verdict: Like drugs: expensive, dangerous in the wrong hands and utterly addictive.

[Martin]

If I've got the years right from the car registrations, I make it that the 3.0 average was 265 and the 3.2 average was 276.

How did this compare to:
- the M3 CSL
- Audi RS4
- Ariel Atom
?

Cheers
Martin

[Kevin]

My car's weight is a little more than the 1200kg I quoted. It's probably more like 1270. I remember it being on scales at 2800lbs. Though after that measurement I have made more changes, and will continue to do so.

The wieghts of the NSX can be found in the picture attached from the world Honda site.

http://world.honda.com/NSX/technology/t7.html

[AR]

Think I'd rather spend money on track days increasing my power than on air filters taking away my power:lol:

In the words of Yoda:

"Generalize dont't you young Luke".

[AR]

On the NA1 NSX-R they deleted the hydraulic clutch damper, that would explain while it is trickier to launch than a regular NSX.

What is the next thing on the list???

It reads like trunk opener in which case is correct, just curious, that is all.

Cheers

AR

[AR]

Hi Simon,

Cheers for organising a really good day. I'm slightly disappointed my NSX only put out 262bhp but hey not to be sniffed at. I'd still like to know why Pauls is producing 289bhp, that is a really good figure! (Obviously the 200cc over mine has a little to do with it)

Anyway I have attached the prinout for my NSX. (PS, its on its side for best resolution as the forum doesn't like the same res in portrait!)

Thanks again
Nathan

http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/exhaust%5Fairflow%5Fproducts/NSX/Cantrell%5FConcepts/Advanced%5FHeaders/baselinedyno_600.gif

Not uncommon by the looks of it, I am sure an even freer exhaust like Kevin's will raise the number.

[Minch]

Yes I almost went for the Taitec Lightweight GT exhaust which I dare say freed up a few more BHP but I didn't want the car to sound too loud. I'm happy with the tone of the RS*R exhaust.

Shame you couldn't get down there AR, it was an interesting day.

[AR]

I agree, free flowing increases HP but the noise can be a problem for a street driven car.

[Senninha]

I agree, free flowing increases HP but the noise can be a problem for a street driven car.

Can't say that I've had any problems with noise and the H&S system is also very quiet around town (unless I'm playing ;) ) and when cruising on the m'way.

Someone said recently that S2 has a very stealth like appearance now which I think is quite appropriate.

Ref the RS4 and CSL numbers - its nivce to think I'm kicking out more power but I doubt it very much. I appreciate what Iain the tester said about both manufacturers over stating their numbers but not by this much. I'm still confused by this 'front wheel' problem. On the RS4 I accept it as this is 4x4, but the CSL :confused: . Is the suggestion that BMW have a sensor on the front axle somewhere that wont let the engine deliver full power? Can someone explain please?

regards

[Lankstarr]

Thanks for posting the article Nathan.

If you took the CSL's power to be 280 and it's weight to be similar to a late NSX then it makes sense that both are getting to 62 at slightly under 5 seconds. I know there ar emany differnet 0-62 times quoted for a 3.2 but I think it is just under 5.

Obviously the important bit is how much power the CSL and NSX are actually getting down and I would have thought the NSX is more aerodynamic and there are lots of other factors coming into play blah blah but I wont go into all of them... so I'll generalise and say that speed and weight are about the same so I think it not unreasonable to believ that the CSL is only pushing 280 bhp:D

L*

[Kevin]

Regarding acceleration, it's not the peak power figure that determines acceleration. As they say, 'it's the area under the graph'. It's torque that produces acceleration. Lots of torque across the rev range will produce the best acceleration. The NSX is good at this, and is why a lot of people can't understand why it is fairly quick given it has 'only' 280bhp.

[Minch]

No probs Luke. Thought it was quite interesting after what we witnessed on Saturday.

Agreed Kevin, the torque of the NSX is quite impressive compared to many other sports cars. Still . . . a supercharger wouldn't go amiss ;)

[AR]

No probs Luke. Thought it was quite interesting after what we witnessed on Saturday.

Agreed Kevin, the torque of the NSX is quite impressive compared to many other sports cars. Still . . . a supercharger wouldn't go amiss ;)

If I was you I'll go for short gears before I go for an SC.

Cheers

AR

[Senninha]

Regarding acceleration, it's not the peak power figure that determines acceleration. As they say, 'it's the area under the graph'. It's torque that produces acceleration. Lots of torque across the rev range will produce the best acceleration. The NSX is good at this, and is why a lot of people can't understand why it is fairly quick given it has 'only' 280bhp.

As a confused looking Mr Gallardo learned earlier today, all the way upto xxxmph :D and he's just spent £100k more than most of us :lol:

[Martin]

I'll try again!

Does anyone have the bhp figures for the:
- M3 CSL
- Ariel Atom
- RS4
that went to the rolling road day with you...

Cheers
Martin

[Lankstarr]

A bit difficult to answer as the RS4 and CSL apparently didn't produce "real" figures!

from what I can remember

RS4 about 360
CSL 280
ATOM 260

Pretty sure these are there abouts but I'm sure I'll get correected if I'm way out on any.

My brother has conveniently "lost" the CSL figures... I was interested to see what torque figs it was producing.

L*

[Senninha]

Hi Martin,

The CSL was 288bhp. I believe the Atom was about 25-30bhp down from its published 275bhp but as Ritchie said this is not an unusaul result. The RS4 was well down but I believe the rollers were'nt reading the 4x4 properly so this was an unrepresentative result (or thats we told Paul ;))

regards

[TheQuietOne]

Gents (anyone know where Sammy is for that matter?),

The Ariel figure was around 250 I think as it was down as expected (they all are) by Ritch on the 275 claimed by Ariel, The RS4 was being limited to 340 by the ECU I think and the CSL was at 288 (I remember it because it was 1 hp down on S2).

HTH, Matt.

[Paul]

The RS4 was well down but I believe the rollers were'nt reading the 4x4 properly so this was an unrepresentative result (or thats we told Paul ;)) lol ... indeed ... the actual printout states 340bhp at the flywheel ... somewhat down on the claimed 420PS that Audi quote ... or 414bhp to you and I ... I've been advised to take the RS4 to a specialised Audi tuner with a rolling road to get another reading.

The rolling road guy said that he'd had low readings on other modern 4x4s with lots of electronic wizardry ... it's likely that this is one of the reasons for the 'low' figure returned.

I suspect that if it was only producing 340bhp at the flywheel Terry (Senninha's friend who came along to take some photos and enjoy the day) who blagged a trip out in the passanger seat of the RS4 would not have been as impressed as he seemed to be.

If I manage to get the RS4 on an Audi specialist rolling road ... I'll let you know the figures returned by them.

Torque on the RS4 peaked at 287lbs/ft and on the graph looks to be over 260lbs/ft from 2,500rpm to 6,500rpm ... however, I would expect an increase in this figure as well when I get it onto another rolling road.

[AR]

My FILs E55 AMG has a claimed 354BHP and 390.9 ft lbs and the 3.2 NSX ( GruppeM, Tubi ) was just as fast to after the ton then the NSX takes over. The NSX-R no contest there LOL.

So HP and torque is not the whole story.

Cheers

AR

[Paul]

The guy at the rolling road mentioned the most important figure that no one ever really quotes ... or bothers to get a reading for ... this was the torque at the wheel ... which he said is easy enough to get a figure for after a rolling road run.

It's this figure that really can tell you what power you are able to put down on the tarmac.

Losses through transmission can vary greatly apparently ... 4x4s obviously suffering a greater loss in power between the flywheel and the tarmac.

[Martin]

It sounds like good news overall for the NSX in that case.

Who will ever know if the absolute numbers given to you guys are correct or not ( I have to say they look disappointing) , but its good to know that relative to other makes of car there the NSX did wonderfully...now I understand better why I mash M3's on the road every day! :-)

[sportyking]

Blimey, this thread has sparked a bit of interest, it's a shame a few more NSX in varying mod states couldn't have made it.

As you ask Martin the Atom figure was 257 @7885 RPM and the only odd thing is that Ariel reckon they produce peak on the other side of 8000 so I don't have to hang on to the gears as long as I thought to beat them Mondeo diesels. Mind you I think my soft rev limiter is set to deliberately stop too much fun.

Torque curve was the most interesting to me as it's flat from 4000 RPM to 8000 and pretty damn good from 1500. Max was 178 lb ft at somewhere around 6-6500 but as I said earlier it's virtually flat. It doesn't sound a lot against the BHP but inside a rollerskate....

Esso 97 fuel (previously got caught out in a strange place without an obvious shell and couldn't face stopping on the way over in the pouring rain).

The lower than advertised figures did not surprise me (apparently the overhead air intake has a Ram-air effect ala some motorbikes but sounds a bit brown runny stuff to me) and as I said to some peeps there, I would have been chuffed if it was 25 BHP because the real world performance is "adequate". First gear is redundant and it's still wheel spinning in fourth if you nail it.

Unfortunately I have 3 very expensive mods to complete before I even contemplate asking the car fo more power so I will just have to put up with it for the time being.

When's the next one with the snarling Orange beastie Simon?????????????

[Martin]

Ritchie if you are ever in Hampshire let me know. I'd love a spin in the Atom.

Cheers
Martin

[Kevin]

Just to keep this thread going a bit longer, here is the Ariel on the rollers.

http://www.nsxcb.co.uk/movies/ARIEL.mpg

[Lankstarr]

Just to keep this thread going a bit longer, here is the Ariel on the rollers.

http://www.nsxcb.co.uk/movies/ARIEL.mpg

The smile it put on that guy's face is classic:)

[simonprelude]

It's a shame that 1:10 into the video the flames coming out on over run just look like smoke due to the colour fade on the video.

Looked amazing watching it though.

[Senninha]

Didn't someone say they were going to collate all the NSX figures onto a single graph? It would be interesting to see where the different cars are delivery the performance. Maybe a seperate 3.0 & 3.2 graph??

regards

[kowalski]

Shame I missed this, was hoping to get back in time. Might try and get mine on a rolling road by the end of the year, will probably wait till I change the airbox as well.

Nice picture of Matt!

leigh

[Paul]

... ... ... will probably wait till I change the airbox as well. Unless you're changing the intake as well ... a different filter might not make any positive difference ... say he with the voice of experience ... ;-)

Nice picture of Matt! Priceless isn't it ... for everything else there's master card ... :lol:

[kowalski]

No it will be full airbox and filter replacement, have already got the bigger side scoop.

leigh

[Kevin]

Didn't someone say they were going to collate all the NSX figures onto a single graph? It would be interesting to see where the different cars are delivery the performance. Maybe a seperate 3.0 & 3.2 graph??

regards

Well I guess the best (only) way to do that now, is if each of us, notes down the figures for each 500 rpm, post it here, then let someone who like spreadsheets (simon) to graph them up.

It would be the best way to see what the mods have done to the torque curves.

[Minch]

Good idea Kevin. I'll do mine tonight.

[Paul]

No it will be full airbox and filter replacement, have already got the bigger side scoop.Without me searching through the service manual to find out the full details ... will do that if the answer to the next bit is favourable ... does anyone know if the process of removing the air in take and swapping it for a more free flowing type is a fairly straight forward and not too difficult a job :?:

[Lankstarr]

Rumour has it you can go in behind the rear wheel... not sure if you nee dto take the wheel off first but it would probably be easier.

Without the superduperscoopa would just removing the restricting Honda plastic cause more air to get to the filter?

[Paul]

Rumour has it you can go in behind the rear wheel... not sure if you nee dto take the wheel off first but it would probably be easier. Mmmm ... doesn't sound too bad then ... at least if I drop any of the nuts or bolts they'll just fall to the floor and not get trapped in the nolt catching device ... i.e. like the one to be found below the headlights ;-)

Without the superduperscoopa would just removing the restricting Honda plastic cause more air to get to the filter? I think if you just remove the standard intake pipe it could make things worse ... as nothing would be pushed into the intake and up to the airbox ... however, not having taken the air intake off before I wouldn't know for sure ... maybe someone else has tried this, or knows better, and can give us a proper answer on this point ... rather than my educated guess ... :?:

[Kevin]

Just remove the inner wing liner, and rear wheel, and the old intake pipe, and new superscooper can be fitted.

Removing the pipe and leaving will make the car sound 'different', some say better. SoS tested this option and found less power though. The intake 'hole' has sharp edges and this is not good for airflow, as opposed to the trumpet shapes on velocity stacks for example.

[Kevin]

OK, In an effort to bring this back on topic!

My figures from the graph are;

RPM BHP lb/ft
1500 47 160
2000 70 175
2500 92 185
3000 110 195
3500 130 200
4000 158 200
4500 180 205
5000 200 205
5500 225 205
6000 240 200
6500 260 200
7000 270 200
7500 270 190

I did this nicely with a square, and dividing the axes scales in half, the numbers are the nearest approximation I can make out.

From 3500 to 7000 there is no more 5ft/lb difference in the torque curve.....nice.

[Senninha]

Mmmm ... doesn't sound too bad then ... at least if I drop any of the nuts or bolts they'll just fall to the floor and not get trapped in the nolt catching device ... i.e. like the one to be found below the headlights ;-)

As kevin says and it easier with the wheel off. Be warned, if you drop one of the bolts to the original it WILL find its way all the way down into the side sill (as I found out:( )

I'll try and update my figures later

regards

[Lankstarr]

I've graphed up Kevin's results and am happy to add more and do a seperate graph fpr 3.2s.... one question, how the hell do I get it on the forum? I've mastered pictures but can't figure how to download a graph as a picture into photobucket.:mad:

[Lankstarr]

graph tokk 30 seconds working out how to get it on here 10 mins!!!

I'll be quicker next time!!

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n53/lankstarr/NewBitmapImage.jpg

Look familiar Kevin!?

[Paul]

I've graphed up Kevin's results and am happy to add more and do a seperate graph fpr 3.2s.... one question, how the hell do I get it on the forum? I've mastered pictures but can't figure how to download a graph as a picture into photobucket.:mad: Luke

Try the following:
Open Paintshop
Open Excel and open the file containing the graph
Select the graph in Excel
Copy the graph (i.e. Ctrl+C)
Go to the open Painshop window
Select the 'Edit' menu ... click on 'Paste' ... from the Paste submenu select 'An New Image'

You will be asked to select the size of the image, something about 800pixels wide ... leaving the tickbix checked to 'Maintain original aspect ratio' ... I suspect most users now use screen resolution above 800pixels wide so this should be easy for most people to read.

Then all you need to do is upload it in a post:!:

[Paul]

Guess I was a bit late in reading the forum for my last post to be of much help ... Doh!

[simonprelude]

Screendump and then edit in paint is what I usually do :)


I've mastered pictures but can't figure how to download a graph as a picture into photobucket.:mad:

[Lankstarr]

Thanks for the help anyway... should have probably mentioned that I'm at my work pc with no image software like paintshop which is why I was struggling a bit!
could any oter figures please be given in the same format as Kevin gave his

ie revs bhp torque each detail having a seperate line - that way it is easy to convert ;)

[Kevin]

Looks OK, but I would keep the 3.2 and 3.0 on the same, for maximum comparison opportunities. Or a few different charts with various combos.

I'm keen to see mine against the 289bhp 3.2.

[Senninha]

My figures for S2 from the graph are;

RPM BHP lb/ft
1500 42 140
2000 76 176
2500 93 192
3000 118 201
3500 140 210
4000 165 212
4500 184 214
5000 204 212
5500 232 222
6000 254 222
6500 283 224
7000 286 218
7500 na na



I'm keen to see mine against the 289bhp 3.2

I did this using Kevins square edge method. Max bhp of 289 was at 6824. Will be interesting to see the comparison.

Very happy with the torque curve of 200+ from 3000 onwards :D

[Lankstarr]

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n53/lankstarr/NewBitmapImage-1.jpg

[Lankstarr]

added mine in as well ;o)

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n53/lankstarr/CopyofNewBitmapImage.jpg

[Senninha]

Luke,

you were obviously running Detlef's 330bhp used NSX-R engine then;)

regards

Paul

[Lankstarr]

Luke,

you were obviously running Detlef's 330bhp used NSX-R engine then;)

regards

Paul

I wish!!! I'll try and sort my real figs out soon and put them up when I have a couple mor eto update... I dont want to be the lowest curves!!!!

L*

[Paul]

... ... ... I dont want to be the lowest curves!!!! Ok then ... here are my figures ...

RPM BHP lb/ft
1500 044 146
2000 062 164
2500 082 172
3000 100 178
3500 118 176
4000 132 178
4500 154 182
5000 178 184
5500 194 182
6000 216 192
6500 228 184
7000 242 190
7500 254 180

Just about the worst figures from the day ... but hey ... someone needs strong shoulders to hold everyone else up ... :!:

Still ... gives me a starting point ... which was the main purpose of the day for me ... looks like my baby hasn't been too well looked after before I got her ... although I do need to sort out the mixture as it's apparently running lean.

[Lankstarr]

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n53/lankstarr/nsxgraph.jpg

oops - keep forgetting to bring mine in!!

I'll make the graph a better scale and a lot clearer when I have a few more figs ;)

Paul - at 1500 rpm you are showing more torque than Senninha... you should be proud!!!

[Paul]

... ... ...
Paul - at 1500 rpm you are showing more torque than Senninha... you should be proud!!! Indeed ... who's worried about getting to 60 quickly when ... round town I'll be beating everyone to 30 ... ;-)

[Senninha]

Paul, like the new avatar! Any more news on the R8?

[Lankstarr]

Finally got around to putting my figs up - interesting to see no difference between mine and Paul's 3.2 up to about 6k... then he pretty much walks away... his extra power all seems to be relieved in VTEC ie where it matters :D :

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r92/lankstarr2/NewBitmapImage.jpg

[NoelWatson]

I popped down to Surrey Rolling Road today and got 234 bhp at the wheels and 285 at the crank. What were the at the wheel figures for the original rolling road day?

[NoelWatson]

Anyone have some numbers?

[NSXGB]

....I take it that's FWHP?



Finally got around to putting my figs up - interesting to see no difference between mine and Paul's 3.2 up to about 6k... then he pretty much walks away... his extra power all seems to be relieved in VTEC ie where it matters :D :

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r92/lankstarr2/NewBitmapImage.jpg

[Kevin]

All the figures were at the fly. The machine gave out those figures automatically. We weren't given any wheel figures.

[NoelWatson]

All the figures were at the fly. The machine gave out those figures automatically. We weren't given any wheel figures.

That is a shame - it would be good to see the unadjusted numbers. The chaps at Surrey Rolling Road say that Power Engineering seem to adjust the flywheel figures by approx 20bhp more for Subarus - not sure how much the difference would be for 2WD.

My peak power was around 7300 rpm, with torque peak at 6500 - I plotted the numbers on my blog

http://www.noelwatson.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,35b51c27-802c-449f-b794-0ad5d4560c45.aspx

It would appear that mine is another of the 3.2's that peak slightly higher than 6800, although I appreciate all rolling roads are different. It will be good to get on the TDI dyno in the New Year

Some other numbers I was given (at flywheel)

E46 M3 - 330 - no wonder they beat me at Bruntingthorpe
S2000 - 210
Civic Type R -197
Griff 500 - 270

[NSXGB]

E46 M3 - 330 - no wonder they beat me at Bruntingthorpe



WOW, you must have one of the slower colours...red, I presume?! :)

[markc]

Hi Noel,

Just got around to to looking at your power/gearing spreadsheet and graph. Interesting stuff.

Would you mind plotting a torque/gearing graph when you get some time?

The power/gear plot suggests it but one thing that the torque/gearing plot would certainly do is prove to any doubters, and there are always a few, that you MUST change up at the limiter if you want absolute maximum acceleration.

On the other thread you said that you were recording 160mph on the rev limiter at Bruntingthorpe? If so we may have the gearing figures slightly wrong. The table you refer to in the spreadsheet and I usually use from NSXPrime says 160mph at 8000rpm meaning we should be able to do 166mph at the 8300rpm limiter.

It's all somewhat acedemic but the pedant in me (oo-err Mrs) likes to know these things correctly :-)

Cheers

Mark

[simonprelude]

The S2000 would need to be a very poorly one to only have that at the fly, mine has managed between 237 and 260 depending on the mods at the time.



S2000 - 210
Civic Type R -197

[NoelWatson]

Hi Noel,

Just got around to to looking at your power/gearing spreadsheet and graph. Interesting stuff.

Would you mind plotting a torque/gearing graph when you get some time?

The power/gear plot suggests it but one thing that the torque/gearing plot would certainly do is prove to any doubters, and there are always a few, that you MUST change up at the limiter if you want absolute maximum acceleration.

On the other thread you said that you were recording 160mph on the rev limiter at Bruntingthorpe? If so we may have the gearing figures slightly wrong. The table you refer to in the spreadsheet and I usually use from NSXPrime says 160mph at 8000rpm meaning we should be able to do 166mph at the 8300rpm limiter.

It's all somewhat acedemic but the pedant in me (oo-err Mrs) likes to know these things correctly :-)

Cheers

Mark

Mark,

Will do the torque vs gearing in next few days. I would like to know what the limiter is. I think it is 8000 for a number of reasons

1). The dyno used 8000 for the limiter - if it were 8300 this would shift my peak power to around 7600 rpm - surely too high? (my torque peak was high at around 6300 assuming 8000 limit)
2). I have compared my GPS speed on limiter to these
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/gearratios.htm
and they are spot on for 1st, 2nd and 5th (not tried the rest).

However, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong - how can we measure it?

[NoelWatson]

The S2000 would need to be a very poorly one to only have that at the fly, mine has managed between 237 and 260 depending on the mods at the time.

Simon,

I guess that Charlie has had more than one S2000 on his road so it was an average. Dan said the S2000 had the same number at his rolling road.

http://nsxcb.co.uk/testvb/showthread.php?t=3958

Maybe it is the type of dyno?

[NoelWatson]

Hi Noel,

Just got around to to looking at your power/gearing spreadsheet and graph. Interesting stuff.

Would you mind plotting a torque/gearing graph when you get some time?

The power/gear plot suggests it but one thing that the torque/gearing plot would certainly do is prove to any doubters, and there are always a few, that you MUST change up at the limiter if you want absolute maximum acceleration.

On the other thread you said that you were recording 160mph on the rev limiter at Bruntingthorpe? If so we may have the gearing figures slightly wrong. The table you refer to in the spreadsheet and I usually use from NSXPrime says 160mph at 8000rpm meaning we should be able to do 166mph at the 8300rpm limiter.

It's all somewhat acedemic but the pedant in me (oo-err Mrs) likes to know these things correctly :-)

Cheers

Mark

Mark,

Thinking about this, I'm not sure what torque vs. gearing would show us as we would have to scale it by the gearing to get tractive force at the wheels - I think this is what my original graph showed - unless I am missing something? i.e. My car will be producing less torque at 7500rpm in 3rd at 95 than in 4th at 5800 rpm but will still be accelerating more quickly

Regards

Noel

[markc]

Noel,

I see what you mean, I think :) I took your data and plotted torque between 3K and 8K revs in each gear graph. Torque is on the y axis and speed is on the x axis. See pic...

Now I've confused myself.

Reading off the speeds at where torque in the lower gear is exceeded by torque in the higher gear does this, contrary to my earlier statement, prove that you don't have to change gear at the limiter for max acceleration? If not what the hell have I done?

The crossovers occur at the following speeds and revs 43mph (7,489rpm), 66mph (7,135rpm), 89mph (6,980rpm), 122mph (7,507rpm), 139mph (6,950rpm)

Confused but intriegued :)

Mark

[Kevin]

That's what the graph says. So assuming you've calculated right, and graphed accurately it's what you say. You've proved yourself wrong!

It's probably worse in other that don't have the good torque curve of a Honda VTEC.

[markc]

Hah, yes done in by myself :)

I'll wait for Noel to comment as I used his data, spreadsheet and graph. I just input his torque (at the wheels) results into the graph and changed the x axis scale and titles.

I'll be amazed if this, that you can change up this early and still have more torque hitting the road, is true. It must be very unusual!

Please someone prove me wrong, I don't want to have to start changing up early and miss out on upto 1,300rpm's worth of VTEC nirvana so that I can go faster :)

Mark

[simonprelude]

If I am reading that right you need to change up to 6th at 140mph on a vmax run ??

[markc]

Yes Simon, that's what my graph says... I NEED someone to look at the data and prove it wrong!

Mark

[simonprelude]

I'll see if I have some time :(


Yes Simon, that's what my graph says... I NEED someone to look at the data and prove it wrong!

Mark

[Kevin]

Hopefully we can test it out, by doing a run for one car at TDi, once in 2nd gear and one in 3rd.


Hah, yes done in by myself :)

I'll wait for Noel to comment as I used his data, spreadsheet and graph. I just input his torque (at the wheels) results into the graph and changed the x axis scale and titles.

I'll be amazed if this, that you can change up this early and still have more torque hitting the road, is true. It must be very unusual!

Please someone prove me wrong, I don't want to have to start changing up early and miss out on upto 1,300rpm's worth of VTEC nirvana so that I can go faster :)

Mark

[NoelWatson]

Noel,

I see what you mean, I think :) I took your data and plotted torque between 3K and 8K revs in each gear graph. Torque is on the y axis and speed is on the x axis. See pic...

Now I've confused myself.

Reading off the speeds at where torque in the lower gear is exceeded by torque in the higher gear does this, contrary to my earlier statement, prove that you don't have to change gear at the limiter for max acceleration? If not what the hell have I done?

The crossovers occur at the following speeds and revs 43mph (7,489rpm), 66mph (7,135rpm), 89mph (6,980rpm), 122mph (7,507rpm), 139mph (6,950rpm)

Confused but intriegued :)

Mark


Mark,

Maybe using the term "torque at the wheels" is a bit misleading, because this will be a function of gearing. This site explains it better than I can - the lower the gear, the greater the torque multiplication.

http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/DanJonesTorqueVsHP.html

I did all this in my Engineering degree donkies ago, forgotten most of it, but am pretty certain that a graph of torque at the wheels without taking into account gearing is misleading.

We still need to what out what the rev limit is!!

[Kevin]

Just to bring back this old thread....again

I've been doing a little reading.

Fact 1. The BHP figure and ft/lb figure are numerically the same at 5253rpm. This is due to the way BHP is calculated from torque. So on a graph, BHP and TQ always cross over at 5253. If they don't suspect something.

Fact 2. HP = TQ * RPM / 5253.5

I've been playing with a calculator, and seems some of the figures below don't add up.:)

So at 6500RPM, the HP should be 277, given the TQ number. However at
7000rpm the HP is 290.

With the competitive nature of some people here, those 1 or 2 hp here and there make all the difference.:)

I realise the figures came from the graph so errors will creep in, next time, we need hard figures not graphic printouts.

Every little helps.









My figures for S2 from the graph are;

RPM BHP lb/ft
1500 42 140
2000 76 176
2500 93 192
3000 118 201
3500 140 210
4000 165 212
4500 184 214
5000 204 212
5500 232 222
6000 254 222
6500 283 224
7000 286 218
7500 na na:D

[markc]

I've been obsessing about this and with the help of Noel and Kevin now understand why the torque vs speed graph I plotted is utter bo!!ocks :) Essentially it makes no allowance for gearing ie torque multplication.

So, I made a statement (that you ALWAYS have to shift at the limiter for max acceleration), then apparently proved myself wrong (with said graph), then disagreed with myself, and finally I've proved myself to have been right in the first place! Schizophrenic or wot ;)

Anyway... Kevin built a spreadsheet which properly allowed calculations and graphs of torque vs speed to be plotted. I have added a number of variations of NSX model years and gearing options, including tyres to illustrate the effect. I used the power and torque outputs from Kevin's car in all instances. (attached zip file)

Graphs of the two extremes, a bone stock 1991 car on rear 225/50/16's and a Short geared, 4.44:1 diff car on 245/45x17's are pictured below.

Please feel free to comment on correct any faults you find in the spreadsheet.

One exercise I want to do with this info and these graphs is to calculate the area under each curve (total torque) and the aggregate of this for each sample car/gearing/tyre combination.

I do know I need to get out more.... :)

Cheers

Mark

[Kevin]

Where's the six speed graph which shows how the 6 speed delivers torque to the road better than a 5 speed?

What we can do now is get the formulae from Bob Butler off NSXPrime. Given the torque curve and gearing, and weight of a car, it should be possible to then calculate the velocity of a car over a given distance. The velocity would have to be worked out by integrating the acceleration or something like that.

Then, some more meaningful figures will be produced. 0-60 times don't mean much. What does mean something is over a 1/2 mile, if two cars started at the same time, at 0mph who would cover the distance the fastest and by how much or how far.

Spreadsheet racing is much cheaper than the real thing.:)

[NoelWatson]

Where's the six speed graph which shows how the 6 speed delivers torque to the road better than a 5 speed?

What we can do now is get the formulae from Bob Butler off NSXPrime. Given the torque curve and gearing, and weight of a car, it should be possible to then calculate the velocity of a car over a given distance. The velocity would have to be worked out by integrating the acceleration or something like that.

Then, some more meaningful figures will be produced. 0-60 times don't mean much. What does mean something is over a 1/2 mile, if two cars started at the same time, at 0mph who would cover the distance the fastest and by how much or how far.

Spreadsheet racing is much cheaper than the real thing.:)


I think it would be useful to get our cars on a weighbridge. If anyone fancies doing this in the Surrey area let me know. We also need to think about aerodynamics. Honda claim the 2002 NSX was 0.1 second quicker to 125 thanks to improved aerodynamics. Not sure how the 97 changes affected drag

[markc]

Sorry the zipped spreadsheet file didn't upload, I've edited my previous post and uploaded it there.

The 3.0ltr with 6spd plot is there as is a stock 1996 (shorter gears) and NSX-R.

Noel the rev limiter is definately 8,300rpm, for all model years. I don't know why most rolling road NSX pulls only read to 8,000rpm?

I'm Lightwater in Surrey based. Very happy to stick my car on a weighbridge, but being primarily for 10ton+ lorries are they accurate enough at lower weights? What about proper race scales, anyone got a set or know someone who has?

Spreadsheet racing is the best :)

Mark

[NoelWatson]

Sorry the zipped spreadsheet file didn't upload, I've edited my previous post and uploaded it there.

The 3.0ltr with 6spd plot is there as is a stock 1996 (shorter gears) and NSX-R.

Noel the rev limiter is definately 8,300rpm, for all model years. I don't know why most rolling road NSX pulls only read to 8,000rpm?

I'm Lightwater in Surrey based. Very happy to stick my car on a weighbridge, but being primarily for 10ton+ lorries are they accurate enough at lower weights? What about proper race scales, anyone got a set or know someone who has?

Spreadsheet racing is the best :)

Mark

Mark, the 8000 is entered by the machine operator. If 8300 is correct, my torque peak is near around 6600 and power around 7500 - does this sound a bit high? It also means the figures are wrong on the NSXPrime site so we will have to take that into account for our calculations.

[markc]

Noel, I think you're saying that your measurements could be scewed by the machine thinking that 8,300revs is actually 8,000revs? I don't think this is the case.

The dyno should use a clip/clamp of sensor which connects to one of the cars ignition leads so that it can measure the number of ignition pulses and therefore (because you tell the machine how many cylinders the car has) the revs. It therefore knows the engine revs and measures the power/torque generated athose revs.

I'm guessing that the operator enters the maximum revs that the run will be made to and then does the run. The machine stops measuring at whatever the maximum entered revs was, even if the car actually continues on to a higher number, before measuring the drivetrain losses during coastdown?

Mark

[NoelWatson]

Noel, I think you're saying that your measurements could be scewed by the machine thinking that 8,300revs is actually 8,000revs? I don't think this is the case.

The dyno should use a clip/clamp of sensor which connects to one of the cars ignition leads so that it can measure the number of ignition pulses and therefore (because you tell the machine how many cylinders the car has) the revs. It therefore knows the engine revs and measures the power/torque generated athose revs.

I'm guessing that the operator enters the maximum revs that the run will be made to and then does the run. The machine stops measuring at whatever the maximum entered revs was, even if the car actually continues on to a higher number, before measuring the drivetrain losses during coastdown?

Mark

Mark,

Can't comment on what Power Engineering do, but Surrey Rolling Road don't attach any form of rev measuring equipment to the car. They run the car up to the limiter and then type into the dyno what they think the limiter is - for my run 8000 was entered.
The type of rolling road at SRR uses a lookup table to calculate drivetrain losses rather than the coastdown method.
If you fancy going for a dyno one weekday evening let me know - I will put my car on Optimax and reset ECU to see if I can beat 285!!

Regards

Noel

[Kevin]

It sounds like a lot of assumptions and calculations and reading the rev counter being used there.

[simonprelude]

Dyno's usually only go to 90 - 95% of the rev limiter to avoid engine damage.
Max power and max torque come in before there anyway so in the eyes of the rolling road operator there is no need.

[NoelWatson]

Dyno's usually only go to 90 - 95% of the rev limiter to avoid engine damage.
Max power and max torque come in before there anyway so in the eyes of the rolling road operator there is no need.

Not sure why it would damage the engine any more than on the open road?

[NoelWatson]

It sounds like a lot of assumptions and calculations and reading the rev counter being used there.

Maybe, but I think the methodology of using the lookup method for loss is common for that type of rolling road. I mentioned previously that SRR reckoned it gave a lower flywheel reading for Scoobies than Power Engineering.

[markc]

Kevin, I've added the 3.0ltr with 6spd 'box graph to my earlier post for anyone who can't get to the spreadsheet.


I can't see why a RR wouldn't measure revs, it's soo easy why wouldn't you?

It could of course be done by microphone (knowing the number of cylinders, revs can be calculated from the pitch) or maybe even by exhaust pulses with the probe they put in the exhaust, SRR must do this??

I read up about the Dyno Dynamics machine on their website but it doesn't go into if or how it captures revs... http://www.dyno.com.au/dyno/controller

I pass SRR everyday on the way to work and dropped in on an open day they did in conjunction with Pistonheads earlier this year, but you can't drive right into the Qinetic site where they're based without going through main gate security so it's a bit of a fuss.

I'd love to do a dyno run with you one evening :) Where are you based? (PM if you'd rather)

Cheers

Mark

[NSXGB]

Not sure why it would damage the engine any more than on the open road?

Cooling issues maybe? Your car will possibly run hotter on the RR due to the fact that normal air cooling is substituted by a big fan pointed just at your radiator.

I worked briefly at a RR centre many moons ago, saw a few engines let go on the rollers. But hopefully the technology has moved on from then.


The revs on the machine I saw back then were gained as Markc said, with a sensor wire coming from a plug lead and entry of the number of cylinders.

[NoelWatson]

Kevin, I've added the 3.0ltr with 6spd 'box graph to my earlier post for anyone who can't get to the spreadsheet.


I can't see why a RR wouldn't measure revs, it's soo easy why wouldn't you?

It could of course be done by microphone (knowing the number of cylinders, revs can be calculated from the pitch) or maybe even by exhaust pulses with the probe they put in the exhaust, SRR must do this??

I read up about the Dyno Dynamics machine on their website but it doesn't go into if or how it captures revs... http://www.dyno.com.au/dyno/controller

I pass SRR everyday on the way to work and dropped in on an open day they did in conjunction with Pistonheads earlier this year, but you can't drive right into the Qinetic site where they're based without going through main gate security so it's a bit of a fuss.

I'd love to do a dyno run with you one evening :) Where are you based? (PM if you'd rather)

Cheers

Mark

Mark,

I'm in Weybridge - probably 20 minutes away. I'll have a word with Charlie next week and see what he has free in the next few weeks.

[NoelWatson]

Hi Noel,

Just got around to to looking at your power/gearing spreadsheet and graph. Interesting stuff.

Would you mind plotting a torque/gearing graph when you get some time?

The power/gear plot suggests it but one thing that the torque/gearing plot would certainly do is prove to any doubters, and there are always a few, that you MUST change up at the limiter if you want absolute maximum acceleration.

On the other thread you said that you were recording 160mph on the rev limiter at Bruntingthorpe? If so we may have the gearing figures slightly wrong. The table you refer to in the spreadsheet and I usually use from NSXPrime says 160mph at 8000rpm meaning we should be able to do 166mph at the 8300rpm limiter.

It's all somewhat acedemic but the pedant in me (oo-err Mrs) likes to know these things correctly :-)

Cheers

Mark

Interesting that they encourage shifting before redline

http://world.honda.com/NSX/technology/t6.html

The shift indicator uses green and red lights which flash then light up to indicate the power peak and rev limit, respectively, promoting more precise up-shifting and a more exhilarating driving experience. Standard power peak is 7,100rpm and standard rev limit 7,700rpm, with each light set to flash and then light up as the standard value is reached. The standard rev limit for first and second gears, however, is set 200rpm lower.

[jaytip]

Interesting that they encourage shifting before redline

http://world.honda.com/NSX/technology/t6.html

The shift indicator uses green and red lights which flash then light up to indicate the power peak and rev limit, respectively, promoting more precise up-shifting and a more exhilarating driving experience. Standard power peak is 7,100rpm and standard rev limit 7,700rpm, with each light set to flash and then light up as the standard value is reached. The standard rev limit for first and second gears, however, is set 200rpm lower.
These are the optimum shifting revs for the NSX-R though which has different gearing.If you changed gear that low in the revs in an NA1 you would be out of the V-Tech zone of the next gear (i think;) )

[Senninha]

Does anyone have copies of the videos from this event? If yes, can you repost please?