2004 NSX on the DYNO
- Thread starter NetViper
- Start date
So the new S2000 has the same rwhp as a 2004 NSX, and MORE rwhp than an NA1 NSX.
Nice, thx Honda.
Just kidding though, no one needs to post a lengthy bible of performance differances and get all sensitive. I own an NA2, I know what it can do.
Off topic a bit - Has there ever been a dyno run posted for an NA2 Type-R that anyone's seen? I'd be curious to see if there are any differances on those blueprinted engines.
Nice, thx Honda.
Just kidding though, no one needs to post a lengthy bible of performance differances and get all sensitive. I own an NA2, I know what it can do.
Off topic a bit - Has there ever been a dyno run posted for an NA2 Type-R that anyone's seen? I'd be curious to see if there are any differances on those blueprinted engines.
Those numbers are bad. No question. Maybe it needs more break in time??
Sounds like the TL engine is pretty great.
The dragstrip number however was good:
"Certainly it didn't hurt our dragstrip performance, as our only run was a 13.0@106 mph. And we're sure we would have gone faster still with more chances at the tree. But given that our car was a 12-second car, we feel quite comfortable with some of those magazine times in the 12's with trap speeds in the 110 mph range - amazing when you consider the age of the platform and the engine (and it isn't that light anymore either).
Sounds like the TL engine is pretty great.
The dragstrip number however was good:
"Certainly it didn't hurt our dragstrip performance, as our only run was a 13.0@106 mph. And we're sure we would have gone faster still with more chances at the tree. But given that our car was a 12-second car, we feel quite comfortable with some of those magazine times in the 12's with trap speeds in the 110 mph range - amazing when you consider the age of the platform and the engine (and it isn't that light anymore either).
That's just their writers placating the intended audience. Trying to stop a mutiny of angry emails and other nonsense that fansites produce.
Similar to when on a Corvette board a review of a C5 starts off "Well things got off to a rocky start when I started car and the rattles were louder than the engine."
Only to quickly follow it up with:
"But you know it's not about rattles, it's about horsepower, and the new vette has a TON!!!! YeeeeHaww!!"
lol!
Plus, to also placate the audience, the writers in that NSX piece mention several magazines that have an NSX in the 12s. I think not.
There were about a dozen tests of NA2s in US and Euro mags, and only one single lone Car and Driver 0-150-0 test had the NSX turning a 12.9 time. They must have tested at 30,000 feet and used the jetstream for that one, lol.
Supra owners do this all the time, the trot out one single erroneous test that has the car doing a 0-60 sprint of 4.8 seconds, when every other magazine on earth tested it at 5.2.
It's just fanboy bias. Scientists always throw out the lows and the highs, and average the rest.
Similar to when on a Corvette board a review of a C5 starts off "Well things got off to a rocky start when I started car and the rattles were louder than the engine."
Only to quickly follow it up with:
"But you know it's not about rattles, it's about horsepower, and the new vette has a TON!!!! YeeeeHaww!!"
lol!
Plus, to also placate the audience, the writers in that NSX piece mention several magazines that have an NSX in the 12s. I think not.
There were about a dozen tests of NA2s in US and Euro mags, and only one single lone Car and Driver 0-150-0 test had the NSX turning a 12.9 time. They must have tested at 30,000 feet and used the jetstream for that one, lol.
Supra owners do this all the time, the trot out one single erroneous test that has the car doing a 0-60 sprint of 4.8 seconds, when every other magazine on earth tested it at 5.2.
It's just fanboy bias. Scientists always throw out the lows and the highs, and average the rest.
MAKO said:
I have not seen any US mag report 12's except that C&D, so I agree and I am not sure what they are talking about.
Nonetheless, with a first run of 13.0, 12's should be possible.
Oh certainly, in the real world in non-controlled environments I've seen stock NA2 NSXs and other exotics with 1/4 mile times up to half a second faster what the mag testers reported. The tire types and inflation pressures make a differance, the temperature makes a differance, the altitude of the dragstrip makes a differance, etc.
The mag guys adhere to a basic set of standards while testing, so that all cars can be measured against each other as closely as possible. It's not perfect, but it's as close as we can get pretty much.
Glad you pointed that out. I didn't know if I was the only one who realized it.apapada said:huh ?
S2000 and S2200 have 240 hp at the crank, not rwhp
NSX/MR2
Suspended
92NSX said:
Same hp - Funny!
apapada said:huh ?
S2000 and S2200 have 240 hp at the crank, not rwhp
Maybe what NetViper is hinting at is there have been some reports (I'm still not totally convinced though) that the new 04 S2000 with the 2.2 engine is dynoing at 240 HP to the wheels. Supposedly they tested at least 2 different 04 S2Ks on the same dyno and go roughly the same 240 range HP. The rumors are the new S2K is underated from the factor. Now, you could say that particular dyno read high, but the pre 04 S2Ks apparenty put down normal S2K HP numbers on that same dyno.
apapada said:huh ?
S2000 and S2200 have 240 hp at the crank, not rwhp
This explains my tongue-in-cheek reference above to identical rwhp for both the 2004 NSX and the 2004 S2000:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=171514&page_number=2
If it's true, that's pretty amazing to get that much power out of so little displacement.
If you have the means I highly recommend owning a 2004 S2000 with your NSX. It is a highly underated car.
Amazing cars come out of that NSX assembly factory!
Tan
Amazing cars come out of that NSX assembly factory!
Tan
I had no troubles walking away from my friend's '04 s2k with my 98 during a couple runs on the street. From a 2nd gear roll, I got over a car-length away before shifting to 3rd. From a stop, I got a car-length away at the top of first. Then I mis-shifted second (oops), he passed me about a car-length, I found the gear, reeled him in and was completely past him in the middle of third. There's no way the whp is close between our cars.
I think the authors would make a better point in their fanboy article by focusing on the s2k's light weight compared to the NSX.
I think the authors would make a better point in their fanboy article by focusing on the s2k's light weight compared to the NSX.
ChrisK said:
I never said anything about the Sk2. I simply thought that dyno of the 04 NSX was low.
Has anyone ever dyno'd their NSX on this type of dyno?
Let me tell you somethings about dynos, the Honda 2000 was tested on a Dynopak dyno, the NSX and TL tested on a Dynojet dyno, the numbers are NOT comparable. All the different brands of dynos use their own math to come up with HP numbers and they may call it SAE HP but the output numbers are different.
The number that really matters is Rear wheel HP, or Front wheel, who cares what is at the crank, no one uses it at the crank, there are always losses getting it ti the rear wheel.
And while we are on the subjuct, stop worring so much about HP, there are other factors that make a car accellerate, why do you think the NSX uses Titanium rods, it lightens the engine reciprocating and rotating weight, the lighter all that is the FASTER the RATE of Accelleration is, a lighter rod or piston does not give you more HP, it does make the engine and car accellerate faster, same thing with light wheels, discs, tires, and lets not forget that the mid engine NSX does not have a heavy driveshaft.
The head design on the NSX looks like a dinosour compared to what Honda does now days, not to mention the fuel injection system. Getting more HP per CC is common these days. Here is a dyno chart from a Stock 2003 Suzuki GSXR1000 (1000CC's) and the same bike with a different exhaust system, as an example on what you will see from the next NSX motor. This was done on a Dynojet 250 dyno SAE RWHP, these numbers are comparable to the NSX and TL numbers, Same Company makes both dynos.
In case you cannot read it that is 146HP stock and 157HP with a pipe. The 600CC bikes are in an even higher state of tune and make even more per CC.
The number that really matters is Rear wheel HP, or Front wheel, who cares what is at the crank, no one uses it at the crank, there are always losses getting it ti the rear wheel.
And while we are on the subjuct, stop worring so much about HP, there are other factors that make a car accellerate, why do you think the NSX uses Titanium rods, it lightens the engine reciprocating and rotating weight, the lighter all that is the FASTER the RATE of Accelleration is, a lighter rod or piston does not give you more HP, it does make the engine and car accellerate faster, same thing with light wheels, discs, tires, and lets not forget that the mid engine NSX does not have a heavy driveshaft.
The head design on the NSX looks like a dinosour compared to what Honda does now days, not to mention the fuel injection system. Getting more HP per CC is common these days. Here is a dyno chart from a Stock 2003 Suzuki GSXR1000 (1000CC's) and the same bike with a different exhaust system, as an example on what you will see from the next NSX motor. This was done on a Dynojet 250 dyno SAE RWHP, these numbers are comparable to the NSX and TL numbers, Same Company makes both dynos.
In case you cannot read it that is 146HP stock and 157HP with a pipe. The 600CC bikes are in an even higher state of tune and make even more per CC.
I can live with a 3.5L V6 with 157 HP per liter. 550HP baby
NetViper said:
Sorry, I knew you didn't actually make any comparisons between the two. That is why I said maybe. I remember that other posts about the 04 S2K that you posted about thus my assumption
As for dynos not being comparable I figure that much, but doesn't a dynojet usually produce the higher numbers vs dynopacks and mustang dyno? Just wondering.
Anyway, I think the RWHP that 04 NSX got on that particular dyno session is a bit low since even my 92 posted a 240RWHP on a dynojet a while ago.
about the s2k and the 240whp. tov used a dyno pack, so the numbers were higher then a dynojet. and over at honda-tech people were still debating whether or not the engine did produce that much more hp then the 2.0L
a recent article in scc tested the new 2.2L and the engine does indeed producec more hp.. and the dyno run was done on a dynojet. yielding 210hp@8k the old 2.0L dyno'd 203hp. so if you do a little math, the powertrain loss of 16% that'll make the 2.2L s2k have 250hp fly.
-------
i've never seen a magazine hit 12's in a regular nsx. the lowest times i've seen were 13.3 but this was a few years ago, maybe the new 'facelifted' nsx is a little bit quicker?
a recent article in scc tested the new 2.2L and the engine does indeed producec more hp.. and the dyno run was done on a dynojet. yielding 210hp@8k the old 2.0L dyno'd 203hp. so if you do a little math, the powertrain loss of 16% that'll make the 2.2L s2k have 250hp fly.
-------
i've never seen a magazine hit 12's in a regular nsx. the lowest times i've seen were 13.3 but this was a few years ago, maybe the new 'facelifted' nsx is a little bit quicker?
NSX/MR2
Suspended
In my humble personal opinion after test driving about 7 different NSXes, including a 'facelifted' one, and all I can say is 'wow.' The car moved faster than all the others.
Just to throw one more thing into the equation, I recall reading somewhere that most manufacturers have a (potential) 3%-5% variance in engine output from the factory. This could easily explain the range of 203-210 hp. My (dearly departed) '00 S2000 made 205.9 rwhp on a dynojet, bone stock.
Will
Will
You will get the same 3% to 5% range on:
How warm the dyno is, what time of day it is, what time of year it is, temp, and how the dyno operator uses the dyno.
This article is as much about the advances in the newer Honda engines as it is about the frailities of dynometers. I've only got direct
personal experience with the old SOHC 3.0 V6 and the new SOHC
3.0 V6 used in the Accord, but the evolution of this motor is very impressive. 40 hp increase (and many suspect that is under-rated)! The humble Accord (in 6speed trim) is now capable of 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and 1/4 mile times in the 13's! I have every reason to believe the next NSX should (and must) be capable of
>120 hp/liter NA.
personal experience with the old SOHC 3.0 V6 and the new SOHC
3.0 V6 used in the Accord, but the evolution of this motor is very impressive. 40 hp increase (and many suspect that is under-rated)! The humble Accord (in 6speed trim) is now capable of 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and 1/4 mile times in the 13's! I have every reason to believe the next NSX should (and must) be capable of
>120 hp/liter NA.
JimK said:
i don't think the new accords are capable of 13's stock. maybe with a few mods. but definately sure they are 14.5 easy.
120hp/l is the highest so far. but i dont' think the 2nd gen nsx would have it that high. for sure 100+hp/l. Remember, its not hp/l, its power/weight.
Similar threads
