I agree, free flowing increases HP but the noise can be a problem for a street driven car.
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AR
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
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*
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minch
Cheers
AR
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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
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*
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senninha
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.
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
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.
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! :-)
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?????????????
Ritchie if you are ever in Hampshire let me know. I'd love a spin in the Atom.
Cheers
Martin
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:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.
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
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
Unless you're changing the intake as well ... a different filter might not make any positive difference ... say he with the voice of experience ... ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalski
Priceless isn't it ... for everything else there's master card ... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalski
No it will be full airbox and filter replacement, have already got the bigger side scoop.
leigh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senninha
It would be the best way to see what the mods have done to the torque curves.
Good idea Kevin. I'll do mine tonight.
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 :?:Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalski
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?
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 ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lankstarr
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 ... :?:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lankstarr
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.
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.
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:( )Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
I'll try and update my figures later
regards
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:
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/n...itmapImage.jpg
Look familiar Kevin!?
LukeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lankstarr
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:!:
Guess I was a bit late in reading the forum for my last post to be of much help ... Doh!
Screendump and then edit in paint is what I usually do :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ;)
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.
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 did this using Kevins square edge method. Max bhp of 289 was at 6824. Will be interesting to see the comparison.Quote:
I'm keen to see mine against the 289bhp 3.2
Very happy with the torque curve of 200+ from 3000 onwards :D