Of course, when they increase the boost pressure, more fuel is needed to compensate. That's why they develop it on the dyno. On the dyno, they alter the fuel maps for that higher boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by ATSE
Printable View
Of course, when they increase the boost pressure, more fuel is needed to compensate. That's why they develop it on the dyno. On the dyno, they alter the fuel maps for that higher boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by ATSE
What has this got to do with me? I am reporting what a credible magazine in Australia has tested with a VBOX in what is pretty favourable conditions (ie 8 degree temp).Quote:
Originally Posted by GupZ
Motor also said the same thing about the lack of pace.
I am sure just like the K24 the FN2 takes a good 10,000 to 15,000kms before it shows its full potential. Take yours to the strip and let us know how you go.
With only a high revving 147kw motor in a car that weighs almost as much as the standard Euro, I don't see how Honda can ever fulfill the claimed 6.6sec 0-100km/h time. The Mazda 3 MPS makes 190kw and that does 0-100km/h in around 6.4-6.6 secs. The CTR really needs at least a 160kw motor to be strong player in the competitive hot hatch market today.
i reserve my opinion on honda not telling the truth about the 0-100km/h times till i see it done in one with a worn in engine which is ready for such testing... also i hope they did the test once the oil pressure and everything was correct for the cams 2 change over right...
there are alot of things 2 put in 2 consideration....
also these car journo's are not the best drivers around....
I think most of us would find it hard to replicate the times the journo's pull when testing. Having been fortunate to be on two road-tests, none of the non-journo's could pull times matching the journo's.
For example, when Motor compared the Type S versus DC5R versus DC2R, non of the car owners could match the times the Motor drivers pulled. The journo's really punish the cars trying to get the best times and they keep at it until they are sure that's as fast as it will go.
Most car journo's are good drivers. Anybody seen the video of Dean Evans driving the Lotus at Bathurst?
Personally 7.8 seems right to me, it's 165kg heavier than a DC5R. Slightly lower gearing and slightly more torque simply cannot make that up.
I disagree. They have been working for the magazines for years and they get to fang cars around the track and in the 1/4 mile more often than car enthusiasts. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIFTY
theres a difference between dean evans and other motor journo's... he was a pro race driver... lol
my point was that im sure the ppl they have doing these times in japan (uk in this case) are pro drivers and have been practising with these cars for alot longer and have warn the engine in.. im not saying motor journo's are shit drivers nor am i saying they are race drivers.. just compared 2 the ppl putting down honda's times they would not be as good.. but im not saying that honda did not exaggerate there times..
No, I don't think the 6.6 second number is from motoring tests. It's a claimed figure from Honda UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIFTY
SHIFTY - you might need to google: "power to weight ratio" :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIFTY
it is nothing to do with journos, worn in engines (LOL!) or oil temperature...
these guys have been testing cars since you were born,
they just cant break the laws of physics...
regurgitated faithfully by Honda Australia... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
dude i know what power 2 weight ratio is.. but i just misread the info and thought honda said that they did this times not said they where the estimated times..
no need 2 get all hyped up about it....
sorry, you just seemed to be naively defending the FN2...Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIFTY
if you did indeed think that Honda said they actually "did this times" then that's OK...
we all make mistakes now and then... :thumbsup: