GOP: the party of stupid

[homersapien 12,172]

Oh, okay, you two didn't take my red line seriously. Well fine. As of this moment, you two are on the list.

Red line? We don't take no stinkin' red lines surrusly round deez parts.

Not an issue. I've got a rev limiter in my ECU. Thank goodness, as my S makes power up to - and probably beyond red line. And I have been known to miss a shift.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Oh, okay, you two didn't take my red line seriously. Well fine. As of this moment, you two are on the list.

Red line? We don't take no stinkin' red lines surrusly round deez parts.

Not an issue. I've got a rev limiter in my ECU. Thank goodness, as my S makes power up to - and probably beyond red line. And I have been known to miss a shift.

Your S?

[homersapien 12,172]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

Presumably that hp increase comes from re-tuning the engine for higher boost? The ethanol alone shouldn't increase hp. In other words, the ethanol is raising the octane rating, not adding more energy per se'

Ethanol has an advantage with any application, as you can increase timing. In forced induction in particular, it brings the advantage of being able to run higher cylinder pressures without knock (more boost). Combine the two, and you see why the turbo crowd is maintaining tuning maps to use it as a cheaper race fuel. The main disadvantage is that you use a lot more of it. In tuning terms, you would say ethanol is tuned richer, often by 30 percent.

Exactly. You can derive more power but at the cost of fuel efficiency.

Do you know if (stock) engines with programmed timing (anti-knock sensors, etc.) will actually advance timing if ETOH fuel is used?

Seems like this could be a possibility with the more advanced engine control systems.

I've been keen to take a look at the timing tables of a flex-fuel ECU, but no one really modifies them, so I haven't had a chance. I would think that it would have to be able to advance or retard timing at a range greater than an ECU designed for straight petrol, simply because of the vast difference in optimal AFR that you see between petrol and E85. As for Tesla's, I've seen a few at Caffeine & Octane get togethers, but never seen one run in person. Another interesting one is the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive.

Now that you mention it, I have always wondered what a "flex fuel" vehicle had that was different. That's probably it.

[homersapien 12,172]

Oh, okay, you two didn't take my red line seriously. Well fine. As of this moment, you two are on the list.

Red line? We don't take no stinkin' red lines surrusly round deez parts.

Not an issue. I've got a rev limiter in my ECU. Thank goodness, as my S makes power up to - and probably beyond red line. And I have been known to miss a shift.

Your S?

2nd gen Honda S2000.

It makes "only" a measly 240 hp but using a naturally aspirated 2.2 four. The first gen put out the same power using a 2.0 liter, which made it the highest specific output engine commercially available. The 2.0 liter redlines at 8,800 and the 2.2 at 8,000. Fuel cut-off occurs 200 rpm higher than redline for both. High octane gas is required.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Honda_S2000

[Strychnine 1,808]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

[homersapien 12,172]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

Yeah, but I really wanted a roadster as it was meant as a replacement for my bike (SV650). I will admit that am partial to Hondas but there aren't that many high performance roadsters out there - much less mid-engine ones like the S (front mid engine) - that are affordable.

I don't get turbocharging an S. If hp is that important, I'd do something like what you have.

[Strychnine 1,808]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

Yeah, but I really wanted a roadster as it was meant as a replacement for my bike (SV650). I will admit that am partial to Hondas but there aren't that many high performance roadsters out there - much less mid-engine ones which the S is (front mid engine) - that are affordable.

I don't get turbocharging an S. If hp is that important, I'd do something like what you have.

A small turbo kit for an S2000 was probably less trouble than replacing the cam in my car and removing GM's active fuel management. As for the why, I would imagine torque. The HP in an S2000 is sufficient I'd say, but it retains the Honda torque curse.

[homersapien 12,172]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

That sounds like an old muscle car motor. So it's not boosted?

[homersapien 12,172]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

Yeah, but I really wanted a roadster as it was meant as a replacement for my bike (SV650). I will admit that am partial to Hondas but there aren't that many high performance roadsters out there - much less mid-engine ones which the S is (front mid engine) - that are affordable.

I don't get turbocharging an S. If hp is that important, I'd do something like what you have.

A small turbo kit for an S2000 was probably less trouble than replacing the cam in my car and removing GM's active fuel management. As for the why, I would imagine torque. The HP in an S2000 is sufficient I'd say, but it retains the Honda torque curse.

I know exactly what you are talking about since my DD is a '92 Civic EX w/ 5 spd. You have to stir a Honda to make it go. But then, the S was designed for track use, not drag racing, for which it is not suited at all.

But outside of drag racing torque is not an issue. In fact, I was totally surprised by how tractable my S is at normal driving speeds. And once you are already moving, you can always drop a gear or two. I will cruise very comfortably at 55 mph in 6th (getting 30+ mpg to-boot). Drop a gear or two and get into the Vtec at about 6k and it turns into a different beast. The tranny sets the standard for OEM 6 speeds and braking and handling is ridiculous. But to be truthful, I actually pushed my bike further (to my limits) on public twisties - the bike's not a "garage queen" like the S. But you need a track to really exercise this car.

[Strychnine 1,808]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

Yeah, but I really wanted a roadster as it was meant as a replacement for my bike (SV650). I will admit that am partial to Hondas but there aren't that many high performance roadsters out there - much less mid-engine ones which the S is (front mid engine) - that are affordable.

I don't get turbocharging an S. If hp is that important, I'd do something like what you have.

A small turbo kit for an S2000 was probably less trouble than replacing the cam in my car and removing GM's active fuel management. As for the why, I would imagine torque. The HP in an S2000 is sufficient I'd say, but it retains the Honda torque curse.

I know exactly what you are talking about since my DD is a '92 Civic EX w/ 5 spd. You have to stir a Honda to make it go. But then, the S was designed for track use, not drag racing, for which it is not suited at all.

But outside of drag racing torque is not an issue. In fact, I was totally surprised by how tractable my S is at normal driving speeds. And once you are already moving, you can always drop a gear or two. I will cruise very comfortably at 55 mph in 6th (getting 30+ mpg to-boot). Drop a gear or two and get into the Vtec at about 6k and it turns into a different beast. The tranny sets the standard for OEM 6 speeds and braking and handling is ridiculous. But to be truthful, I actually pushed my bike further (to my limits) on public twisties - the bike's not a "garage queen" like the S. But you need a track to really exercise this car.

As a light, rear-wheel drive car, I'd say it's perfectly suited to drag racing, although not in stock trim. Torque is quite useful on a track as well, since acceleration out of corners is rather beneficial to improving lap times and/or passing others. A perfect example of this would be a track race with an S2000 against a Nissan 350Z. The 350Z handles and brakes very well, but it weighs 400 pounds more (give or take 100). However, the difference is made in the fact that it generates over 100 lb-ft more torque. It will pull away on any straights, and it will stay there. Granted, this simple example assumes much, with equal drivers being the most important assumption. Where a car like the Honda S2000 or Mazda RX-8 really shines is an autocross event, where speeds are generally low and acceleration is less of a factor. The small turbo kit that this guy is using on his S2000 changes things considerably though. It's not enough that it completely overpowers the tires, but it exceeds the output of Nissan's VQ35DE. If he were racing at a track like Road Atlanta, the improved acceleration is sufficient to make it competitive against nearly anything.

If you haven't tried autocross, I'd highly suggest it. Pick up a spare set of wheels and use them solely for tires you use in racing. It's easily the safest way to really flog a car, and quite cheap generally (tires and brakes are your greatest expense). The only thing that's really capable of damaging the car out there are the cones.

[homersapien 12,172]

I'm quite familiar with the S2000. A bunch of young Honda kids (think fartpipes and sticker covered 90's model Civics) like to try to crash the local horsepower enthusiast get togethers. One of our group has a turbo S2000, they worship him like a god. The car itself is a superb example of a roadster. Light, and good balance. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: Pontiac G8 GT with the lovely 6.0 V8 that's been treated to a nice lopey cam. It's only putting 450 down to the rear wheels, but it's quite the fun car.

Yeah, but I really wanted a roadster as it was meant as a replacement for my bike (SV650). I will admit that am partial to Hondas but there aren't that many high performance roadsters out there - much less mid-engine ones which the S is (front mid engine) - that are affordable.

I don't get turbocharging an S. If hp is that important, I'd do something like what you have.

A small turbo kit for an S2000 was probably less trouble than replacing the cam in my car and removing GM's active fuel management. As for the why, I would imagine torque. The HP in an S2000 is sufficient I'd say, but it retains the Honda torque curse.

I know exactly what you are talking about since my DD is a '92 Civic EX w/ 5 spd. You have to stir a Honda to make it go. But then, the S was designed for track use, not drag racing, for which it is not suited at all.

But outside of drag racing torque is not an issue. In fact, I was totally surprised by how tractable my S is at normal driving speeds. And once you are already moving, you can always drop a gear or two. I will cruise very comfortably at 55 mph in 6th (getting 30+ mpg to-boot). Drop a gear or two and get into the Vtec at about 6k and it turns into a different beast. The tranny sets the standard for OEM 6 speeds and braking and handling is ridiculous. But to be truthful, I actually pushed my bike further (to my limits) on public twisties - the bike's not a "garage queen" like the S. But you need a track to really exercise this car.

As a light, rear-wheel drive car, I'd say it's perfectly suited to drag racing, although not in stock trim. Torque is quite useful on a track as well, since acceleration out of corners is rather beneficial to improving lap times and/or passing others. A perfect example of this would be a track race with an S2000 against a Nissan 350Z. The 350Z handles and brakes very well, but it weighs 400 pounds more (give or take 100). However, the difference is made in the fact that it generates over 100 lb-ft more torque. It will pull away on any straights, and it will stay there. Granted, this simple example assumes much, with equal drivers being the most important assumption. Where a car like the Honda S2000 or Mazda RX-8 really shines is an autocross event, where speeds are generally low and acceleration is less of a factor. The small turbo kit that this guy is using on his S2000 changes things considerably though. It's not enough that it completely overpowers the tires, but it exceeds the output of Nissan's VQ35DE. If he were racing at a track like Road Atlanta, the improved acceleration is sufficient to make it competitive against nearly anything.

If you haven't tried autocross, I'd highly suggest it. Pick up a spare set of wheels and use them solely for tires you use in racing. It's easily the safest way to really flog a car, and quite cheap generally (tires and brakes are your greatest expense). The only thing that's really capable of damaging the car out there are the cones.

Oh, I appreciate torque. My SV650 is a 90 degree V-twin - sort of Suzuki's take on a Ducati. Much more tractable and easier to ride fast than a 600 ss in-line 4, (although the latter will run away from it on the straight-aways).

While the S is (relatively) light and rwd, like they say, there's no replacement for displacement. It's not the sort of engine I would choose for drag racing.

I like your autocross suggestion. I worked for a company with a sports car club and they used to set one up in our parking lot. I am sure there are probably a lot more opportunities for autocross than a track day.