..... vs. DC2 Integra Type R

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Without doing the math, that longer duration but smaller advantage still wins, at least in the real world in my experience.

IMO, overall and in general, same power/weight vs. same power/weight is going to be close, and be dependent on starting speed and finishing distance. Of course if a car pulls ahead, he can simply end it when he gets to redline and claim victory rather than suffer being caught when he upshifts!

Except from zero or low low speed roll, where gears will pretty much win every time, general overall acceleration performance is going to be the same, dictated by power/weight.

Since I knew you have track experience I didn't think you'd misunderstand me there.

Sorry, I'm a condescending ass by nature!

By catch up I didn't simply mean under braking. I've passed a friends geared car under braking or just post track out, and would be passed again before the next turn. Datalogging, if he had it in his car, would show he doesn't brake as hard and has lower cornering speeds (obvious from behind by braking points). I have enough experience on track to realize if I'm actually closing a gap or not

I gotcha. But still, two different cars, two different drivers, and it's entirely possible he ekes out an exit speed advantage by being slower on entry and at apex... In any case, room for doubt!

That said, some cars will need a lot more gear than others. Wouldn't be surprising if the Type R (5-spd, 8400rpm 1.8 liter) is one. So yeah, I can see it....

In my experience with my bone-stock AP1, it's been pretty decently-geared for most tracks I go to (NHMS, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Mosport, Mont Tremblant). The one curve that it SUCKED at is the toe of the boot at WGI, where it's bogged down in 3rd going up the hill. Then again I probably wasn't going fast enough around it on street tires...

I don't shift my car at 7,900.. come on now Assuming stock ECU at redline it's 82mph 4.928/91 4.400. At fuel cut, that bumps up 1mph each.

Speedo might say one thing, reality is another!
On stock diameter tires, 890 revs per mile, 2nd gear = 1.458 (izzat right?), I'm getting 8400rpm => 88mph with 4.4s, 79mph with 4.928s

8400/(1.458*4.4) = 1309 wheel rpm = 78563 wheel revs/hr, divided by 890 revs/mile = 88.3

88.3*(4.4/4.928) = 78.8

Ah, well, close enough!

I'd agree that given the right specific situation the stock gearing car would win. If nothing else, the ability to pass without downshifting on the highway is worth the 4.9

What I tell the AP1 guys eager to go to 4.77's for this reason:
If you just don't use 6th gear and keep it in 5th on the highway, you get the exact same effect for a LOT less effort!

[Dave-ROR]

860 revs/mile.. 195/55/15, ~890 would be 195/50/15 unless my math is wrong..

(((195*.55)*2)+(15*25.4)/25.4) = 23.44"

23.44*3.1415 = 73.64" circum

63,360/73.64 = 860.4 revs/mile

So 8400/(1.458*4.4) = 1309.4 = 78563 / 860 = 91.35mph


And damn, this has gone off topic

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

860 revs/mile.. 195/55/15, ~890 would be 195/50/15 unless my math is wrong..
(((195*.55)*2)+(15*25.4)/25.4) = 23.44"
23.44*3.1415 = 73.64" circum
63,360/73.64 = 860.4 revs/mile
So 8400/(1.458*4.4) = 1309.4 = 78563 / 860 = 91.35mph

Your math's not wrong, but you left something out. The effective rolling circumference is somewhat less than the max inflated OD of the tire suggests. Usually by a factor of 0.97 which is what I use for performance estimations.

Tire Rack shows 890 revs per mile for a 195/55-15 tire, pretty consistent with the rule-o-thumb 0.97 factor, so that's what I used.

And that still doesn't account for percentage *slip* of the driven wheels/tires under hard acceleration, which will knock actual speed down quite a bit more vs. indicated.

And damn, this has gone off topic

Indeed it has

[brianc]

Forget the math.. The final drive worked for me in my experience and I'm willing to try it on the FR-S. Gears do make a difference. The gears that the car comes factory doesn't suit everyone. ESPECIALLY when you start to modify the car. You could argue stock the gearing is best stock. Well if the car isn't stock (more power) it could benefit from different gearing. The next step for my car is to hit up the valvetrain. New springs+retainers. Going to tune the car to rev higher. I feel like it would benefit me at the track.

Not everyone goes for a quicker final drive (yes I just used the word quicker - I don't want to type out HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE) try showing up to a car meet and go "HEY GUYS CHECK IT OUT I JUST INSTALLED MY HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE"

Tons of boost guys go the other way and get final drives that make their gears longer. No traction FTL.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by brianc

Forget the math..

Forget the math? It's only the language of the universe, the language of God Almighty!

The final drive worked for me in my experience and I'm willing to try it on the FR-S. Gears do make a difference.

Not always a difference in the desired direction, though... Not at all saying that you didn't experience an improvement at the tracks you got to. Only saying that "gears" don't always give people what they really wanted, which was a legitimately faster car for their usage.

The gears that the car comes factory doesn't suit everyone. ESPECIALLY when you start to modify the car.

Opposite is often true. If you add torque to add power, subtract weight, and add lateral grip, optimal gearing will be *taller*. However if you take a given displacement and tweak it more for higher-rpm performance, optimal gearing is shorter (numerically higher).

You could argue stock the gearing is best stock. Well if the car isn't stock (more power) it could benefit from different gearing.

See above.

The next step for my car is to hit up the valvetrain. New springs+retainers. Going to tune the car to rev higher. I feel like it would benefit me at the track.

The FR-S or the Type R? In either case, you should consider two things:
1. with the same cam profiles, same valve sizes, same intake/exhaust ports, you're not going to make any more power by revving higher
2. simply going to new springs and retainers does NOTHING to beef up the bottom end, which may well already near its limit for reliability at the existing redline/rev-limiter

Not everyone goes for a quicker final drive (yes I just used the word quicker - I don't want to type out HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE) try showing up to a car meet and go "HEY GUYS CHECK IT OUT I JUST INSTALLED MY HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE"

We used to just call it "LOWER" gearing, but somewhere along the line (late 90s?) newbs couldn't grasp the concept that 4.77 gearing is LOWER than 4.10 gearing.

Calling lower (numerically higher) gearing "quicker" can be false advertising!

Tons of boost guys go the other way and get final drives that make their gears longer. No traction FTL.

Yup. Adding power via adding torque means optimal gearing becomes taller (numerically lower!).

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Your math's not wrong, but you left something out. The effective rolling circumference is somewhat less than the max inflated OD of the tire suggests. Usually by a factor of 0.97 which is what I use for performance estimations.

Tire Rack shows 890 revs per mile for a 195/55-15 tire, pretty consistent with the rule-o-thumb 0.97 factor, so that's what I used.

And that still doesn't account for percentage *slip* of the driven wheels/tires under hard acceleration, which will knock actual speed down quite a bit more vs. indicated.

Indeed it has

True but I prefer to stick with numbers I can quantify, inflation and specific tires will change that, kind of shooting in the dark too much for me there

Indicated is worthless, especially in a Honda. I could go datalog it through GPS but I'm not running OEM size tires anyways.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

True but I prefer to stick with numbers I can quantify, inflation and specific tires will change that, kind of shooting in the dark too much for me there

A number KNOWN to be wrong is not better than applying a well-established correction factor!
0.97x factor is not a "shot in the dark", and will always be much closer to reality than assuming the circumference is consistent with the OD calculated from the tire size.
Besides, Tire Rack revs per mile are based on measurements, readily available for most tires.
And of course you could mark your tires, roll your car for 10 tire revolutions and divide the distance by 10 to get an accurate rolling circumference.

Any of those three methods will get you MUCH closer to reality than basing it on the OD.

[brianc]

PEANUT BUTTA JELLY TIME. WHERYAA AT WHERTAA AT

back on topic.
I'd take a stock ITR with 0kms on it over a FRS.

[JW89225]

Originally Posted by brianc

PEANUT BUTTA JELLY TIME. WHERYAA AT WHERTAA AT

back on topic.
I'd take a stock ITR with 0kms on it over a FRS.

+1 I'd take a ITR over a FRS/BRZ anyday, the overall experience from the Honda is just so raw and focused. I actually was hunting for a ITR while I was waiting for the FRS, but it was so damn rare to find a good one. Honda Type R are every bit as good as BMW's M in my books. High rev, brilliant motors, brilliant chasis, amazing handling. I'd love an NSX-R next to my M3

Forget about FWD flaws, this car is as good as FWD gets and its pretty damn good to put most RWD to shame. Well sorted FWD like the recent FD2 Civic Type R in Japan can feel and go every bit as good as a RWD if not better.

Its one of the greatest drivers car along with McLaren F1, GT3, Ferrari... voted by the readers of EVO.

This is what they had to say about it: ‘It’s a car as sweet and all-consuming as any I’ve experienced at any price, and as pure and focused in its own way as any Porsche RS. Forget the accolade of greatest front-wheel-drive car. The Integra Type-R ranks as one of the truly great drivers’ cars of any kind.’

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...e_r34_gtr.html

However, got to give credit where its due. FRS/BRZ can do amazing things that even my M3 cant do, if only the brilliant chasis was mated to a brilliant Type R engine from Honda... The engine is one of the most important part of a car for me and the boxer 4 was kind of a let down to me...

[brianc]

Glad to see an E92 owner who doesn't think his car is the best thing invented since sliced bread.

Hats off to you. From the mod list you got there your E92 sounds like a sexy car.

[huma]

Originally Posted by JW89225

However, got to give credit where its due. FRS/BRZ can do amazing things that even my M3 cant do, if only the brilliant chasis was mated to a brilliant Type R engine from Honda... The engine is one of the most important part of a car for me and the boxer 4 was kind of a let down to me...

I agree and Honda's are king of 4 cyl's.

[Touge Monster]

Say what you will about the ITR I loved mine but I had much more fun in my AE86. I love the FR-S yes the ITR is the pinnacle of the FF layout but an FR is more controllable and fun at the limit period.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

A number KNOWN to be wrong is not better than applying a well-established correction factor!
0.97x factor is not a "shot in the dark", and will always be much closer to reality than assuming the circumference is consistent with the OD calculated from the tire size.
Besides, Tire Rack revs per mile are based on measurements, readily available for most tires.
And of course you could mark your tires, roll your car for 10 tire revolutions and divide the distance by 10 to get an accurate rolling circumference.

Any of those three methods will get you MUCH closer to reality than basing it on the OD.

as much as i hate that fact, i have to agree. estimations got us to the moon and we use them daily to treat cancer with radiation. we get pretty good at guessing

Originally Posted by Touge Monster

Say what you will about the ITR I loved mine but I had much more fun in my AE86. I love the FR-S yes the ITR is the pinnacle of the FF layout but an FR is more controllable and fun at the limit period.

i had a corolla while my friend had an itr and i came to the exact opposite conclusion. i dont understand how someone can find a car with an old underpowered car with a solid rear axle more controllable than a car with irs and near double the power. guess thats why they make more than one car

[Touge Monster]

Originally Posted by fatoni

as much as i hate that fact, i have to agree. estimations got us to the moon and we use them daily to treat cancer with radiation. we get pretty good at guessing


i had a corolla while my friend had an itr and i came to the exact opposite conclusion. i dont understand how someone can find a car with an old underpowered car with a solid rear axle more controllable than a car with irs and near double the power. guess thats why they make more than one car

I well I do run touge especialy down hill all of the weight/power/steering through the front wheels not good...kinda hard to power slide an ff.. not to mention its harder to make mid corner adjusments much more commited to a line.