T.O.O. or NITRO your SC and One Lap of America?

Posted by Hondafreak (danojack@execulink.com) on September 23, 1998 at 09:39:50:

I have this plan (dream) to build a SC B16 powered 5th gen Civic hatch and possible run the 'Car & Drivers One Lap of America' in the year 2000.One Lap,as you probably know is basically a 7 day driveathon that stops at roadcoarses and/ or dragstips, throughout the U.S. everyday where the participants compete against others in their class as well as everybody else. This year's one lap covered about 5700 miles.You can get details at www.caranddriver.com. Well the questions I have are:
1. I realize that high boost works extremely well for drag racing because the periods of high loads tend to be short but what about running a road course that has long staights, is there any problem with that?

2. By reading past posts I see that you guys run run a number of different Civics, I was wondering what suggestions
you might have for suspension set-up, brakes, wheels & tires maybe even spoilers (aerodynamics)that would best suit a Civic that would be the best compromise between all the different aspects of One Lap. In other words a great daily driver!
Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks, Dan


 

Re: T.O.O. or NITRO your SC and One Lap of America?

Posted by NITRO on September 23, 1998 at 11:21:23:
In Reply to: T.O.O. or NITRO your SC and One Lap of America? posted by body on September 23, 1998 at 09:39:50:

There should be absolutely no problems running a supercharger or a properly done turbo for this event. As we've been working on a Civic for a land speed record (in class), we've done considerable studies of the aero properties of all the late model Civics. The '92-'95 Civic coupe has the lowest drag coefficient, and the least frontal area. The '96 and up coupes have close #'s on the drag, however, the frontal area is really a lot larger than the earlier cars. Our studies based on what we know from programs where we have to work closely with aero #'s and shapes to properly configure the engine's power levels. Since the force required to move an object through air is determined by the (square) of the speed, it becomes very clear that it's a lot easier to clean the car for speed rather than trying to do it with power alone. Our best estimates showed that the newer model would require almost 90 HP more to run 230 mph through the flying mile with a 4-5 mile run-up. We feel that while Honda would like to see a new Civic running, the additional power for that length of time would require a different block, crank and oiling system = $$$. I realize that your "race" is a timed event, but lower cd and frontal area could save a lot of engine abuse, and save gas as well.


 

Re: Rest Assured The Weight Of The Civic Will Be High.

Posted by NITRO on September 23, 1998 at 21:50:39:
In Reply to: Re: T.O.O. or NITRO your SC and One Lap of America? posted by body on September 23, 1998 at 18:39:54:

Although the '92-'95 Civic coupe has excellent front downforce, the car will carry considerable ballast for stability, and for traction. The tires necessary for this type of run on dry lake beds do not have a very wide cross section for aerodynamic reasons, and when you combine that with a surface that is "dust" and traction when you hit the "aero wall" is always hard to obtain, so weight is necessary. This also presents another problem. Although the weight is necessary, since you only have a 4 -5 mile run-up to the first timing beam, excessive weight can make acceleration to speed in that distance hard. Aside from screwing the weight distribution, excessive weight can cause lack of traction due to excessive tire spin as well.
It's a tough world.


 

Re: What about '88-'91 CRX? .30 Cd stock, and I'd think the frontal area would be very small. n/m

Posted by NITRO on September 23, 1998 at 21:57:05:
In Reply to: What about '88-'91 CRX? .30 Cd stock, and I'd think the frontal area would be very small. n/m posted by body on September 23, 1998 at 14:15:42:

The drag coefficient is close and the frontal area is less on the early CRX, but in the tunnel a CRX tends to exibit poor air flow qualities from the rear deck compared to the later Civic coupe, and combine that with the shorter wheelbase, and the ride would be a little too thrilling for any of us old fuckers.
If you're running anywhere under 180 mph the CRX should be better, as the lift isn't encountered until about 190.