Re: a masterpiece of engineering. american cars suck

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by Honda rulez, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. It doesnt matter how many hp you make per liter. It matters how much hp you make. And I'm very curious as to the rationale behind japan's tax on displacement. If you notice, the LS6 V8 makes the same gas mileage as this car's V6 and has twice the displacement.
    Sure, the S2000 might have some kick when you rev it up to 6 grand, but your redline is only a few thousand above that, making your powerband very narrow and very inaccessible. Thats why I prefer the V8, which can turn serious torque at low rpm and drive you all the way to the redline. Wider powerband: much more useful.
    About torque, torque is the amount of twisting force the engine can apply to the wheels, it determines your acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the engine's ability to do work over time. Thus, horsepower determines your engine's ability to hold you at top speed, etc.
     
  2. It does matter how much hp/litre you get when you want a lighter car which in turn will handle better.

    The rationale behind Japan's tax on displacement is EMISSIONS, not the gas mileage from this car's INLINE 4 engine (that's right, it's an I4, NOT a V6, which is why it's such a good engine - it produces so much power from a 2.0 litre I4 engine RELIABLY) which is MUCH better than MANY sports cars.

    And your V8's redline is only a few thousand rpm above the 2000 rpm at which it starts to get decent power at, I fail to see a difference, aside from the fact that the S2000 can either be driven at high rpms, maximizing power and gettin excellent performance, OR it can be driven at low rpms just like any other car....hmmmm versatility in driving styles seems better to me than a car that can only be driven in one manner, easily for those who can't drive well.

    Torque is the amount of twisting force which can get you going, and maintain your speed against heavy loads (i.e. going uphill, towing things), Horsepower is the rate of acceleration increase, generated by your torque and the rpm you're at. High torque is better suited for diesel trucks, not sportscars.
     
  3. #128 RaveDiscRS, Nov 24, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Who said that hp per liter isn't important ?
    Like "password please" say, it is very important.

    If you want that video of the honda s2000 type-r just tell me <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/cool.gif"></A>

    and, go to that link : http://www.jdmuniverse.com/forums/showthread/t-5894.html

    tss... a 2.0L car who's doing 4.1 second 0 to 100 km/h, oh and I have to say that I have a Chevrolet Blazer S-10, with a digital panel odometer who shows only real speed...
    for men who don't know, a car with a normal odometer is not a good precision... digital panel shows the real speed like : 60mph on a car who is with a classic panel = 55 real speed... you got it ?

    In fact, I think that the s2000 type-r is fast as the Z06 in the 0 to 62mph...

    But I am sure the Z06 destroys the s2000 on drag race, they are not for comparing (5.7 L Vs 2.0L .. lol)
     
  4. My bad on the V6 comment. But to continue my argument, think of this hypothetical scenario: I am driving my V8 roadster down I95 getting the listed 28 mpg. You are driving your I4 roadster down the same highway getting the same listed gas mileage. We both go 280 miles to a car show. We have both burned 10 gallons of fuel, releasing the same amount of emissions (now how much gets into the atmosphere is dependent on the catalytic converter). I still fail to see the reasoning behind a tax on displacement beyond the generalization that many high displacement vehicles get poor gas mileage and many low displacement vehicles get good gas mileage, though that (as I have just shown) is dependent on the vehicle not the engine.
    Horsepower is work over time: foot pounds per second.
    And I'll concede to your point on powerband usage, though I disagree that it takes a more skilled driver to use horsepower thats set at higher revs. It takes the same skill, just a different application.
     
  5. "About torque, torque is the amount of twisting force the engine can apply to the wheels, it determines your acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the engine's ability to do work over time. Thus, horsepower determines your engine's ability to hold you at top speed, etc."

    Ok. My 1985 Pontiac Fiero has about 92 horsepower and 134ft/lbs of torque.

    A 1985 Toyota has 112 horsepower but only 97ft/lbs of torque.

    If Torque determines my acceleration, why are MR2s a bit faster than my Fiero?
     
  6. No, the torque is ONE of the advantage who gives better acceleration... but the torque is produced (by the motorisation power, hp and liters) and then by the weight of the car is bigger or lower... now the fashion is to have the bigger torque lol
    The s2000 is a good example, without the turbo his torque is ridiculous... 210 nm approximately, and it's already fast enough... why did not honda put a turbo on that car... CRAP !! (or a bi-turbo..)
     
  7. Japan isn't the only country which has that tax thing on displacement. Many Europeans have that law in place. Getting the same mileage doesn't mean making the same amount of emission. There are many factors such as, how well the engine burns the fuel. As proved, the S2000 meets California ULEV.

    6 - 9000 rpm, there are 3000 rpms in there, i think that's enough for me. Most of the time, when u shift from a lower gear to high gear, the rpm doesn't drop below 5500rpm (if u shift at its redline). On a race track, I believe everyone shifts to a higher gear at its redline, right? No one would floor the gas pedal, then step on the clutch, and shift at 2000rpm. \

    However, haven't a decent amount of torque at low rpm is useful for city driving. It's easy to gain speed without shifting. But, i dun't think everyone has the need to go very fast for normal driving. So again, S2000's torque is enough (133lb/ft at 3000rpm). That amount of torque is already better than many family sedans (remember that the S2000 is a lightweight sports car, and its gear ratios are pretty close).

    Basically, haven't a lot of torque, but not a lot of hp means that that isn't a lot of torque at high rpm. Remember the relationship between torque, rpm, and hp. To get hp, u need both rpm and torque.
     
  8. Yes, Japanese cars aren't very powerful in torque, in any case for Honda. Or, at least the nsx, the 3.0 L is powerful and the new is very powerful.
    The Japanese cars are based on the best motorisation, engineering... They don't produce a big torque, but the lower torque possible for the best speed, acceleration etc... I think it's based on the weight of the car.
    But why don't they create an S2000 with turbo to show what is really that car...
    I'm losing my love to the s2000, and you know why ?
    Because all video I get with that car she is loosing !

    The Toyota mr-2 Turbo gets 0 to 62 = 6.2 seconds
    the s2000 = 6.0 in Europe and 5.5 second in Usa (why ? is she faster in usa and japan ? because in europe they put an anti pollution "better" etc.. who reduce the performance)
    and on that video she lose...

    Vs a mercedes she wins, a rx-7 she lose... I've got enough ! TELL ME THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE THAT S2000 !!!
    If someone want to see these videos I will give him..
     
  9. "releasing the same amount of emissions (now how much gets into the atmosphere is dependent on the catalytic converter)." Actually, the reason ALL Honda engines meet 2005 ULEV status while most cars do not, is because the engines burn more cleanly, in other words they combust the fuel/air in the cylinder more thoroughly, therefore they still release LESS emissions. In many engines, there are a lot of unburned hydrocarbons, ever since 1987, Honda has been leading the automotive industry (with Toyota close behind)in clean burning engines, in the beginning it was because they developed a way (I can't remember how) to ensure full combustion of spent fuel/air after initial combustion, ever since they have been developing better ways to fully combust all air/fuel mixtures, thus they are way ahead of their time for meeting 2005 ULEV requirements.

    "though I disagree that it takes a more skilled driver to use horsepower thats set at higher revs. It takes the same skill, just a different application."

    It takes more skill to enter and exit a turn at, or above a desirable rpm for best acceleration out of a turn, than it does to enter and exit a turn without the need to keep the engine above a desirable rpm (with the low revving power of big displacement, the rpm does not need to be kept above any specific rpm, which is why it takes less skill to drive a car with big displacement to its maximum potential)

    "Horsepower is work over time: foot pounds per second." exactly - rate of acceleration increase (work over time increases exponentially with more horsepower)
     
  10. Re: a masterpiece of engineering: American cars.

    "It doesn't even come close to beating its rivals. The camaro z28SS is a low to mid 13 second car, and the Cobra is a 12 second car. The s2000 is a low 14 second car. The performance and power isn't there."

    It also costs less, weighs less, handles better, and try 12.9 for the SVT cobra.

    And 14.1 sec. from a 2.0 litre I4 ROADSTER? I'd consider that performance, and (for that displacement) 240hp, now let's see, that's comparative to RACING engines of similar displacement in recent years....I'd consider that to be power.
     

  11. Re:
    a masterpiece of engineering. american cars suck


    In fact, the Camaro Z28 is actually (much) cheaper. If it were on sale today it would cost 16-17K in UK money. The Z28 is more of a track car than for road use. It has done some pretty impresive lap times on various tracks before. And handles quite well on the track.
     

  12. Re:
    a masterpiece of engineering. american cars suck


    In fact, the Camaro Z28 is actually (much) cheaper. If it were on sale today it would cost 16-17K in UK money. The Z28 is more of a track car than for road use. It has done some pretty impresive lap times on various tracks before. And handles quite well on the track.
     
  13. Z28 a track car huh? lol, that's like calling the Cavalier a drag car.
     
  14. But of course and I can tell you my Golf cabriolet 1.8 L 4cylinders and 102 bhp is a track car and can destroy a z06

    pff...Z28 sorry, is a good car but not a track car

    (im not cricating you password please)
     
  15. LOL thanks, I kind of figured that out when I saw the sarcasm in your post.
     
  16. Sorry to say, american cars SUCK, as much as i do love the viper's coupe as well as the vettes look but unfortunatly they are stupid ass rust buckets, japanese cars, theres quality! S2000 rock on
     
  17. So what exactly makes THIS more quality of a car than a Viper or Corvette?? They're both faster, and both can outrun this in a heartbeat, take corners faster, etc.
     
  18. I'm not sure what you mean by calling a fiberglass car a rust bucket: the only metal on it is the chassis and drivetrain. If this is true, then the S2000 surely qualifies as the same.
     
  19. Yeah true, but whats all the ppls problem calling ameican cars "rust buckets, rusty peices of shit, etc" Dude, its called Steele, cars actually used to be made of this, its STRONGER than fiberglass, heavier still yes, but guess what, cars had 2 times the power back in the 60's than they do now. And btw, its called use a little turtle wax 2 times a year, and it WONT rust, duh!
     
  20. build quality has little to do with performance.

    I dunno about cornering, the S2000 IS better balanced, and considerably lighter.
     
  21. the highest powered cars only had about 300-400hp, hardly more than today's 300hp-600hp cars. However, cars then had Way more torque.
     
  22. If honda did pumped out over 900 horses with a 1.5 litre, i can garantee it was with like 200 shot of nos, a turbo thats a big as my computer and over 300gs into it. The reason why american cars dont do that is cause its a waste of time, put that much into a 4 banger you could put 100gs in a Mustang and get it to over 1000. American cars such u say, well we lead the way to making cars fast and jap. shit cant put a mark on us. They sound like vacume cleaners, u need so much to make em fast. Hell, back in the American muscle days cars came with over 400 hp and they were only 3gs. Also notice how the 20th century isnt called the Japenese Muscle area. Ur probly one of those people who drive a honda civic hybrid
     
  23. hate to be the one to break it to ya, but it was achieved with the 1992 Honda McLaren F1 race car - NA. So, yes they've done it, without Nitrous Oxide (I can tell that your only form of car "knowledge" stems from Fast and the Furious - NOS is a COMPANY that packages and sells Nitrous Oxide), nor a Turbocharger.


    American cars do not in any way lead the way top making Cars fast, for every one American car that's faster than many others, there are 10 European cars in its class that are faster.


    If that high compression, high revving, F1 reminiscent sound sounds like a vacuum cleaner to you, then your hoover must be at the pinnacle of engineering.

    You're right - "jap. shit can't put a mark on us" (I assume you mean American cars), as they're too far ahead. LOL

    it doesn't take much to make a Japanese car fast.....ex: a 1990 Civic EF chassis Dx, with a bit of weight reduction (to 976kgs), some drivetrain mods, and modified to produce 153hp (130lbft), and racing slicks can turn 12.5 in the 1/4. That's just $5000 in mods, or under $8000 total to do the 1/4 faster than a $35,000 Mustang....hmmm yep, it sure does require a lot alright.

    Very few cars in the "American Muscle days" came with more than 250hp, shows how much you know, don't worry though, back then they often had as much as 600lbft of torque, so at least they got going easily (once the tires stopped spinning), and could tow a lot, they just didn't go anywhere fast.

    Yes, that's because MUSCLE cars are a strictly American made concept, with strictly American interest, the rest of the world focusses on making fast cars, but don't worry, Americans are coming around<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>.

    Hey, don't knock the Civic Hybrid, it's the ONLY electric/gas powered car that drives like a normal gas powered family car, in other words - while it may not be fast, at least it's not completely gutless, unlike MANY other Hybrids out there.

    That said, I do drive a Civic, 1990 EF Chassis, modified only for durability off-road, and I could easily give you a thrashing in it, on any dirt road.


    Don't be just another stereotypical American redneck musclehead, there's much more to cars than just big displacement and lots of torque, Heavy is not best, Bigger is NOT better.
     

Share This Page