Re: My S2000 beats any car.

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by VR4, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Nice.
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MAXUS</i>
    <b>Hey guys,
    I read most of your messages and those americans ... DONT YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT S2000 LIKE THAT UNLESS YOU DRIVEN IT! Forget those american cars, and European(2 expansive to buy or to modify) except some.
    I ain't some rich chinese guy. I am just some guy who spends all his money on his car instead of food or anything else.I have a 2001 S2000 and modified it. here is a list of what I got in my car:
    Fuel Pressure Regulator
    Electronic Signal Modifier
    Flywheel, Comptech Sport - Lightweight Steel
    Swaybar, Front Adjustable
    Headers, Stainless Steel
    Quiet Tip Insert
    Cold Air Intake
    Ice Box, 94-01 GSR
    Brake Pads, Front - Competition
    Adjustable Sport Springs
    Exhaust, Power Pro - S/S Cat-Back
    and the list goes on
    I also tried to install NOS but I love my car alot so I didn't.
    As I tested my car it has 400-450 HP, Almost 350 torque... That is the shit.
    It is so fast that sometimes it is hard to maintain the car.
    I have also raced NSX, M3, SLK(2 easy, made the guy cry), Boxter S (Got smoked, he came 2 me and said WTF, he was dissipointed becuase it hadn't even been a month since he bought it), 911 carrera, Civics, MR2, I want to add M5 but I never see a young guy who wants to race driving it. the thing about honda is that Honda cars are easy cheap and best choice to upgrade. I am looking for good looking special like 1 in a country body kits if you know anyone reply to this message, money is no object here(well it is kinda).
    If you have any car I'll race you even if its a peace of crab.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    LOL...Geez your pretty damn stupid spending all your money on a car like that and screwing your warranty hardcore...Your going to spend your money on your car instead of a good plate of food....Well at least I wont go hungry and die of starvation, have a roof over my head and Ill still kick your cars ass with my WRX that has 338HP at all wheels (i used one of those new 4WD dyno's at a subaru tuners shop) and I can still drive it in the winter!

    ME-10 Points

    YOU-0 Points
  3. Nissan R390. Limited edition, nothing American comes close (well, the saleen s7 maybe, but still not as fast). And again i think that the american aftermarket is less good. no matter what you do to a mustang, IT IS STILL A BIG CAR. call me crazy, but my definition of a sports car is a small, race-bred car w/ no compromises. you can make a mustang REALLY fast, but it will never be a sports car. a dragster cannot compete w/ an f1 car in the curves, no matter how much power and torque it has. i do not believe that the s2000 is the greatest car in the world, but it deserves more respect than cars such as the mustang cobra, which, deserves no respect for its design whatsoever. it is not all about cubic inches. if it were, then a normal mustang should be able to smoke any s2000 - but it can't come close.
  4. Here ya go. It's an EvoVI though, not VII.
  5. Doesn't that one use an American V8 from the Mustang?
  6. Uh, the S2000's 2.0-liter takes more of the Middle East's oil than the 5.7-liter Corvette Z06's V8.

    Enjuneerin', huh?
  7. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MAXUS</i>
    <b>Gas mileage huh?
    you are comparing a vett with a s2000. Well the s2000 produces 240 hp with a 2.0L 4-Cyl engine now no matter how much gas it uses it makes the 240 HP, ok anybody here knows and American, German or .. car that is like that or better?
    If you don't have anything to say, don't make excuses!
    There are limits buddy. Yes Honda can easily make a car with 1000 HP with a V10 engine but, when you look at S2k's engineering, 250 HP 4-Cyl engine, which only is 2.0 litters, that's engineering buddy. Not your big ass American car with the v8 engine who’s taking all the middle east's oil. And the stupid driver who backs up into my beautiful S2000 (which didn't happened, I hope not!) cause only they can't see it. This happened with my old car a f**king teenager with his stupid Chevrolet Silverado backed into my MR2 and the stupid ass said it was my fault that my car was to small and I parked too close to him. What a moron! First of all why the f**k would you go get a freaking truck when your only 17, what are you a freaking construction worker and second, idiot! God cant believe these people.
    . </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'm tired of hearing Honda people cry about how large the American engines are. You're pretty fxcking stupid if you think that Ford, Chevy, or any other American car isn't capable of producing a tiny engine with high horse power. Yeah, OK. The United States was the first to land on the moon, but with todays technology our engineers are too stupid to design an engine like Honda? Give me a fxcking break! As most of you know Ford owns Mazda, the Mazda RX7 is God's gift to Japanese sports cars, which means Ford has full access to all of Mazda's engineering. Oh damn, you feel stupid now don't you.

    The fact is that Ford and Chevrolet CHOOSE to design larger displacement engines for their pony/sports cars. Why? Because the gains in torque for outweigh the loss in weight. It's funny how you rarely see the word "torque" come out of a Jap car lover's mouth. Also, Honda boys BRAG about there tiny engines, but then add those stupid fart-cans to their exhaust to try and make them sound bigger. (Just a hint Rice Burners, it sounds more like a weed-wacker than a V8 when you do that)
    You should really know what the fxck you're talking about before you go knocking the engineering of an engine. You're an idiot if you think just because an engine has large diplacement, it's not well designed. Read every article out there about the C5 Corvette and you will see them complimenting the engineering and design of the AWARD WINNING 5.7 Liter LS1 engine. With 350 Horsepower, 375 lbs of torque, and 19-26 MPG it's a true powerhouse. The Z06 gets that good gas mileage with 405 horse power and 400 lbs of torque. All of that in a car that barely breaks 3000 lbs in total curb weight.
    Now if you buy a car so you can have a small engine and good gas mileage, that's good for you. I buy a car so I can win races, but that's just me.
    <!-- Signature -->
  8. Ha, what exactly do you mean by "production car"? How many R390's were produced?
  9. The SVT Cobra 4.6L, the Northstar, the engine used in the Cobra R. All DOHC. And get this, in almost all of them have as much torque as HP. And if your concerned about valves, GM have a 5v engine.
  10. But no 87 Buick GNX page. :(
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BrownDoggie</i>
    <b>I drive a 1966 Pro-Street Mustang that has run a best of 12.36 at Seattle International Raceway, I've got $15,500 invested; it has a bad-ass system, nice paint job, cool seats, and a 438.6 Horsepower motor I, myself, built, thank you. So no, you're rice-mobile doesn't scare me.

    Road & Track is legendary for writing faster times than any other literary vehicle source. I've never heard anything faster than 14.8, where the hell are you getting 13.9 stock? I've got sources to back up everything I say, just like Seansvette and Guibo. All you've done is make up arbitrary bullshit and whence proven wrong, make up something else to try and compensate. List a viable source for the 13.9-second quarter mile of an stock S2000. A Mustang GT runs 14.5 with 20 more Horsepower and a solid rear axle, and weighs 250 lbs more.

    And what did I spell wrong that kept you from being able to read my post? Is anyone else having these problems? I can read my posts...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I can read your posts. We all spell things wrong, this isn't a literary magazine. Don't take that shit.

    I actually saw a stock S2000 do the 1/4 in 14.2. The difference is that at the factory and at Road and Track they faithfully do side-step launches and lift-throttle, single-clutch shifts. No one drives or races that way; those guys do it because it's just easier to get consistent results. They also always do it on a half tank of gas, I think. Still, the idea that an exhaust (even if he meant the header too) could shave a half second off his time is pretty unlikely. But it's not impossible, especially if he got better tires (althought the S02 Pole Positions are already pretty good) and drained the gas tank for the run.

    By the way, have any of you ever heard of elliptical cylinders? Instead of round cylinders, they're stretched at the sides. Two fuel injectors, two spark plugs. I guess if you make it a perfect ellipse and have a spark at each of the two centroids you get absolutely insane power efficiency. The parts are also insanely expensive. I met this guy at an auto show who had made his own engine for an old Porsche 944 body. He showed me an example of the pistons, it looked pretty cool. He said the engine was NA, 3.6L, and put out upwards of 600hp and 550ft lbs at the crank. He set the redline at 6500 for the safety of his engine. I took a look at the engine, and it certainly was custom, but I couldn't tell for sure if the cylinders were elliptical because everything was packed in so tight. It sounded awesome, really smooth. I doubt he was pulling my leg, he actually had schematics and some parts, like the oval-shaped piston. Anyone know what I'm talking aobut?<!-- Signature -->
  12. My garage:
    A foot in yo ass.
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from CRF Speed Demon</i>
    <b>Can american cars produce power
    of course they can, but u know what the difference is
    look at vipers, V10, Nooooooo traction at all, shit handling, all top speed and cost how much money. Now I got lots of videos of stock civic hatchbacks than a supercharger thrown in blowing away vipers, corvettes, camaros, mustangs, firebirds, whatever the yanks got. And ya know what its not horsepower that counts, u stick a 1100horsepower engine in a transport truck, and one in a Supra. Straight up its all about Horsepower to weight ratio. Plus you can make any car go fast top speed like a shit viper, all about gearing. Now you can go get a brand spankin new Civic SiR for about 20 grand put a couple into it and that lil 4 banger will fly. Outclassin cars that cost 5 times as much, and with over 2x the engine size. The thing is with Hondas and Toyotas, theyre practical, good on gas, reliable, good horsepower to weight ratio, good horsepower per litre, and theyre not just for the dragstrip. U might not race anyone in a street course but flying round turns is just as fun as drivin in a straight line. I myself own a 2002 Honda CRF450 motocross bike, it has 55 horsepower, the best horsepower per weight. And being a Honda it pumps out 125horsepower per litre. Whoever came up with this 'No replacement for displacement' is a #$%#ing idiot. Id go for the smallest possible engine with the most power available. You wanna pop ur hoods and show off ur big hunks of rusting steel, have fun bud. Import or Die, New technology taking over, u muscle car boys gotta embrace the revolution! Stock Veilside vs. Stock anything from the U.S ya my point exactly and Supras dont even cost that much, they're affordable all you guys talk about Vipers like u drove one this morning, good luck will most people on this site ever own a viper helllllls no, are there, ofcourse, will most ppl on this site ever on a Supra, its quite possible, will anyone on this site own a Civic very well possible and thats what makes them so good they're out there so anyone could get them and personalize them.
    IMPORT OR DIE...340horsepower/litre ya whats up!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->haha i really don't know where you are getting your information from, but Vipers have a ton of grip (ever look at the skidpad rating) and great handling (ever look at the slalom time) and they are monsters on the track. It is pretty obvious that you know little about them from your ignorant statements.

    <!-- QUOTE -->
    "Now I got lots of videos of stock civic hatchbacks than a supercharger thrown in blowing away vipers, corvettes, camaros, mustangs, firebirds, whatever the yanks got."<!-- END QUOTE -->

    Now that is precious, first you say it is stock then you add a supercharger... care to add a supercharger to any of the American cars you listed? I am sure you are talking about on a drag strip because the Civic with a supercharger will not beat a Vette or a Viper on a track. If it is on the strip you are going to need a WHOLE lot more than a supercharger to beat a Vette or a Viper for sure... that is just funny that you know nothing about them.

    Do you realize that stock a Supra is no faster than a Camaro, and it weighs about the same.

    <!-- QUOTE -->"Now you can go get a brand spankin new Civic SiR for about 20 grand put a couple into it and that lil 4 banger will fly. Outclassin cars that cost 5 times as much, and with over 2x the engine size. The thing is with Hondas and Toyotas, theyre practical, good on gas, reliable, good horsepower to weight ratio, good horsepower per litre, and theyre not just for the dragstrip."<!-- END QUOTE -->
    You can get into a Brand Spanking new Camaro Z28 for $23,000 and the $3000 price difference is not going to make that Civic faster period!! What happens when you get the Civic into the same performance envelope with the Camaro? You eliminater the best things it has going for it... reliability and gas milage. You put another $3000 into each and you have a Civic that can do the 1/4 in the low 13's and a Camaro with 400 HP and the 1/4 in the low 12's and at this point the civic is down to about the same gas milage as the camaro and the reliability is going to be not so good. You just can't beat American performance for the price.
    As you said earlier power to weight is a very important factor, but then you bring up HP/L... ummm that is a useless stat. HP/L tells you nothing about gas milage torque, HP, engine weight or performance times.... basicly nothing that is useful, kind of like my stereo has 8 knobs and yours has 12... who really cares it is useless.
    What makes you think that American cars are only good for the dragstrip? Just because they excell on the strip doesn't mean that they are not good track cars. The Camaro SS beat a Boxter S and the Honda S2000 at Thunderhill raceway (a road course) pretty convincingly. They are truly not just for the dragstrip, and the Viper and Vette have both dispached some of Europe's best on their own road courses, it appears that you really don't know what you are talking about and you are just trying to start trouble with ignorance and misinformation.

    <!-- QUOTE -->"Whoever came up with this 'No replacement for displacement' is a #$%#ing idiot. Id go for the smallest possible engine with the most power available. " <!-- END QUOTE -->
    I imagine most people that are into Honda tuning do not agree with you, they all throw away the 1.6L engine and throw in the larger replacement engine... oh well if you want to stick with the small one that is fine, but if you pull up to a Civic that has done the engine swap don't expect to beat him easily, he has the advantage in torque and HP and withthe larger displacement he has a greater maximum potential than smaller displacement and there is no arguing with that.

    <!-- QUOTE -->"Stock Veilside vs. Stock anything from the U.S ya my point exactly and Supras dont even cost that much, they're affordable all you guys talk about Vipers like u drove one this morning, good luck will most people on this site ever own a viper helllllls no, are there, ofcourse, will most ppl on this site ever on a Supra, its quite possible, will anyone on this site own a Civic very well possible and thats what makes them so good they're out there so anyone could get them and personalize them.
    IMPORT OR DIE...340horsepower/litre ya whats up"<!-- END QUOTE -->
    Are you a complete idiot? Stock Veilside? that is like saying stock Lingenfelter Corvette or stock Hennessey 800TT viper, they are not stock, they are tuned cars and i have seen 1300 HP street legal Vettes and 1500 HP street legal Camaro's and Mustangs what does the 1100HP Veilside supra have over them??? nothing.
    No i don't own a Viper but i have driven one, and i might just own one someday (i am in college for Electrical Engineering), and i have to say that it was a great experience, it handled great and it had HUGE amounts of torque (that is why it has such a phenomenal 1/4 mile and 1 mile time.
    I have owned both American and Japanese cars (yes it was a 100 HP/L car.. big deal) and i am not biased against either, but seeing someone that is so biased and spewing such ignorant crap pisses me off.
    It also appears that you didn't know that a Supra and a Vette were the same price new, since you are constantly talking about how good of value they are. Yes they were almost as fast as the Vette for about the same price, the thing that made them not quite as fast is the extra weight they carry (about 300 lbs more than the Vette) for having close to the same HP rating.

    Ever wonder why it takes a Supra with 600 HP to match a mustang or Camaro with 500 HP?<!-- Signature -->
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from LanciaDeltaIntegraleS4</i>
    <b>I used to really like imports, but now, after hearing posts from the real ricers, I'm not so interested. None of you seem to know anything about cars; it's all about competition with your buddies. "Hey, man, check out my new header and catback exhaust system: 8 extra horses!" "Look how low my commuter car is!" "I got some cool stickers that make my car go fast!" "I just got wasted by one of those worthless American cars. He must have had NOS or some other stupid cheater thing."

    I don't like american muscle/performance cars. I don't like the image that they impose on their drivers. They're excellent for modifying and racing, even though they're not the best looking, the most reliable, and they guzzle gas. I respect the results that they get, but, again, I don't like the "American Muscle" image that you get with them.

    The problem is that if you want the same performance AND style, you have to go Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, TVR, Lambo, etc. I don't have that kind of money right now, so if I really had the need for speed I would seriously consider a Camero, Corvette, or Mustang. I would absolutely not consider getting a Civic and a supercharger. However, I would get a 300ZX TT or a 2.5RS. Those cars are pretty cool, and with some work they could run with the big boys. Still, with the same $$, you'd get more from a Camero or something. There really is no replacement for displacement, after all.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'm glad you see the light when it comes to Rice Burners. But let me clear up a couple of things.

    American pony cars (Camaros, Mustangs, TransAm, etc) are not clumps of metal thrown together with a big engine. They are exactly what they're intended to be- affordable power. Let me address some of the specific things you have mentioned.

    "Gas Guzzling" Unfortunately more performance usually means you use more fuel. One car may have more performance and still use less fuel (especially with forced air induction), but generally higher performing cars use more fuel. Now if you look at Chevy's LS1, it has outstanding power and it still has very good gas mileage (28 mpg highway).

    "Muscle car image" With any car made to go fast there is a stigma. I'm 28 and I drive a Corvette which has the midle-aged, mid-life crisis image. Mustangs and Camaros have the racer-boy image. Porsches and Ferraris have the "I'm rich and I want to show off" image. Riced out Hondas have the "I watched Fast & Furious too many times" image. I my opinion you should just go with what YOU like.

    "American cars are not the best looking" I can't really tell you much about that. I don't agree but looks are a personal taste. <!-- Signature -->
  15. I hear what you're saying about the higher priced goodies! I too, dream about shxt that I can't afford right now (such as the Viper Hennessy, Saleen SR, etc.)
    As far as the Mustang 5.0s, I agree with you that they're kind of ugly (a personal taste). Too boxy for me. Stock performance isn't that great either. I know I may sound like a ricer, but the one good thing about the Mustang 302 is what you can do to them. They only have a little bit more than 200 horse power and torque, but you also have a lot of displacement to work with. It's not uncommon to see a 400 or even 500+ horse power 5.0 Mustang, some of them without even using forced air induction. The 99+ SOHC 4.6 liter Mustangs have a lot more power than the old 5.0 stock, but you really can do more with a 5.0 as far as aftermarket parts. <!-- Signature -->



    <!-- Signature -->
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>Now can we really compare Mustang Cobras to Honda S2000s? hmm thats an Odd way to compare cars. Technically speaking, the S2000 is a much "finer" car than most american made sports cars, including the Vette. Just by checking the car around, without even having to drive it. Honda even uses a better body paint! look at the Vette or mustanges for an instance, fast and tourquey Vehicles, but definitly NOT fine made. lets say the Z06 costs $35000 to be manufactured. Chevy must've invested $30000 on the engine, and then was left with $5000 to be invested in everything else... now thats shameful! .. and thats why when you sit in a Honda NSX, or a Porsche 911 and then instantly jump into a Viper, or a Vette, you'll feel how cheap quality everything around you is (except for the engines though).

    P.S. SeansVette for your info Jap/Middle east S2000s are [email protected] not 240.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Simzer, yet you had no disagreements to 300zxdriver's claim that American cars get outperformed by Hondas.

    "Technically speaking, the S2000 is a much "finer" car than most american made sports cars, including the Vette."
    Finer? Could you be just a little more vague?

    "Honda even uses a better body paint!"
    There's nothing wrong with the paint on my car. It's 3 years old and shines like new.

    "lets say the Z06 costs $35000 to be manufactured. Chevy must've invested $30000 on the engine, and then was left with $5000 to be invested in everything else"
    Please show me a price quote for $30,000 for a new LS1 engine. Especially considering you're talking about Chevrolet's COST. Saying the "MUST'VE" invested... is the same thing as saying, "I really don't know shxt, so I'm going to stereotype and make an ASSumption." Did that $5000 left over also go to the Digital Indicator which measures every temperature and pressure in the car- right down to the tires? Did it also go to the heads-up display light that reflects off of the windsheild? How about the all electric seats, mirrors, and telescoping steering wheel (all of them with dual memory mode)? What about traction control, active handling, and competition mode?
    I'm sure with all of these electric goodies there's still plenty of the $5000 left over to do to the top-notch racing suspension, breaks, wheels, run-flat tires, exhaust, etc.

    "and thats why when you sit in a Honda NSX, or a Porsche 911 and then instantly jump into a Viper, or a Vette, you'll feel how cheap quality everything around you is"
    Have you sat inside a Z06 Corvette? The interior is damn nice, it's like sitting in a cockpit. Does does the NSX have nicer interior? Perhaps, and the Porsche 911 definately does.

    If you would rather spend an extra $35,000 of your hard earned money on a car that performs less but has nicer interior, great. The NSX is the car for you. I will take the Z06 and have balls to the walls raw power, awesome handling, and an interior that's nice but not quite as "pretty."

    The Porche 911 Turbo is a BADASS car. Few cars on the planet stand a chance against it. Guess what? In the Car and Driver superchallenge the Z06 and 911 were neck and neck in every catagory, and the Z06 actually had an edge! Is the 911 a more "desireable" car? Of course it is! But for $111,000 verses $50,000 it damn well should be.

    You can whine and cry all you want about paint this and cheap that. But look at the $50,000 Z06, and the $35,000 03 Mustang Cobra (390 horsepower, 390lbs of torque). If you take all things into consideration American cars are the best buy, hands down.

    Now if money were no object to me, sure I'll go for a nice Porsche. But I sure as hell wouldn't waste perfectly good money on a Honda.

    <!-- Signature -->
  18. we seem to be forgetting that we are putting a 4 cyl honda against the best ford makes, haha. and my money's still on the honda. its better made. unlike engine parts in the USA, japanese parts can be machined insead of cast. if you know anything about building processes you will know that this will produce a product that is much more resistant to pressure. normally a better tranny on the honda also.(maybe not in this case but, once again, my money is still on the honda). it also redlines very high, this helps give the car better acceleration. and once again, companies can say what they want about power. for example, one guy i know has a 95 impala ss. he said it was rated at around the 200hp range.(haven't checked for sure) it is the fastest 4-door i have ever ridden in (over 160 on track), displaying more than any 200hp car i have ever ridden in, so obviously there was more involved. what i am saying is that hp is just a very specific rating. torque is even worse, the ferrari 360 has in the upper 200s on torque and it will spank a stang, badly. i don't care what kind of stang it is. its not about your engine's power, its about getting that power to the wheels.
  19. SeansVette(calling you by your name without dissing you in anyway), you have to know something, you proved my point solidly. there was a missunderstanding in some way, where I thought you guys are concluding that HP& Torque only cross at 5252RPMs, while the fact is they could be equal at different points as well (in terms of different RPMs, not the same RPM value) but that was settled long b4 you posted. HP & torque are in no way inversely proportional. Thus, when you increase your HP, your torque(following a semi-mechanically justified pattern) will increase. is Torque important? as an engineer I assure you it is very important. is HP important? you should be darn stupid(not to say that you are) if you concluded otherwise. because when you state "using basic algebra the inverse formula is correct" it is not just basic algebra, it is a sceintific fact. I am not sure what your educational background is, but some of the guys here really back up there statements by engineering related facts, such as LanciaDelta, and Guibo. You see, Turbine driven G.Gs (Gas generators) i.e Rolls Royce Avons, G.E. Mach IVs, and French Dresser Rands, the ones we usually use in the Oil industry, all produce extremely low torque output compared to the amount of Power output (HP), and you know what ? Turbines are used to power huge jetliners. another example, hydraulic lifters, are known to have extremely high torque, but not too much comparable power, any speed in hydraulic lifters? its just a matter of knowing what exactly torque is and how it is related to HP, which i Assure you, the relation is more complicated than just simple mathematics. two short exammples I really want you to thoroughly contemplate, the 1994 Mustang GT, and the new 2002 T-bird. the Stang has 215HP and 285ftlb, is it fast? without mods, just the plain 285ftlb of origial torque! why isn't it as fast as lets say.. hmm the NSX? with less available torque? can you justify it ? if torque is the main importance factor in the how fast issue! and lets see the New T-bird! twice the displacement, and amount of cylinders of the S2000, makes almost same HP and 110ftlb of excess torque. why is that ? and why isnt it even in the same performance vecinity of the S2000? are american engines under-rated for power? you tell me.
    anyways, the S2000 makes a low 153ftlb, but does it do the 60mph in the realm of the 5's? and a considerably quick 1/4 mile? so you know what, i'll take the performance, and leave you the numbers to enjoy.


    P.S I, in no way tried to state that the torque-to-Hp dyno relation is incorrect, and I have previously noted the misunderstanding.<!-- Signature -->
  20. #21 SeansVette, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Simzer, when it comes to automobile engines, horse power and torque DO only cross at 5252. The reason is because of the formula.
    HP = Torque X RPM divided by 5252

    What happens at 5252 RPM? You multiply the torque by 5252, then divide that number by 5252. Obviously you know math well enough to know you end up with the same number you started with.

    Horse power is DIRECTLY related to both torque and RPMs. Do some engines make high torque and not very much horse power? Of course, especially if you look at diesel engines. The are very low reving engines. High reving Hondas (such as the S2000) make a lot of horse power but not very much torque.

    If you still don't believe me check out this great explainations

    Click on the above. Notice the one line next to the example torque/hp curve which says, "Don’t believe in curves that you see if the torque and power curves don’t cross at 5250 rpm."<!-- Signature -->
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>Guibo, you missed my point. so the 94 Stang is 240lbs heavier than the current NSX, but thats not what I was questioning! just compare the torque values, and tell me why doesn't that excess torque balance the mustang's slight overweight problems? there is still H U G E difference between the performances of both cars. besides when the aforementioned mustange was built, the NSX was already 4 years old, which makes the technology available then. I am in no way comparing the Mustang to the NSX(its just unfair), yet I was trying to prove that higher torque doesn't necesseraly mean better accelleration/speed. there are several other relative elements as 300ZXdriver noted earlier. most of the currently manufactured sports cars reach their peak HP at lofty RPMs, and thats the case with both the S2000 and for instance the T-bird, and because the S2000 has a tiny engine, it W I L L unfortunately have low torque production. but hey, the S2000 is an all around great roadster, with a reasonable price(compared to other similar packages)
    $6000 more that what you would pay for a slugish&clumsy miata, and @least the same amount less than other euro roadsters, which in the case of a performance comparison, would be cracked in half by the S2K. agreed?

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I hope you don't mind if I jump in again...

    Here's the deal, so far as I understand it, about horsepower. Here we go with the physics again. To make your car go faster, you need to give it more kinetic (motion) energy (kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity squared). To get more energy you have to do work (work done = change in kinetic energy). To do work, you need power. A certain amount of power (horsepower, essentially) can only do a certain amount of work in a given time. That's why you want more power. To do more work in less time so you can get kinetic energy which - because it cannot increase the mass of your car - makes you go faster. That probably made no sense unless you remember a lot of BS from your high school physics class; I didn't define any of the terms I used.

    Anyway, the problem is that when you're driving along, you can't just make your engine jump to its peak horsepower output. You're in a set gear, and you cannot change the engine speed because the engine is directly connected to the wheels which need energy to change speed. Your horsepower peak is actually the point at which you will accelerate the quickest, not your peak torque. The reason that you want low-end torque is that it gives you horsepower throughout your rev range, so that no matter how fast your engine is running, you can give your car the kinetic energy it needs to go fast quickly. Now it's time for my CVT ad...

    With a CVT (continuously variable transmission), you can dynamically adjust the gear ratio that transfers torque from your crankshaft to your wheels, either manually or by computer. That means that you can lock the engine at a certain speed and change your road speed by changing the gear ratio. The way it works in most cars now is that the engine speed changes and the gear ratios stay the same, within anywhere from three to seven preset numbers. For example, with a CVT, you could press the pedal down on the S2000 and wait for it to get to 8300RPM, and then keep it there. The gear ratio would change at the slowest speed so that you would just barely keep traction on the rear wheels, and you would produce 240HP the WHOLE TIME YOU ACCELERATED. You wanna know why you don't see these in cars all the time? Mostly because they freak people out. They hear this monotone from the engine and they think something's wrong. You can get them on the Hybrid cars and on the newest Audi A4 3.0 (non-Quattro), but virtually nowhere else. Also, the ones they have on those cars are designed as automatics that enhance fuel economy and ride quality, not performance. I've head of toroidal transmissions (a type of CVT based on the geometric shape a toroid, which is the mathematical term for a doughnut) in Nissan Skyline GT-R34s that have decreased the 0-60 times - for an otherwise stock Skyline - to 4.2s. The problem with these is that you actually lose a lot of power in them and they're not very reliable, especially when they're cold. Anyway, you'll see them more often, since Audi designed a pretty good one and it's selling well. I can't wait to start seeing them in sports cars, though!

    ...and you thought Sizmer's post was long-winded...<!-- Signature -->
  22. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>Regarding the S2000, its 0-60 time of around 5.5 seconds is exemplary, for a N/A 4-cylinder. But most magazine testers have to rev it up to 8000 rpm (only about 1K short of redline) in order to do this. Said Motor Trend:
    "The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds."</blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Wow, I didn't know that. It shouldn't be surprising, though, because the car has no power below 6000rpm. You need to drive it like a maniac to get it to go fast.

    LOL...shifting at 5500 is about where I need to shift in my 145lb-ft car (actually, it's 6250 at the rev limiter), which weighs about as much as the S2000. I can get to 60 in the mid 8s range.

    What would those numbers have been if you shifted a Z06 at 4500? You wouldn't want to start that high, most likely, but the 0-60 would probably be significantly higher thant the 3.9 quoted as the max, my guess is about 6s.<!-- Signature -->
  23. Launching at 4500 in a Z06 will probably increase the 0-60 time, but not due to lack of power or torque. Quite the opposite. With those revs, the Z06 will probably just sit there for a good second or two, smoking away its tires. And at 4500 rpm, there's not much room left before the car hits its rev limiter. Judging by what I've read, it seems most owners (and the magazine testers) prefer a launch below 3000 rpm, with 2200-2500 usually giving the best results.
  24. let me get this strait, you are comparing a 94 stang to an NSX??!?!?
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA if you think a stang will take an nsx i have to burst your bubble. torque values or no, i hate to tell you this, but that acura will tear both the stang and this honda to little pieces anywhere, track or 1/4 mile. it doesn't matter how much torque that 94 stang has, that car is not gonna last 100ft against an NSX. the car goes nearly 170 mph. only the new model mustang cobra R and the coming svt cobra hit that kind of speed. not a 94, which (if you are talking about gt) has the old 5.0 in it. that means 215 hp v. the 290 in the acura, not to mention the acura has the gearing and suspension to use its power to its potential.

Share This Page