Re: My S2000 beats any car.

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

  1. No problem. I'm learning as I go along too.
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>Okay, tired of people acting like engineers wanna be. So getting high horsepower from 2000 cc engines is not that tricky? .. yeah ok. anyways Quiz time; for all of you my distinguished students:

    I have 3 cars, 1- makes 215HP@4200RPM & 285ft-lb@3400RPM True/False
    *2- makes 400HP@5750RPM & 400ft-lb@4500RPM True/False
    *3- makes 264HP@6500RPM & 261ft-lb@3900RPM True/False

    Now, please there is a highlight on both #s 2 & 3. Hint: (remember SeansVette's famous formulas, and you can't go wrong). am I a lier? am I not?

    Please guys stop talking about horsepower as a Calculated number that we derive from torque values! HP = (torque x RPM)/5252 ? okay so Torque does not = (HP x 5252)/RPM ?
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Actually, by laws of math ALL THREE of your examples are at least possible. What's your point?

    "Please guys stop talking about horsepower as a Calculated number that we derive from torque values!"
    THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HORSE POWER IS! I love it when people (who are completely wrong) try to patronize others! LOL

    Horse Power DOES equal (torque x RPM) divided by 5252. That is a very well known FACT.

    Yes, if you use basic algebra to solve for torque you get..

    Torque = horse power x 5252 divided by RPM. <!-- Signature -->
     
  3. good job, seansvette. you get a cookie. now lets continue on w/ something besides hp. i know it looks sound on paper, but when i saw a nonturbo eclipse beat a GT stang (yes they were both racing), i lost my faith in the factory ratings. don't get me wrong, i like american cars, but camaros and stangs?!?! come on ppl, if we are gonna talk sports cars, lets keep the rif-raf out. and lets also open every competition point. bec. there are very few ppl who drop the cash for a honda S2000 just to beat camaros and mustangs. they buy it because, lets face it, the S2000 has class. it's comfortable and luxurious on the inside, and, if it follows the same pattern as every other honda i have seen in my life, it will be very easily maintained. not to mention it will last longer than its american counterparts. i am not dissing the american cars, i am just stating what i have learned from experience with american, japenese, and some euro cars.
     
  4. I swear to god every Sushi Burners rebuttal is, "my friends car this, my mother's car that, your Mustang got beat by a baseball bat."

    Dude, you're inserting an arguement that had nothing to do with my post or the reason I was posting it. Mr. Rocket Scientist was telling me the HP formula I posted was BS, and I was simply telling him he doesn't know Dick. (for you moderators I meant Dick as in Richard). <!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Regarding the Mustang vs. NSX issue:
    Uh, how much does that Mustang weigh? Something like 300-400 more lbs than the NSX? Does the aluminum bodywork have something to do with that? It plays a large role. The NSX's engine was primarily designed from the beginning as a high revver. That's in the nature of the vehicle. Lightweight engine internals (titanium connecting rods, for instance) reduce reciprocating mass. The engine is a spinner. All of this is clearly quite evident in its price tag: now around $90K (even though earlier ones were $60K, that's not small change).
    The Mustang's designers didn't have those criteria in mind when they built the Mustang. They had to satisfy a target audience with only about 1/3rd as much money to spend. And they do it quite well, I don't think Ford receives too many complaints that its Mustangs should rev to 8K rpm. It's just not in the nature of the vehicle.

    Same applies to the Thunderbird vs. S2000 comparo. The Thunderbird is a heavyweight boulevard cruiser. They're totally different vehicles with different purposes, appealing to vastly different audiences. By the same token, witness that not every single one of Honda's engines produce 100 hp/l. The Accord with a V6 does just fine without it. It meets its target audience.

    Is Ford incapable of great engines? I don't think so. One can look at the Ford Focus FR200. Or the Tremor SUV concept vehicle. 5 valves per cylinder, 85 hp/l out of a 4.6-liter engine. Variable valve timing on the exhaust cam. Pretty trick. But Ford's typical SUV buyer didn't care for it. So it wasn't built.
     
  6. 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?

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Nice long winded post, Simzer. But do you still think that torque and horse power don't always cross at 5252 RPM?<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. <!-- 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)

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    But aren't you though?
    Just as you said, there's more to acceleration than just torque, hp, and weight. Other variables between these two cars:
    Weight distribution (the NSX's mid-engine layout is more ideal than the Ford's; the only better layout would be rear-engined)
    Tires (I'll bet the NSX's are significantly more sport-oriented than the Mustang's.)
    Aerodynamics (specs, anyone?)
    Gearing (final drive on the NSX is 4.06:1; the Mustang's is 3.08:1)

    LOL, there's only so much a $20K car can do against a $60K car.

    Besides, why must we consider only the Mustang as the standard bearer for Detroit iron? It's been looking at Camaro taillights for years.

    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."

    More than 11 seconds. Yikes. What would happen if they tried launching at only 2K rpm? Can you imagine this car with an automatic transmission? Ford Mustangs with automatic trannies sell quite well. And I'm pretty sure they hit 60 in something quite a bit less than 11 seconds. For a lesson in what torque and light weight can do for you, consider the 427 Cobra. It will do the 1/4 mile in 16.2 seconds. From a dead stop, starting in 4th gear, its top gear.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b> $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 -->
    Err...are you saying the M Roadster would be "cracked in half" by the S2K? The Miata is "sluggish and clumsy"?
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>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. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What I said is that you WOULDN'T want to launch the Z06 at 4500 for precicely that reason: you'd just smoke the tires for a little while and not gain any speed. The clock's ticking as soon as the light turns green or as soon as you've gone 12 inches - if you're doing a real 0-60 run - so your time would be higher than if you launched lower. What I was saying is that you wouldn't want to shift at 4500, you'd want to take it all the way to the redline, most likely. You'd have to take a good look at the power curve and do some calculations to actually find the ideal shifting speed, but it'd probably be somewhere close to the redline anyway. My point is that any car will decrease significantly in performance if you don't take it to its redline and launch at an appropriate level. The statistics that were posted before are cool, but you'd expect that sort of difference in any car, not just the S2000.<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Launch the Z06 at 4500 rpm, you go nowhere fast. Burning rubber, as you and I have said. Doing the same in an S2000 results in what? A bogged launch, most likely. Which is why most mags need to rev to 8K to get those results. This does not bode well for clutch longevity.
    C&D does a rolling street start, 5-60 mph. The S2000 takes 7.3 seconds to do this (they still shift at redline, or whatever level produces the best results). From a standing start (where they can rev to 8K and drop the clutch), it took 5.4 seconds. The street start takes 35% longer than from a standing start.
    On the other hand, the old Z06 gets to 60 in 4.3 seconds from a dead stop. Even in the rolling start from 5 mph, it still gets to 60 in less than 5 seconds. 4.9, to be exact. That's a difference of only 14%. Keep in mind that the S2000's 4.10:1 final drive is considerably more advantageous for acceleration than the Z06's rather lazy 3.42:1.
    I'm not exactly sure what rpm the Z06 is at when it's cruising along at 5 mph. But according to the dyno chart I posted, it makes around 160 hp at 2600 rpm. At that same point, it's making 315 lb/ft of torque. I'm guessing the torque is playing a huge role in allowing the Z06 top leap forward at a rolling start (where it's more difficult to break traction in order to get a good 0-60 time; remember, most cars acclerate best with some wheelspin).
     
  11. Ok, I was refering to the Audi TT, Merc. SLK, and the 3.0L Z3, but definitly not the M roadster, which I know from a personal experience that it's a bit faster than the S2000. Besides, the M roadster is about $15,000 more expensive, and not only $6000.

    Regarding the rolling start 5-60mph issue, I once took off from a red light without revving the car(to be more exact I was doing between 10-15mph) then at that speed slammed my pedal, shifted @ about 8500RPMs, and was able to keep up with my brother-in-law's 98 Lexus GS-400, which surely does the 60mph in a lot less than 7.3secs. it sometimes makes no sense to read totally different stats from two different magazines. the Fastest 1/4mile I read in an american magazine was 14.2secs, while some magazines stated from 14.4s-14.8s. I my self was able to click it in 13.9s, noting that my car is stock rated @250Hp and not 240Hp.

    worth to note that in one trial (in my totally brand new car!) I revved all the way up to 8000RMP and released the clutch, but the car just stayed there for a while burnning some rubber, shifted to 2nd, and guess what? burned some more rubber!! so I had to immediately ease my foot off of the accelerator. But that was probably due to the lack of traction caused by a bad road condition (so much for the "little tire spin").
    <!-- Signature -->
     



  12. Dream big?

    A Jaguar?

    My best friend has an XJ8 and it's more like a nightmare.

    Major quality control issues with numerous visits to the dealer in the three years he's had it.

    The damn thing even had a rattle inside the dash, in additon to many electrical problems, and a nasty habbit of refusing to start out of the blue.

    There is NO excuse for these kind of problems in a car of this supposed level.

    Nice to see the Ford influence at work.

    E
     
  13. its not ford's influence this time, we used to have an E-type (before ford had jaguar) that had way too many electronic problems for a luxury car. i realize they had a lot of electronics, but its a jaguar, and that is just not right.
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>Launch the Z06 at 4500 rpm, you go nowhere fast. Burning rubber, as you and I have said. Doing the same in an S2000 results in what? A bogged launch, most likely. Which is why most mags need to rev to 8K to get those results. This does not bode well for clutch longevity.
    C&D does a rolling street start, 5-60 mph. The S2000 takes 7.3 seconds to do this (they still shift at redline, or whatever level produces the best results). From a standing start (where they can rev to 8K and drop the clutch), it took 5.4 seconds. The street start takes 35% longer than from a standing start.
    On the other hand, the old Z06 gets to 60 in 4.3 seconds from a dead stop. Even in the rolling start from 5 mph, it still gets to 60 in less than 5 seconds. 4.9, to be exact. That's a difference of only 14%. Keep in mind that the S2000's 4.10:1 final drive is considerably more advantageous for acceleration than the Z06's rather lazy 3.42:1.
    I'm not exactly sure what rpm the Z06 is at when it's cruising along at 5 mph. But according to the dyno chart I posted, it makes around 160 hp at 2600 rpm. At that same point, it's making 315 lb/ft of torque. I'm guessing the torque is playing a huge role in allowing the Z06 top leap forward at a rolling start (where it's more difficult to break traction in order to get a good 0-60 time; remember, most cars acclerate best with some wheelspin).
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I seem to remember making that exact point once, but I guess I didn't say it in this thread. I agree, one of the disadvantages to the low torque in the S2000 is its rather ordinary pulling ability, which shows up in corners and street starts. There isn't enough torque to break traction when the car is already moving, so the engine has to work its way - slowly - up to the higher revs where it can produce more power to get the car going. I don't disagree with anything you said.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. WRXBuddy Said: 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. he said that to my homeboy who iced up his S2000...Man if you're a real car lover you would be givin this G MAD props! that car is off da hook!! and the fact that he doesn't care about ne thing else than his car is totally chill cause he'll probably make tons of cash from racing it.
     
  16. torque is not everything.<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from VR4</i>
    <b>Mitsubishi Lancer Evo7.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    In world war II a mitsubishi came within a few inches of killing my grandfather in WAR, thus almost killing me. Every time I see a Mitsubullshit I want to pull the driver out of the car and...<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. Hey If anyone insults an S2000 without driving one they must have been a pretty darned strong baby since they managed to climb out of the abortion basket. Don`t you losers have anything better to do then ***** at each other. GO S2000 GO!
     

Share This Page