Re: My S2000 beats any car.

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

  1. hes not talkin bout about whats the best car for its price or whatever its all about the style and personality of the person that helps him choose the car
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300zxdriver</i>
    <b>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. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    The Ferrari you mentioned has 276 lbs of torque at 4750 RPM, and (400!) horse power at 8500 RPM. No, 276 lbs of torque isn't a monstrous number but there are a couple of things to consider. The car only weighs close to 3000lbs flat. More important, it's not only PEAK torque that matters, but average torque accross the band. The Ferrari's torque peaks out at 4750RPM, but carries the horse power higher and higher all the way up to 8500RPM! THAT is impressive. When the Ferrari is at it's peak 400 horse power (3750 RPM later), it still has 247ft lbs of torque. That's only a 10% loss of torque carried accross almost 4000 RPM gain.
    The S2000 on the other hand does not peak it's torque until 7500 RPM, then the loss in torque creates a loss in horse power only 800 RPMs later (at 8300).

    Torque is a very, very important factor. There are many cars like the S2000 that have a lot of horse power, but not much torque. But unless you're driving a low reving diesel high torque will also = high horse power. <!-- Signature -->
     
  3. so you are saying that a ferrari has high hp but a low torque rating. this is offset by the fact the the powerband in the ferrari is enormous. correct? but do we know the powerband on the honda?
    or the mustang? i am really curious to this b/c i have seen some cars w/ a really high hp and torque rating get beat by some cars w/ a low hp and torque rating.
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300zxdriver</i>
    <b>so you are saying that a ferrari has high hp but a low torque rating. this is offset by the fact the the powerband in the ferrari is enormous. correct? but do we know the powerband on the honda?
    or the mustang? i am really curious to this b/c i have seen some cars w/ a really high hp and torque rating get beat by some cars w/ a low hp and torque rating. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    No, I'm not saying the Ferrari has a low torque rating. 276 ft lbs of torque is not low at all, it's just not monstrously high. Did you even read what I said? A Mustang GT has 302 lbs of torque (which is higher), but the AVERAGE torque accross a broad band is STILL higher on the Ferrari. Not to mention the Ferrari has 140 more horse power.

    When I was comparing the torque curve of the S2000 vs the Ferrari, you missed the point. On the Ferrari the peak horse power is 3750 RPMs AFTER the peak torque has been reached. On the S2000 the horse power begins to decline only 800 RPMs after the peak torque has been reached. Not to mention the Ferrari has 80% MORE torque than the S2000.

    Take an old Dodge Hemi engine. It revs very low, but the torque is just HUGE. Those babies can run 11s with no added hardware. <!-- Signature -->
     
  5. why is it hard for you people to be convinced that "American sports cars" are nothing but "High power, full of torque, and amazingly FAST" peices of crap! yep, stating your personal biased opinion will not void the solid fact that all american cars including sports, are manufactured with a very low quality standard. Please, especially SeansVette, no need to be offended, but you sure seem like someone who knows what he's talking about, yet you do seem to be extremely biased in favor of domestic production. Man, you should see the way people around the world are looking at american cars. what a shame. take a tour around europe, asia, or even africa, and tell me why the WHOLE world is thinking something, and you think otherwise?! I am sure you love your Vette, and that you would say anything to defend it, along with how much "gimmicks" there are in it. But stating your own opinion will not change facts, atleast, "Global" facts, not your facts. I carry a BS in Mechanical Engineering, from Penn State, and wish not to get into technical aspects of each car's design, especially that I do carry respect for the Power&drive-train of some of the American cars, like the LS-1s, so I'll just evaluate a car as a driver, not as a mechanic, or even an engineer. Now don't you start quoting lines and replying in splits, that way you will miss the point. when I said earlier that the S2000 is a much finer car, the whole point was not to be Vague, but to be broad. when I compared Cadillacs and Lincolns to Mercedes and Lexus, you had nothing to say! and when I gave the NSX/911 example I was talking about the quality, not the interior design. Because honestly, I do believe that poeple have different tastes, and that in my opinion, the Z06 looks like a batmobile from the inside. Finally, I was in the local Ford dealership today and passed by the new 2002 Mustangs GT&Cobra, and after I left and got into my S2000, I felt like its a real shame that you people have the audacity (excuse my language) to compare these low quality, plastic-filled, peices of junk, with an over all, pure breed, fine sports car like the S2000.
     
  6. "Finally, I was in the local Ford dealership today and passed by the new 2002 Mustangs GT&Cobra"

    Zimmer, being that they didn't make a 2002 Cobra I think it's safe to assume that everything else you just said is possibly bullshxt.

    Next. LOL<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. ok, you are saying that the ferrari will keep more of its torque in the higher rpm's than other cars, making it not only have an enormous powerband, but a high-reving engine that keeps most of the torque. am i starting to get this torque thing?
     
  8. Hahaha Sean da Mon! I was really expecting a real reply, bummer. Anyways, don't get carried away pal, I was talking about the 2002 GTs, and the Cobra! No it wasn't a 2002, that would be a silly mistake on my side, it was a 2001 SVT Cobra stock left over from last year. Please, i really want to check out what you think about the quality issues. and you keep on correcting people when they state a faster 1/4 mile times for the S2000, well I am telling you my S2000 clicks the 1/4 in 13.9s. and fortunately, the S2000's track time @ Grattan raceway park was 1:35.6s, aaaand how about the track's previous record? yes sir SVT Cobras, and Z28s, its 1:39.2s for the SCCA's T2 class. what do you have to say about that? Man, Stop claiming that the S2000 is slow, when the 1993+ Z28s were doing the same performance times, you guys were hyping about how fast it was. What a bunch of hypocrites!
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300zxdriver</i>
    <b>ok, you are saying that the ferrari will keep more of its torque in the higher rpm's than other cars, making it not only have an enormous powerband, but a high-reving engine that keeps most of the torque. am i starting to get this torque thing?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Yes. Once it reaches it's peak torque it carries it for a very long time. <!-- Signature -->
     
  10. thank you for the torque lesson, you had completely lost me on that one torque msg. being a japanese car driver, i don't deal much w/ torque. but i have found out where the japanese cars get the speed. its in the drastic differences in the gearbox, most american cars (i am told) have comparatively small differences in the gearing. this allows the japanese cars to accelerate more quickly by having fewer gears to shift through to get up to speed. this also gives them a greater boost in acceleration when they do switch gears (not to mention a pretty high top speed on the road. this also explains why many japanese cars rev up so high off of a normal take-off.
     
  11. No problem. I'll explain torque a little bit further for you.

    There is a technical definition of torque that I would have to look up to remember. Something like "the ability to lift 33,000 lbs for one minute" or something like that.

    Simply put, torque is the amount of force turning your wheels. The harder your wheels turn, the more torque you have. The "harder" your wheels turn on the street, the faster you will accelerate.

    Horse power is a unit of measure for amount of work your engine is doing. More torque = more work. Also more RPM = more work.
    That being said horse power is a CALCULATED number which considers nothing more than the amount of torque at a given RPM.

    Horse Power = Torque x RPM divided by 5252
    This is why horse power and torque will alway cross at 5252 RPM. The horse power ends up being... (X) torque times 5252 divided by 5252.
    Four interesting facts that just happen by laws of math.

    1: Horse power will always be equal at 5252
    2: The torque will ALWAYS be greater than horse power blow 5252 RPM
    3: The torque will ALWAYS be lower than horse power above 5252 RPM
    4: Peak horse power will always be at a higher RPM than peak torque.

    If someone makes a horse power claim where ANY of the above are not true, they're full of it. Also, even if all of the above are true, you might still be able to bust them.

    For example: "Dude, I got 550hp at 6000 RPM and 400lbs of torque at 4000 RPM!"
    That's physically and mathematically not possible because 550HP @6000 RPM = 481ft lbs of torque.


    It's always fun to bust fakes. Most posers don't know this formula.


    Knowing this formula you can ALWAYS convert horse power to torque, and torque to horse power (at the same RPM only). <!-- Signature -->
     
  12. #212 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>and fortunately, the S2000's track time @ Grattan raceway park was 1:35.6s, aaaand how about the track's previous record? yes sir SVT Cobras, and Z28s, its 1:39.2s for the SCCA's T2 class.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    How's that possible?
    Different drivers, different days.

    What happens when you put the same driver in the same cars on the same day?

    R&T, January '01, Thunderhill Park. Driver: Steve Millen
    S2000: 2:17.66
    Camaro SS: 2:16.46


    And don't forget to check these babies out:
    http://www.v8venom.com/video/SPIR-090901-R-S1L5.wmv
    http://www.v8venom.com/Video/THILL-032601-S5-L9.wmv

    That's a Mustang Cobra, with suspension and brake mods, but no supercharger. Making about 20 more RWHP than stock. Weighing about 4-500 lbs more than an S2000.
     
  13. I am just stating that all three cars(S2000/M Roadster/Boxter) beat the track's previous record, the S2000 being the fastest. and for the video clips(which I enjoyed) showed a race modified much more powerful cobra pass a couple of (possibly) stock S2000s with suckers behind their wheels. now does that prove anything? yeah that you can always mod a shitty car to make it race ready<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  14. 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 ? horsepower is the unit measure for mostly all rotary/internal combustion mechanical motors. everything from pumps, rotational compressing machines, turbines, has a factorial Horsepower measured value. and basically you college of engineering students, you create torque from horsepower, and not the other way around. and one of the main reasons why huge displacement engines carry an exessive amount of torque is the "Bore&Stroke" factor. big pistons, and longer engine strokes create higher force known as torque, which is the ability to move weight harder and with more force, and N O T faster. its like comparing being punched in the face by the Late Bruce Lee to being punched by Mike Tyson. Bruce is much faster, but Tyson with his huge biceps(displacement) will certainly crush your skull(nice analogy there). And for those of you who will ask why some lower displacement engines do produce high torque, the answer is known to be suplementary boosting(Centrifugal superchargers/Turbo chargers/Ram Air induction/blowers ..etc.) that are known to assist in "creating" additional "engine force". So please, I need some one to solve that earlier quiz (no cheating please).
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>I am just stating that all three cars(S2000/M Roadster/Boxter) beat the track's previous record, the S2000 being the fastest. and for the video clips(which I enjoyed) showed a race modified much more powerful cobra pass a couple of (possibly) stock S2000s with suckers behind their wheels. now does that prove anything? yeah that you can always mod a shitty car to make it race ready<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"></b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Much more powerful? It's not much more powerful than stock. And last time I checked, 3-400 lbs is <b>not</b> an advantage at a twisty track.
     
  16. #216 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>and basically you college of engineering students, you create torque from horsepower, and not the other way around.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Yes, you can mathematically measure hp directly, but on modern engines, it is torque that is measured using a dynomometer (like a Dynojet, for instance). From that twisting force and rpm, horsepower is calculated:
    "So on modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower."
    http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/torque_vs_horsepower.html

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>its like comparing being punched in the face by the Late Bruce Lee to being punched by Mike Tyson. Bruce is much faster, but Tyson with his huge biceps(displacement) will certainly crush your skull(nice analogy there
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Aha, now this is the perfect analogy!
    Who could hit more times per minute, Bruce (with his lightning-quick, light fists) or Mike (heavier arms and fists)?
    In other words, this is talking about rpm, revs, which translate to hp/l.
    We not only have to consider the larger and heavier pistons and connecting rods, but the not so obvious larger and heavier valvetrain. Imagine what it takes for the larger, heavier piston (or Mike's arm and fist, in relation to Bruces's) to travel up, then stop (Newton's laws of physics come into play here), then accelerate again in the opposite direction. And repeat. Obviously, the smaller, lighter setup will be able to rev quicker. And we haven't even begun to talk about frictional losses (larger pistons rings, bearing surfaces), what it takes to turn a much heavier crankshaft, and increased crankcase pressures.
    Can it not be said then that the smaller, lighter engine is already at an advantage in any kind of hp/l comparo, and the larger engine is at a disadvantage, assuming similar states of tune?
    Honda's inline, 4-stroke CBR motorcycle engines have been making more hp/l than the S2000, and even with Mikuni carburetors, let alone EFI and VTEC. T/F?
    The McLaren F1's BMW-designed and built engine is much larger than the S2000's, no doubt costs much more to build, yet is still a bit short of the S2000's specific output. T/F?
     
  17. Well, when I stated a much more powerful Cobra, I meant more powerful than the S2000, so combining the power & the race (brake/suspension) preping, I wouldn't be astonished to see the Cobra beat a stock S2000 on the track, even with the 400lbs weight disadvatntage.

    I am happy that you liked the analogy, and True the 929RR makes more HP/L than the S2000. in excess of 150HP while its engine is not even 1 full liter.

    but answer me this, how come a car can have equal torque & HP values @ 2 completely different RPM values?

    IF Honda was to manufacture a huge 8-Liter V-10 engine, how many horses will it produce out of it? I just wanna hear those who diss the Honda F1 engineers. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  18. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>Well, when I stated a much more powerful Cobra, I meant more powerful than the S2000, so combining the power & the race (brake/suspension) preping, I wouldn't be astonished to see the Cobra beat a stock S2000 on the track, even with the 400lbs weight disadvatntage.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Well, if you look at it, he's not passing on the straights. There's no see-saw battle with the Mustang gaining on the straights, and then losing ground in the corners. He passes in the corners, in which case power means very little.
    The beauty of this is: the Cobra is barely breathing. This guy's not even really dug into the tuning parts bin for this thing. Street-legal (and driven) Mustangs with over 400 hp aren't out of the ordinary. Meanwhile, an S2000 with that kind of power would be incredibly peaky, and difficult to drive outside of a racetrack.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>but answer me this, how come a car can have equal torque & HP values @ 2 completely different RPM values?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    What car are you talking about, exactly? I hope you haven't pulled a figure from this website. Some of the stats are notoriously wrong.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>IF Honda was to manufacture a huge 8-Liter V-10 engine, how many horses will it produce out of it? I just wanna hear those who diss the Honda F1 engineers.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    The answer is: it depends.
    Seeing how it is the current 3.2-liter NSX has trouble pushing 90 hp/l, there's no way they're going to replicate the 120 hp/l of the S2000 on a much, much larger engine. If they did match the specific output of the NSX, I wouldn't be surprised to see this thing cost nearly $300K. (Think TVR Cerbera Speed 12, but with the finer amenities and suspension tuning we've come to expect from the NSX name; that TVR is already over $215K USD.)
    If Honda's target price range is the current NSX (about $90K) then I think they could build the engine. But it wouldn't come with the rest of the car.

    BTW, props goes to Honda's F1 engineers. Same to BMW, Ferrari, etc. But, lessons learned in F1 don't always translate well to the real world.
     
  19. BTW, Porsche's new Carrera GT? Expected to have just over 100 hp/l from a 5.5-liter V10. Expected cost? $400K a piece. More than 5 times the cost of a Viper.

    Like the old saying goes: Speed costs money. How fast do you wanna go? In the Viper's case, you get a lot of speed for little money (relatively speaking). Ain't nothing wrong with that.
     
  20. You all argue with eachother too much, facts are the only things that matter, and they have to be relevant. You can't compare a v-10 viper to a i-4 S2000, that's just not fair.

    This hp/l thing, and hp to weight ratio thing intrigued me, so i went out and bought a kawasaki ninja sport bike, i think its faster than any of your cars...but, once again, its not comparable. But anyway, can't we all just get along? Props to Honda's F1 team for the S2000, props to Ford's Special Vehicles Team for the Cobra R. Who the hell cares? No matter what happens, Porsche can build a flat 6 that will beat anything, Mercedes/BMW can make one that's got more luxuries, and Ferrari/lamborghini can make one that looks better.<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. Finally! Someone sees what I've been saying all along.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from IS300andS2000</i>
    <b>You all argue with eachother too much, facts are the only things that matter, and they have to be relevant. You can't compare a v-10 viper to a i-4 S2000, that's just not fair.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    "Argue"? We're just shootin' the breeze here, chief.

    That's right. Dodge is no better served with a high hp/l Viper than Honda is with a monstrous, torquey V10. Different cars with different characters.
     
  22. Guibo, try looking up Both 1996 Porsche 911 Turbo, and the 1990 Lotus Esprit SE the 4-Cyl. TT which has slight difference in HP-Torque values at considerable difference in RPM values. and those happen to be posted correctly by supercars.net.
    Cheers.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. Simzer, I'm not exactly following what you're trying to say. Of course a car can have equal hp @ torque values at different rpm. The example of the 993 Turbo:

    400 hp @ 5750 rpm
    400 lb/ft @ 4500 rpm

    Or the Z06:
    385 hp @ 6000 rpm
    385 lb/ft @ 4800 rpm

    See? Very similar spread. The point is that on the dyno chart, the torque and hp lines will cross at 5252. Check out the dyno charts below. The first one is of a modified Porsche 930 Turbo. Notice that its peak hp and peak torque are pretty similar and about 1200 rpm apart. Not too different from the Z06 and 993 Turbo results above.

    The second one is of a chipped 951 (944 Turbo).
    The third one is of a '01 Z06.

     
  24. I'm glad that you guys are spreading the good word about torque. I don't know how many times I've heard things like, "Horsepower and torque are the same thing," or, "Horsepower is measured by acceleration and torque is measured by pulling ability." It was a long time before I understood what torque and horsepower really are, and it's become a very important part of my knowledge of cars and engines. Just thought I'd compliment you on some good explanations.<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page