S2000 vs. NSX
Jay!
09-10-2001, 02:46 PM
Ahh, but there's a twist! [dramatic music]
Let's compare a 2002 S2000 w/ hardtop with a 1991 NSX with 60K miles on it. This is purely hypothetical, so feel free to discuss the merits/downfalls of a ten-year-old sports car. Also, to keep this simple, let's say the NSX is unmodified, was always garaged, and has been well-maintained.
Me: I'd take the NSX almost without thinking. It's a freaking NSX!!! :cool:
Let's compare a 2002 S2000 w/ hardtop with a 1991 NSX with 60K miles on it. This is purely hypothetical, so feel free to discuss the merits/downfalls of a ten-year-old sports car. Also, to keep this simple, let's say the NSX is unmodified, was always garaged, and has been well-maintained.
Me: I'd take the NSX almost without thinking. It's a freaking NSX!!! :cool:
YogsVR4
09-10-2001, 02:54 PM
You said it right. Its a NSX! Why in the world would you choose the Hondas (accura - whatever) second choice? Even with 60K on it, the NSX is still an exotic and the S2000 is a big wind up toy.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Racer 20
09-10-2001, 03:23 PM
Take the NSX than get a blower for the engine. :bandit:
Chris
09-10-2001, 03:56 PM
Tough. The NSX has only about 15 more hp than the S2000. HOWEVER it is a supercar, all aluminum monocoque, all kinds of high tech. It is almost the same now as it was then, so we know how good it is.
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
In the end,,,,, NSX. It has so much panache, looks awesome, has way more potential than the S2000, is slightly faster (with much better power and especially torque, characteristics), and its a SUPERCAR.
But still, this wasa pretty tough at first, until you think about it
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
In the end,,,,, NSX. It has so much panache, looks awesome, has way more potential than the S2000, is slightly faster (with much better power and especially torque, characteristics), and its a SUPERCAR.
But still, this wasa pretty tough at first, until you think about it
YogsVR4
09-10-2001, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Chris
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
11 Seconds to sixty shifting that way? I realize the power band is high on that engine, but that just does not sound right.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
11 Seconds to sixty shifting that way? I realize the power band is high on that engine, but that just does not sound right.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Jay!
09-10-2001, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Chris
Tough. The NSX has only about 15 more hp than the S2000.In 1991, the NSX had 270hp. Later, it got a bigger engine for 290hp, but We're talking about the old one. :D
Tough. The NSX has only about 15 more hp than the S2000.In 1991, the NSX had 270hp. Later, it got a bigger engine for 290hp, but We're talking about the old one. :D
F20C
09-11-2001, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Chris
Tough. The NSX has only about 15 more hp than the S2000. HOWEVER it is a supercar, all aluminum monocoque, all kinds of high tech. It is almost the same now as it was then, so we know how good it is.
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
In the end,,,,, NSX. It has so much panache, looks awesome, has way more potential than the S2000, is slightly faster (with much better power and especially torque, characteristics), and its a SUPERCAR.
But still, this wasa pretty tough at first, until you think about it
You know how un-realistic that comparsion was. Let me tell you it does not take 11 seconds even if you shift at 5000RPM.
Tough. The NSX has only about 15 more hp than the S2000. HOWEVER it is a supercar, all aluminum monocoque, all kinds of high tech. It is almost the same now as it was then, so we know how good it is.
In its own right, the S2000 is also exceptional. (although, when shifted at 5000 rpm, then going to full throttle between shifts, it takes 11 seconds to get to sixty:( )
In the end,,,,, NSX. It has so much panache, looks awesome, has way more potential than the S2000, is slightly faster (with much better power and especially torque, characteristics), and its a SUPERCAR.
But still, this wasa pretty tough at first, until you think about it
You know how un-realistic that comparsion was. Let me tell you it does not take 11 seconds even if you shift at 5000RPM.
Chris
09-12-2001, 11:02 AM
The 0-60 of 11 seconds is sick, but it is true, a major magazine tested it this way, and it is its biggest fault. :(
Racing Rice
09-12-2001, 11:37 AM
That is a hard one to answer, but I had to pick the s2000.. What Im thinking is the car is still under warranty, run the crap out of it and if you break it warranty will fix it.
Now if they were both the same mileage and year and everything.. Id go with the NSX.
Now if they were both the same mileage and year and everything.. Id go with the NSX.
F20C
09-13-2001, 03:48 AM
I own one and I usually drive shifting at 5000 rpm. It does not come close to 11 seconds.
Moppie
09-13-2001, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by F20C
I own one and I usually drive shifting at 5000 rpm. It does not come close to 11 seconds.
LOL, 11secs!!! who ever came with up that one was driving while stoned!!!
Whats a more realistic number F20C?
I own one and I usually drive shifting at 5000 rpm. It does not come close to 11 seconds.
LOL, 11secs!!! who ever came with up that one was driving while stoned!!!
Whats a more realistic number F20C?
F20C
09-13-2001, 06:46 AM
It's around 9 seconds it's not fast but it is not 11. If you plan on staying under 5000 rpm then why bother buying a S2000. There is actually 4000 more rpm at your disposal. It's like buying a Z06 and shifting at 1500 rpm every gear. You are missing out on the meaty part of the powerband. I don't engage vtec at all time because I like to save some fuel. I get less than 300 km per tank if I always open the car up.
F20C
09-13-2001, 06:48 AM
Back to the original question. 1991 NSX is only a little bit faster than S2000. I would take a new car over a possible beat up used car.
Sleepy
09-13-2001, 09:44 AM
nsx better power range its a supercar no comparsion
hakka
09-13-2001, 01:18 PM
NSX, they're fairly rare and won't depreciate as much as the S2K.
Eskamoe
09-13-2001, 10:23 PM
This is a tough question. I would take the S2000 because the King of roadsters is totally my style. The question being asked is unfair though. S2000 vs. NSX? Miata vs. RX-7? MR2 Spyder vs. Supra? Boxster vs. Carrera GT? Come on! No one can deny that the Latter cars are as good as their companies get. There is not a damn thing wrong with the roadsters, but they just don't compare.:angryfire
hermunn123
09-13-2001, 10:31 PM
ya, it's not much of a comparison to me. even with the 60K miles on the NSX i would take that in a heartbeat. it has more hp, better torque, and mid-engined. it's one of the best handling cars made. the s2000 is definitely nice and awesome and all that, but it just doesnt compare, IMO
Jay!
09-13-2001, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by hermunn123
ya, it's not much of a comparison to me. even with the 60K miles on the NSX i would take that in a heartbeat. it has more hp, better torque, and mid-engined. it's one of the best handling cars made. the s2000 is definitely nice and awesome and all that, but it just doesnt compare, IMO Technically, the S2000 is mid-engined, too, since the block is behind the front axle. ;) That's only if you want to get really picky, though. F20C should comment on the S2K's handling... :D
ya, it's not much of a comparison to me. even with the 60K miles on the NSX i would take that in a heartbeat. it has more hp, better torque, and mid-engined. it's one of the best handling cars made. the s2000 is definitely nice and awesome and all that, but it just doesnt compare, IMO Technically, the S2000 is mid-engined, too, since the block is behind the front axle. ;) That's only if you want to get really picky, though. F20C should comment on the S2K's handling... :D
hermunn123
09-13-2001, 10:47 PM
i'm sure the s2000 handles great with its 50/50 weight distribution, but the NSX has a lower polar moment of inertia(i'm pretty sure). <--- meaning it can accelerate faster, brake harder, and handle better. the s2000 just needs some more oomph in the low rpms. to be continued...
F20C
09-14-2001, 12:21 AM
1991 NSX is not that much faster than S2000. This is a proven fact and no one seems to believe it. Honda made S2000 too close in performance to older model year NSX. Standard 0-60 mph for both car is in the high 5's. S2000 does have it's engine behind the front axle for better weight distrubution. I have extensive experience with 1991 NSX. The car sits much lowered to the ground against my. Which is great for center of gravity. Faster reaction time for acceleration and braking like someone mention before. But make no mistake NSX is rear weight biased because of mid engine setup. A 50/50 weight balanced gives neutral handling. S2000 goes right where you want it to go. The tail is easy to spin around in the rain if you are not careful.
F20C
09-14-2001, 12:23 AM
One more thing to add. S2000 feels much stronger built because of the high x frame.
Racer 20
09-14-2001, 12:39 AM
Hey ya'll. I test drove teh S2000 recently. :D And I would still stay with the NSX. For a number of reasons but there is a few...
1. It just has more torque... When you see an opening on the highway you'll be there in a matter of seconds... With the S2000, you actually "need" the VTEC to get in between the traffic... With the NSX, you really don't need the VTEC unless you have a need for speed.
2. The NSX feels safer. :)
3. It just looks a lot better :D
1. It just has more torque... When you see an opening on the highway you'll be there in a matter of seconds... With the S2000, you actually "need" the VTEC to get in between the traffic... With the NSX, you really don't need the VTEC unless you have a need for speed.
2. The NSX feels safer. :)
3. It just looks a lot better :D
F20C
09-14-2001, 12:46 AM
There is a lot of safety feature implented into the S2000 design. Without VTEC engaging you still pass the speed limit fast.
Racer 20
09-14-2001, 12:54 AM
Ya......
But I'd rather have an NSX :)
But I'd rather have an NSX :)
F20C
09-15-2001, 02:11 AM
Make no mistake 1991 NSX is still very interesting car. I would pick exotic NSX over sportscar S2000 had I not been looking for a convertible.
Porsche
09-15-2001, 11:29 PM
I don't know about this year difference, this could branch off into many other things like 1986 Hyundai POony vs: 1983 Honda Civic each with 300,000 miles on them, I'd go with the NSX, though I mean it's an NSX, NSX man!
MclarenF1
10-20-2001, 01:10 AM
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:
Chris
10-20-2001, 10:07 PM
About the S2000
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
At last, someone else who read the article:)
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
At last, someone else who read the article:)
F20C
10-20-2001, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by MclarenF1
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:
Yes I have seen that magazine as well. I thought it was Motor Trend though. But did you know the car they test was a pre-production model? In real life it takes about 9 seconds if you shift before 6000RPM.
HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.
You can't compare a Civic to S2000/NSX. They are two different machines that behave totally different. I have driven both and I don't find NSX to be that much torquey than S2000. The torque is counterbalance by the extra weight.
Also most japanese cars require downshifting to stay in the sweet zone. If you don't like keeping the rev high why the heck are you driving a Honda? You might as well go drive a TRUCK engine. Driving at 9000RPM is the most joy I have ever enjoy out of a car so far. The car sounds like a Motorbike at the engine speed.
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:
Yes I have seen that magazine as well. I thought it was Motor Trend though. But did you know the car they test was a pre-production model? In real life it takes about 9 seconds if you shift before 6000RPM.
HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.
You can't compare a Civic to S2000/NSX. They are two different machines that behave totally different. I have driven both and I don't find NSX to be that much torquey than S2000. The torque is counterbalance by the extra weight.
Also most japanese cars require downshifting to stay in the sweet zone. If you don't like keeping the rev high why the heck are you driving a Honda? You might as well go drive a TRUCK engine. Driving at 9000RPM is the most joy I have ever enjoy out of a car so far. The car sounds like a Motorbike at the engine speed.
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by F20C
HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.
Are you smoking crack?
Torque is all there is to a cars speed. HP is a mark purly made by Torque.. If you have No Torque... you arn't going far.
HP Sells engines (to idiots) Torque wins races.... (quote you were looking for.. I hope)
I would take the S2000. It is worth more money. So I would sell it and get something alse :D
I don't rate the older NSX. After driving one.. I wasn't that impressed. Although I have not driven a S2000 I would have it as it is newer..
HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.
Are you smoking crack?
Torque is all there is to a cars speed. HP is a mark purly made by Torque.. If you have No Torque... you arn't going far.
HP Sells engines (to idiots) Torque wins races.... (quote you were looking for.. I hope)
I would take the S2000. It is worth more money. So I would sell it and get something alse :D
I don't rate the older NSX. After driving one.. I wasn't that impressed. Although I have not driven a S2000 I would have it as it is newer..
MclarenF1
10-21-2001, 10:49 AM
Pardon me, but did I not say that I would prfer something WITH torque? One other thing... torque is NOT a number that is a direct product of horsepower. If that is the case, how is it that inline 6 diesel engines from the likes of Cat, Dretroit, Cummins, etc. are capable of putting out 300 horsepower but over 800 lb. ft. of torque? Explain to me how an S2000 thousand can produce 240 horsepower yet only have 153 lb. ft. of torque, while a BMW M3 can have 240 horsepower and around 240 lb ft. of torque as. Torque a product of horsepower? I don't think so. Maybe you should go back to physics class and redefine your definition of Torque. At the same time, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that "horsepower sells engines to idiots". It seemed to me like you were in favor of horsepower before you said that. Anyway, torque is useful in low range acceleration, as it is the real definition of absolute twisting power at a given RPM. It does not "just make you feel like you are going fast". Horsepower, while playing a role at all speeds depending on what kind of power band you have, is most beneficial in the upper RPM range, where the torque band is fading off in most engines, which is why top speed of a car a direct product of horsepower. Now, I ask you this- driving a car on the street, going from corner to corner and accelerating from stoplight to stoplight, would you rather have power fairly down low in the powerband,or up high? Even if you are racing, I can assure you that when race teams are running on tight circuits, they either make sure the engine has alot of torque or they set up a gear box that keeps the engine revved high. Whatever your preference, I would question the integrity of anyone who really beleives that one characteristic or the other "sells to idiots". One other thing.... Have you ever looked in a Dupont Auto Registry? If you find a nice, low mileage example, you won't be saving any money by buying and S2000.
F20C
10-21-2001, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by GTS-4 Ben
Are you smoking crack?
Torque is all there is to a cars speed. HP is a mark purly made by Torque.. If you have No Torque... you arn't going far.
HP Sells engines (to idiots) Torque wins races.... (quote you were looking for.. I hope)
I would take the S2000. It is worth more money. So I would sell it and get something alse :D
I don't rate the older NSX. After driving one.. I wasn't that impressed. Although I have not driven a S2000 I would have it as it is newer..
HP is torque over time. I bet you are smoking crack.
And no Torque isn't all to a car's speed.
With 153lb-ft torque at 7500rpm. S2000 have 150mph top speed.
With 300 something torque on Camaro Z28 SS top speed is only 160mph
With 400lb-ft torque on Z06 top speed is only 171mph
What can you say about S2000 with it's low torque capable of getting 0-60 mph in 5.1 seconds which is g-tech proven. Also 1/4mile in in 13.6 seconds that is timeslip proven.
Are you smoking crack?
Torque is all there is to a cars speed. HP is a mark purly made by Torque.. If you have No Torque... you arn't going far.
HP Sells engines (to idiots) Torque wins races.... (quote you were looking for.. I hope)
I would take the S2000. It is worth more money. So I would sell it and get something alse :D
I don't rate the older NSX. After driving one.. I wasn't that impressed. Although I have not driven a S2000 I would have it as it is newer..
HP is torque over time. I bet you are smoking crack.
And no Torque isn't all to a car's speed.
With 153lb-ft torque at 7500rpm. S2000 have 150mph top speed.
With 300 something torque on Camaro Z28 SS top speed is only 160mph
With 400lb-ft torque on Z06 top speed is only 171mph
What can you say about S2000 with it's low torque capable of getting 0-60 mph in 5.1 seconds which is g-tech proven. Also 1/4mile in in 13.6 seconds that is timeslip proven.
F20C
10-21-2001, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by MclarenF1
Pardon me, but did I not say that I would prfer something WITH torque? One other thing... torque is NOT a number that is a direct product of horsepower. If that is the case, how is it that inline 6 diesel engines from the likes of Cat, Dretroit, Cummins, etc. are capable of putting out 300 horsepower but over 800 lb. ft. of torque? Explain to me how an S2000 thousand can produce 240 horsepower yet only have 153 lb. ft. of torque, while a BMW M3 can have 240 horsepower and around 240 lb ft. of torque as. Torque a product of horsepower?
Diesel technology is different from Gasoline engine technology.
Diesel makes plenty of torque down low. It's also very efficient and clean. But Diesel engine does not have a good top end.
Take for example Golf TDI engine. It's a 1.9L engine Turbocharged. Slightly tuned it can produce 130hp and yet over 250 lb-ft torque. Yet it get's you 40mpg.
S2000 and M3's main difference is displacement. S2000 is 2.0L highly tuned engine. M3 is 3.2L slightly tuned engine. (If you want highly tuned m3 engine take a look at the E46 one's. Same displacement but a world's difference) Torque is in direct relationship with displacement (cubic inches).
Pardon me, but did I not say that I would prfer something WITH torque? One other thing... torque is NOT a number that is a direct product of horsepower. If that is the case, how is it that inline 6 diesel engines from the likes of Cat, Dretroit, Cummins, etc. are capable of putting out 300 horsepower but over 800 lb. ft. of torque? Explain to me how an S2000 thousand can produce 240 horsepower yet only have 153 lb. ft. of torque, while a BMW M3 can have 240 horsepower and around 240 lb ft. of torque as. Torque a product of horsepower?
Diesel technology is different from Gasoline engine technology.
Diesel makes plenty of torque down low. It's also very efficient and clean. But Diesel engine does not have a good top end.
Take for example Golf TDI engine. It's a 1.9L engine Turbocharged. Slightly tuned it can produce 130hp and yet over 250 lb-ft torque. Yet it get's you 40mpg.
S2000 and M3's main difference is displacement. S2000 is 2.0L highly tuned engine. M3 is 3.2L slightly tuned engine. (If you want highly tuned m3 engine take a look at the E46 one's. Same displacement but a world's difference) Torque is in direct relationship with displacement (cubic inches).
F20C
10-21-2001, 03:11 PM
One more thing.
Hp will always be below Torque figure under 5200rpm. There is a equation that calculates it.
Hp will always be below Torque figure under 5200rpm. There is a equation that calculates it.
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 05:25 PM
(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
So it is completly reliant on Torque...
What I meant is Torque is far more important to HP.. HP means nothing it is a power figure. Torque is what it can actually do..
So as I said, and by what you guys say proves it.
If you want to sell an engine, tell them the HP.. but if you want a fast car.. then you need torque.
So it is completly reliant on Torque...
What I meant is Torque is far more important to HP.. HP means nothing it is a power figure. Torque is what it can actually do..
So as I said, and by what you guys say proves it.
If you want to sell an engine, tell them the HP.. but if you want a fast car.. then you need torque.
MclarenF1
10-21-2001, 05:35 PM
Yeah, I knew about dispacement in relation to torque and everything, but I was just phrasing my point in a form of a question to see what our friend GTS-4 Ben had to say about his reasoning when put to the test. Just for the hell of it, though, I have included the exact formulas for finding torque and horsepower. If GTS-4 Ben has a look at them, maybe he will know better than to accuse us of "smoking crack" when us other enthusiasts proclaim that we are fans of torque laden, medium horsepower diesels and long stroke or big bore gasoline engines.
T = F x D
T = torque (in lb-ft)
F = force (in lb)
D = distance (in ft)
Example: What is the torque produced by a 60 lb force pushing on a 3' lever arm?
T = F x D
T = 60 x 3
T = 180 lb ft
And in relation to engines........
Calculating Full-load Torque:
Full-load torque is the torque to produce the rated power at full speed of the motor. The amount of torque a motor produces at rated power and full speed can be found by using a horsepower-to-torque conversion chart. When using the conversion chart, place a straight edge along the two known quantities and read the unknown quantity on the third line. (I really think this is overkill, but it's really interesting if you try. If done correctly, it ALWAYS works.)
To calculate motor full-load torque, apply this formula:
T = HP x 5252 rpm (5252 is not a number pulled out of thin air by the way... it is a set standard and is used by most manufacturers when determining their figures. If the engine cannot attain those speeds, it is adjusted accordingly.)
T = torque (in lb-ft)
HP = horsepower
5252 = constant
rpm = revolutions per minute
Example: What is the FLT (Full-load torque) of a 30HP motor operating at 1725 rpm?
T = HP x 5252
rpm
T = 30 x 5252
1725
T = 157,560
1725
T = 91.34 lb-ft
I know this looks like alot of bullshit, but I just get really tired of people talking about torque and horsepower and not really knowing what they are about or how they are determined. If you are a true mechanical enthusiast and aren't sure how horsepower and torque numbers are generated, I really think it's worth taking your time and looking at the above.
T = F x D
T = torque (in lb-ft)
F = force (in lb)
D = distance (in ft)
Example: What is the torque produced by a 60 lb force pushing on a 3' lever arm?
T = F x D
T = 60 x 3
T = 180 lb ft
And in relation to engines........
Calculating Full-load Torque:
Full-load torque is the torque to produce the rated power at full speed of the motor. The amount of torque a motor produces at rated power and full speed can be found by using a horsepower-to-torque conversion chart. When using the conversion chart, place a straight edge along the two known quantities and read the unknown quantity on the third line. (I really think this is overkill, but it's really interesting if you try. If done correctly, it ALWAYS works.)
To calculate motor full-load torque, apply this formula:
T = HP x 5252 rpm (5252 is not a number pulled out of thin air by the way... it is a set standard and is used by most manufacturers when determining their figures. If the engine cannot attain those speeds, it is adjusted accordingly.)
T = torque (in lb-ft)
HP = horsepower
5252 = constant
rpm = revolutions per minute
Example: What is the FLT (Full-load torque) of a 30HP motor operating at 1725 rpm?
T = HP x 5252
rpm
T = 30 x 5252
1725
T = 157,560
1725
T = 91.34 lb-ft
I know this looks like alot of bullshit, but I just get really tired of people talking about torque and horsepower and not really knowing what they are about or how they are determined. If you are a true mechanical enthusiast and aren't sure how horsepower and torque numbers are generated, I really think it's worth taking your time and looking at the above.
MclarenF1
10-21-2001, 05:40 PM
Sorry about that..... I just saw Ben's new post. It appears GTS-4 Ben HAS seen the light after all. Cool deal. The figures are fun anyway, though.
MclarenF1
10-21-2001, 05:53 PM
ONE more thing... (I have GOT to stop wasting time on this thing)....
As far as the question being raised over how the S2000 is capable of such hard acceration with such a low torque figure, that is because of the RPM that those test figures are attained at. If you dump the clutch at 6000 rpm and shift at the redline in every gear after that, you are being kept in a portion of the power band where horsepower is plentiful (240 horses plentiful... oh yah), and you have the twisting force of all those ponies. Although torque is not plentiful, the horses are are there to compesate. If you want to see evidence of its lack of torque, though, take a look at its top gear acceleration times. Also, try what Car and Driver did and shift before 6 grand. If you don't mind keeping a car wound above 6 to make it accelerate hard, fine. I would get tired of that awfully quick, though.
As far as the question being raised over how the S2000 is capable of such hard acceration with such a low torque figure, that is because of the RPM that those test figures are attained at. If you dump the clutch at 6000 rpm and shift at the redline in every gear after that, you are being kept in a portion of the power band where horsepower is plentiful (240 horses plentiful... oh yah), and you have the twisting force of all those ponies. Although torque is not plentiful, the horses are are there to compesate. If you want to see evidence of its lack of torque, though, take a look at its top gear acceleration times. Also, try what Car and Driver did and shift before 6 grand. If you don't mind keeping a car wound above 6 to make it accelerate hard, fine. I would get tired of that awfully quick, though.
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 06:02 PM
Big deal those figures are just the reverse of mine... ofcourse they work..
Consider torque and power as concepts used to describe how things interact to produce movement and how "energy" (another concept) is transferred..
Both torque and power can be observed "directly". Think of slowing a free-spinning tire with your hand. Feel the tug on your palm and the tension in your arm? That's a measure of torque, the torque the tire experiences as a result of your palm slowing it down. Feel the heat build up from friction? That's a measure of power or HP.
Also, Power (hp) = Force (lb) * Velocity (MPH) / 374
Torque and power are (almost) flip sides of the same coin. Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM.
Ofcourse you want a car with high end torque. Most cars reach peak HP at almost redline so having a high torque at high RPM is good.
Torque is what pushes you back in your seat and makes you spin your wheels.
So to use your HP.. you need to rev.
You don't feel HP, it just makes you faster as you approach higher RPM. Torque gives you the car twisting power up to there..
Making torque at higher RPM... MAKES you INCREASE HP!.
Consider torque and power as concepts used to describe how things interact to produce movement and how "energy" (another concept) is transferred..
Both torque and power can be observed "directly". Think of slowing a free-spinning tire with your hand. Feel the tug on your palm and the tension in your arm? That's a measure of torque, the torque the tire experiences as a result of your palm slowing it down. Feel the heat build up from friction? That's a measure of power or HP.
Also, Power (hp) = Force (lb) * Velocity (MPH) / 374
Torque and power are (almost) flip sides of the same coin. Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM.
Ofcourse you want a car with high end torque. Most cars reach peak HP at almost redline so having a high torque at high RPM is good.
Torque is what pushes you back in your seat and makes you spin your wheels.
So to use your HP.. you need to rev.
You don't feel HP, it just makes you faster as you approach higher RPM. Torque gives you the car twisting power up to there..
Making torque at higher RPM... MAKES you INCREASE HP!.
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 06:12 PM
Yeah true that.
What are the actual figures of the S2000?
I think you will find it was faster due to the early shifts due to it's low end torque.
What are the actual figures of the S2000?
I think you will find it was faster due to the early shifts due to it's low end torque.
F20C
10-21-2001, 06:18 PM
240 hp at 8300 rpm.
153 lb-ft at 7500 rpm.
Stock car stats
g-tech proven 0-60mph in 5.1 seconds (Eats early model NSX)
1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
top speed 150mph from 2.0L inline4.
Perfect launch are resulted from droping the clutch at 6500-7500rpm.
People talk about how power is in the top end of s2000. yet they don't realise that S2000 have extreme short gearing tuned for acceleration. It goes up to 9000 rpm faster than people can imagine.
I do drive daily below 6000 vtec engage point. However from time to time I will redline it to keep the engine smooth.
153 lb-ft at 7500 rpm.
Stock car stats
g-tech proven 0-60mph in 5.1 seconds (Eats early model NSX)
1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
top speed 150mph from 2.0L inline4.
Perfect launch are resulted from droping the clutch at 6500-7500rpm.
People talk about how power is in the top end of s2000. yet they don't realise that S2000 have extreme short gearing tuned for acceleration. It goes up to 9000 rpm faster than people can imagine.
I do drive daily below 6000 vtec engage point. However from time to time I will redline it to keep the engine smooth.
F20C
10-21-2001, 06:23 PM
Maybe I should phrase it this way. To have a fast car you should have a good balance of the following.
Hp/lbs and torque/lbs.
Hp/lbs and torque/lbs.
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 07:17 PM
;-) yep. You need both.
How does a RWD car get traction with a 6500-7500rpm drop?? I would think it would need some sticky tires, not your usual 205/50/16s... :p
I don't take GTech figures as always true either. Only proven drag strips.
Figures I have seen say 0-60 in 6.2.. if it could do a 5.1 then i would say it would do a lower 1/4.. say low 13's.. which i doubt.
What 60 ft times can it do?
How does a RWD car get traction with a 6500-7500rpm drop?? I would think it would need some sticky tires, not your usual 205/50/16s... :p
I don't take GTech figures as always true either. Only proven drag strips.
Figures I have seen say 0-60 in 6.2.. if it could do a 5.1 then i would say it would do a lower 1/4.. say low 13's.. which i doubt.
What 60 ft times can it do?
F20C
10-21-2001, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by GTS-4 Ben
;-) yep. You need both.
How does a RWD car get traction with a 6500-7500rpm drop?? I would think it would need some sticky tires, not your usual 205/50/16s... :p
I don't take GTech figures as always true either. Only proven drag strips.
Figures I have seen say 0-60 in 6.2.. if it could do a 5.1 then i would say it would do a lower 1/4.. say low 13's.. which i doubt.
What 60 ft times can it do?
The stock Bridgestone Potenza S02 Pole Postion are ultra sticky when warm up. But they are like rollerblade on ice when road surface is wet.
Also there is a secret that S2000 owners have found. The rear says 225 but when measure with other 225 it's actually more like 245.
A lot of owner have low 5's timeslip. 60ft time of 2.129 was that guy's time.
;-) yep. You need both.
How does a RWD car get traction with a 6500-7500rpm drop?? I would think it would need some sticky tires, not your usual 205/50/16s... :p
I don't take GTech figures as always true either. Only proven drag strips.
Figures I have seen say 0-60 in 6.2.. if it could do a 5.1 then i would say it would do a lower 1/4.. say low 13's.. which i doubt.
What 60 ft times can it do?
The stock Bridgestone Potenza S02 Pole Postion are ultra sticky when warm up. But they are like rollerblade on ice when road surface is wet.
Also there is a secret that S2000 owners have found. The rear says 225 but when measure with other 225 it's actually more like 245.
A lot of owner have low 5's timeslip. 60ft time of 2.129 was that guy's time.
Jay!
10-21-2001, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by F20C
But they are like rollerblade on ice when road surface is wet.Nice comparison. :lol2:
But they are like rollerblade on ice when road surface is wet.Nice comparison. :lol2:
GTS-4 Ben
10-21-2001, 07:46 PM
I get 1.9 60ft times in my car, not sure on my 0-60 time though.. probably high 5's.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2024