S2000 vs. NSX

[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? 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]

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

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]

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).

[F20C]

One more thing.

Hp will always be below Torque figure under 5200rpm. There is a equation that calculates it.

[GTS-4 Ben]

(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.

[MclarenF1]

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.

[MclarenF1]

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]

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.

[GTS-4 Ben]

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!.

[GTS-4 Ben]

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.

[F20C]

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.

[F20C]

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.

[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...

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]

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...

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!]

Originally posted by F20C
But they are like rollerblade on ice when road surface is wet.

Nice comparison.