That's probably right. The issue is rear wheel tq, which is a linear relationship to engine tq (assuming same gear). With the S2k's light weight, quick shifter, high redline, and tq curve that stays pretty flat to redline, robust acceleration will be seen at the very top of the rpms.

If you have to go through 2k, then 3k, 4k, 5k etc to get to the peak rwtq area, well, you'll get crushed by a car with fat midrange tq. This is why 1/4 mile times in the s2k are so launch dependent; you need to be above 6k at all times.

Yet another way to look at it is that although the s2k's tq curve is pretty flat, the hp curve is peaky. Hp represents the motor's ability to do work over time. You need to keep the motor near or around peak hp for max acceleration.

 

Nice kill MpowrdBimmer. Don't let some of the people here scare you away... We're all just nice freaks.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Honda Racer
[B]"lol, you wish, i think you mean the Mustang GT. The S2k hangs with a GT stock vs Stock but the Cobra can pull low 13's in the 1/4

the s2k does stay with the cobra pretty good, if they both have good drivers. but the mustang gt cant keep up near as well but it still holds its own. you can find some post of a modded gt losing to a stock s2k around here. and u can also find some with a s2k hangin with or beating the cobra, someone has a vid posted on here somehwere of the s2k and an s4 blowing away a cobra, but i dont know if the s2k was modded, most likely had something but if so the cobra probally did too. *sorry if i sound agressive at all, its just some have false claims or thoughts about our car.*

 

Cravnpup, I still wanna race you.

 

You have a PM.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Can anyone be bothered to explain why they think accelerating up a hill would give more of an advantage to one car vs. another?

 

No one flamed him for the race, although there are questions. It was the "the car seemed to bog down because it has no torque" type comment that most people dinged him for. Of course, many talked about flaming him wondering why other car owners come here to post their kills, but no one actually called him a jackass.

As for the torque argument. This was a race off the line before a hill. The S2000 took off in the lead and held it past 60 ft. This is the toughest part of the race for an S2000 (well, toughest for almost anyone, but more difficult in the S2K than in most cars). That he was ahead to 60 ft says he got an acceptable launch and would have been in VTEC by about 60 ft (around 28-30 mph). So now the S2000 is through its weak area of the curve (on a soft launch, or done spinning the tires on a hard one) and in the meat of the power band.

Thus, assuming the S2K driver didn't miss a shift, we have to assume that the M is capable of pulling back a slight deficit and then putting on 4 car lengths to 90 mph, which isn't even a full 1/4 mile. In fact, those 4 lengths came between about 30 and 90 mph according to the story. Holy cow, look out LS1 Camaros! ;-)

UL

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Thus, assuming the S2K driver didn't miss a shift, we have to assume that the M is capable of pulling back a slight deficit and then putting on 4 car lengths to 90 mph, which isn't even a full 1/4 mile.

 

Well, I have an advantage Frayed in that I used to live in that area. The hills aren't that steep, nor are they that long. I'd be surprised if they weren't actually going back down hill before the end of the run actually :-). Your point is appreciated though in that it isn't a straight up trap speed comparison. I think you would agree though that 4 car lengths between 30 and 90 mph is quite a bit though, right?

Zoran, you almost had me convinced, but I think there are some issues with your argument. Let me think about it while I'm driving to the office. See if anyone else can come up with something better than me :-)

UL

 

Sounds to me like a botched 2-3 shift. Either short-shifted or missed it?