Did I say no one called him a jackass?.....

UL

 

So im a jackass for knowing info about the area in which i raced, and for knowing specs about other cars?? hmmmm......that makes sense..... grow up man

 

well one thing its really stupid to argue about this because the mustang has a v8 and in a totally dif ballpark than the s2k. the cars both have really nice performance...to chose between mustang and s2k its all about chosing ure kind of car that u like. low rpm and torquey, or high revving engine with with a small turbo feel at v-tec. either way the cars have very close performance and also completely different cars. i personally like the feel of the s2k better. its more fun to drive but the torque is low before v-tec but nice for city driving. mustang is very fun to just punch and shoot but if your racing a gt w/s2k you will notice your not going as fast as you think you are. by the ways, anyone know of a good way to add a good amnt of torque w/out turbo?

 

OK, Ok, you win on that one, I'm probably remembering numbers from years ago. Except for the Type R, that one is current, and it's 385 HP doing 13.2.

Anyway, a GT does 14.0, S2000 can reach into the 13.8's, how do we do that with "no torque". Simple. Torque means nothing. Well, almost nothing. Ok, you have to have torque to move, but it's not the torque number itself that is meaningful, it's how fast you can deliver the torque that counts. And that's called horsepower.

Torque is "static force". That means there is no movement. You'll notice torque measurements are ft-lbs. So many pounds of force at so many feet from the shaft center. No where do they mention time or movement. Torque does no work. You can apply 100 ft-lbs of torque to your head bolts, but they ain't moving, so no HP is generated. You have to add motion, measured over time, to do work. That's called horsepower. In electrical terms it's called watt-hours.

Speaking of electricity, torque is kind of like voltage, it's a measurement of force, but not work. You have to add motion (current, amps) measured over time (hours) to get work. All the volts in the world do you no good unless they are moving.

When your car tires apply torque to the road, the car only moves when the applied torque exceeds the resistance (friction + pull of gravity if uphill). How fast it accellerates depends on how fast you can apply the torque. Just because you have 2000 lbs of torque at the rear wheels does not mean you can accellerate fast. You have to be able to deliver it fast. (diesel tractor scenario - tons of torque so they can pull heavy loads up a hill (slowly), but even w/o a trailer, a semi accellerates like a pig because the HP is low in relation to the torque).

The end result is that while torque is a necessary part of the equation, torque alone does not determine accelleration. And torque measurements, particularly engine torque, are not much good for making comparisons, because the delivery factors (transmssion ratios and HP) are so varied.

Think about this - take a 3 HP lawn mower engine, set up a really atrocious gearbox so the output shaft turns at 1 rpm. You'd have, literally, tons of torque. You could pull a tractor trailer uphill. But the speed at which the torque is applied is so slow, that there's no HP to speak of.

Zoran - you're dead-on with your uphill explanation. Good job.

 

Ok, not to flame or nit-pick but its "Cobra R", not "Type-R". Just thought i would tell you cause a lot of Stang owners are offended when their car is associated with the "Type R" stickers that ricers put on their Civics and Accords. And also remember the Cobra R is a track car with a 6-speed and it isnt exactly geared for fast 1/4 mile times. I know the S2000 is CAPABLE of 13.8's, but an Automatic GT will pull 14.0-14.1 all day long. Anyway, back to the subject, your explanation seems correct but i think that arguement is pretty much over. Thanks for going into detail though and giving an example....

 

with 320 HPs, a Cobra Mustang should be in the low to mid 13s with a good driver. I have never seen one run so I don't know if they can really do it.

On another note, I raced a 99+ what looked to be stock cobra once on tghe highway expecting to get beaten from 70 mph to about 130 MPN and to my surprise I didn't loose and even put about 1/2 a car length on the guy. We did it again with the same result. To this day I don't have an explanation except it was possibly a weak car.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sev
[B]with 320 HPs, a Cobra Mustang should be in the low to mid 13s with a good driver. I have never seen one run so I don't know if they can really do it.

On another note, I raced a 99+

 

No it was a black one, I raced it on the way back from a SOLO 2 event in ottawa. The guy was pissed or at least he looked pissed. He was in his late 30s with his GF with him. Still surprised over that outcome, even more than the ass-wooping the 240HP M roadster got.

 

Yea the '99 cobras were defective and had weak engines. I thinkt he fastest magazine time for a '99 was a 13.8 1/4 mile. The new "fixed" cobras have no problem running mid to low 13s with their true 320hp figure.

 

LIke the fast and the Furious with the Ferrari and The Supra "smoke him" I believe driver vs driver and if the bimmer won he won but if I was there I would have smoked him with my S2000 sometimes people dont know what they have when they are behind the wheel of an S2000