I say "fun to drive factor". I'm not talking about tire smoking fun. I'm talking about a twistie mountain road fun. Yes, a Z-06 will go faster down the 1320, faster around the race track, faster down a twistie back road, and almost anywhere else. It's limits are just way above those of an S2000. However, I've driven quite a few miles in a Z-06 and will say that it is not nearly as fun to drive as the Stook. The amount of recipricating mass in the vette is many times that of the Stook. As we all know, a body in motion tends to stay in motion. Even though the actuall weight of the car isn't THAT much different, the amount of mass moving around under the hood is far more. Therefore the Stook is way more willing to change directions than the vette is. This is why on a much smaller track such as one that would be set up on a much smaller local type circuit the Stook can quite possibly beat the vette. Just my 2 pennies.
P.S. driving a Stook vs. a Vette makes it look like I'm not trying to make up for a lack in something else

 

All I can say is I LOVE MY 9000 RPM'S!!!!

I wouldnt trade it for anything right now

 

I bought the S2000 over a Corvette (even though I owned an 85 4+3 Vette) for precisely the reason you mention. My point was the the Chevy LS1 V8 is not without its merits.

It's hard to say one is better than the other. It strikes me as a chocolate vs vanilla thing.

 

Corvette - 70.1 ft lb torque per liter of displacement
Modena - 76.4 ft lb / liter
M3 - 81.9 ft lb / liter
S2000 - 76.9 ft lb / liter

With these numbers, the M3 wins!!
OR

Corvette- 8.8 ft lb per piston per liter displacement
Modena - 9.55 ft lb / piston/ liter displacement
M3 - 13.65 ft lb / piston/ liter displacement
S2000 - 19.23 ft lb / piston/ liter displacement


I believe with these numbers, the little 4 banger wins!!!

 

This thread is a perfect illustration of why trying to fit cars, engines, etc. into categories doesn't do us much good.

When you buy a sporty car, what do you really want?

For me, it's 95% dependent on two things:

1. Accelerative ability (in any of 4 directions - stop, go, left, right).
2. Fun

And not necessarily in that order.

In light of those concerns (which I have to believe are at least part of the selection criteria for any sports car owner), all you really need to care about from an engine standpoint are power and weight (engine behavior - sound, response, etc. figures into the fun side of things). You want the most power from the smallest package. And in light of the need to accelerate left, right and in the negative (braking), you might actually weight the mass component a little more heavily (puns somewhat intended). If that's the case, a smaller engine might be preferable, for all the reasons already discussed (less weight, smaller driveline, the whole cascade effect).

But if you want it to produce similar power to a big engine, say because you have certain top speed goals in a fixed aero package (the need to seat two people abreast for example), your engine cost will not be substantially different, nor will your fuel economy (as others have pointed out). And your driveline mass will go up to cope.

As elanderholm pointed out, all cars are compromises. Its so difficult, as this thread should illustrate, to fully delineate the theoretical pros/cons of those compromises, let alone truly assess the real world applications and the cleverness of design engineers. And of course, we haven't even discussed the bureaucratic compromises that are forced upon us. Emissions, gas guzzler taxes, displacement taxes (not in the U.S. thank god), etc.

UL

 

4cyl engines are smaller and lighter. It is the MAIN reason you are driving a car with 50/50 weight distribution. A c5 is what a good 1000 pounds heavier?

 

The Corvette is heavier, but only by about 4-500 (not even close to 1k!). I agree that in the end it just comes down to personal preference, because each engine will have its own characteristics, and will cater to different tastes. I still love how peoples' mouths drop when I say it's 240 hp out of a 2 liter!

 

a z06 weighs 3100lbs, that makes it about 300lbs heavier...with more then enough power to make up for it!!

 

IMO, small displacement engines are considered by some to be "better" because people tend to like things that are familiar to them. explanation:

1) japanese carmakers - honda in particular - are good at building small engines. honda has produced what, four V-6s and zero V-8s ever?

2) the "new generation" of consumers were raised on efficient, high-quality japanese cars during a time when detroit was selling utter garbage.

big american V-8s have always been pretty damn good, but for the most part the vehicles they were bolted to stank. if you were raised on them though, you're likely to prefer them, just as many of us prefer the japanese four bangers on which we were raised.

america builds good big engines because historically our culture values enormity, strength, wretched excess, and everything that represents the "good old days". japan builds good small engines because historically their culture values efficiency, compactness, technological wizardry, and anything that represents the latest thinking.

i love my S2000 and its little engine that could. but if i could get a Vette with honda's proven levels of quality and reliability for $32k (and without the guido image), you can bet i'd be singing the V-8 tune.

if the big three can pull their heads out of their asses, maybe an appreciative generation will come around soon enough to keep them in business.

 

... actually Honda is currently producing some interesting V10 engines... revlined at 18,000 rpm, I think.

What I would like to see is an "HP/kg" statistics for all these engines.

IMO this would be quite revealing of the "state of the art" of the american "enginedom". At the risk of becoming "popular" in this forum, I believe the resulting hierarchy would be Europe first, Japan next, USA last.