Common S2000 "myths" debunked....
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Utah S2K
Torque is relative. You need a lot of it to get a large mass at rest moving (i.e. GM V-8 cars). The S2000 has an insanely low curb weight....
Utah
Torque is relative. You need a lot of it to get a large mass at rest moving (i.e. GM V-8 cars). The S2000 has an insanely low curb weight....
Utah
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 688
Likes: 1
From: Sellersburg
This weekend when the S2K owners in the Indy area got together for a run (see the Mid-west owners forum: https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...?threadid=40965 for some pictures) I got a chance to drive my friends RX-7.
How did it compare? I would have to say favorably. He drove my S2000 and I took his RX-7 on a stretch of Highway. At cruising speeds around 80mph, I found I could EASILY close the gap between us (as I hung back) in a matter of a second or two with no effort. The same maneuver in my S2000 would mean downshifting into a loud whining 7000 RPM's. Thats not to say it couldn't be done- its just to say that torque on the low end (4000-6000 rpms) is very practical.
Before everyone goes off on 'apples to oranges', I'm not comparing the cars, just torque differences. Where you put your foot down in the RX7, you'll have to downshift in the S2000. You'll also experience a bit more kick from the Turbo in the RX7 when you do this as I believe its producing slightly more torque around 5000 rpm's versus 7000 in the S2000. I also think it has a higher max torque as well- but of course its a twin turbo and it is a Rotary engine. So its different.
I didn't get a chance to compare the two at VERY high speeds. At those rates I've heard other say that the near linear torque curve in the S2000 is preferrable because it continues to pull. The chasis wasn't nearly as stiff as the S2000, but this was welcomed after driving 4 hours in the S2K, and we all know with a little work you can stiffen up any car. The really welcomed part was how quiet it was, even at full out acceleration speeds.
Anyway, its not a rumor that the S2K isn't torquey in low RPM's, but I think I can agree it is sufficiently torquey for its design. The torque is spread out a little more evenly. And while this means you have to drive it differently (made apparent from being in the RX-7), it doesn't mean the end results are any less.
As far as the comparison goes, I think the RX-7 would have the lead off the line, but you might make that up with a good driver after 90mph. I didn't get a chance to try that though and I'm not that great of a driver. However, the RX-7 was much easier to drive and I can definitely see the appeal.
I couldn't help wishing that there was hybrid with the S2000's body, gear box, and chasis, and the RX-7's turbo rotary. I think this might even cut off some more weight- those rotary engines are tiny.
-B
How did it compare? I would have to say favorably. He drove my S2000 and I took his RX-7 on a stretch of Highway. At cruising speeds around 80mph, I found I could EASILY close the gap between us (as I hung back) in a matter of a second or two with no effort. The same maneuver in my S2000 would mean downshifting into a loud whining 7000 RPM's. Thats not to say it couldn't be done- its just to say that torque on the low end (4000-6000 rpms) is very practical.
Before everyone goes off on 'apples to oranges', I'm not comparing the cars, just torque differences. Where you put your foot down in the RX7, you'll have to downshift in the S2000. You'll also experience a bit more kick from the Turbo in the RX7 when you do this as I believe its producing slightly more torque around 5000 rpm's versus 7000 in the S2000. I also think it has a higher max torque as well- but of course its a twin turbo and it is a Rotary engine. So its different.
I didn't get a chance to compare the two at VERY high speeds. At those rates I've heard other say that the near linear torque curve in the S2000 is preferrable because it continues to pull. The chasis wasn't nearly as stiff as the S2000, but this was welcomed after driving 4 hours in the S2K, and we all know with a little work you can stiffen up any car. The really welcomed part was how quiet it was, even at full out acceleration speeds.
Anyway, its not a rumor that the S2K isn't torquey in low RPM's, but I think I can agree it is sufficiently torquey for its design. The torque is spread out a little more evenly. And while this means you have to drive it differently (made apparent from being in the RX-7), it doesn't mean the end results are any less.
As far as the comparison goes, I think the RX-7 would have the lead off the line, but you might make that up with a good driver after 90mph. I didn't get a chance to try that though and I'm not that great of a driver. However, the RX-7 was much easier to drive and I can definitely see the appeal.
I couldn't help wishing that there was hybrid with the S2000's body, gear box, and chasis, and the RX-7's turbo rotary. I think this might even cut off some more weight- those rotary engines are tiny.
-B
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From: Springfield
the c5 went for a v8 cause they have no consideration for gas mileage and our natural resources and cause all american cars are made for country folk, lol.
They only last for about 10 years and 5 of those are in the mechanic every few months.
Piece of shit cars. I will never go american, it is europe of japan for me, they have different trains of thought.
They only last for about 10 years and 5 of those are in the mechanic every few months.
Piece of shit cars. I will never go american, it is europe of japan for me, they have different trains of thought.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
From: :spam:u
[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c
[B]
That is probably the most ignorant post this board has seen in months.
The C5 gets higher (better) gas mileage than the S2000. 19/28 for the big V8, 20/26 for the S2000.
As for the rest of it --
[B]
That is probably the most ignorant post this board has seen in months.
The C5 gets higher (better) gas mileage than the S2000. 19/28 for the big V8, 20/26 for the S2000.
As for the rest of it --
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Yorktown
the corvette is an awesome car. if I could have afforded a Z06 I very well may have gotten one. its performance easily rivals cars double its price. while the interior is lackluster it is one hell of a sports car.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From: Springfield
the interior in the c5 does lack, but the s2000 is no where better.
the s2000 is cleaner in the interior though, but they both lack a lot.
no details like in european cars such as the tt. An ideal car for me would
be an s2000 with the interior such as the one the TT has. and about the
comment before I am still with it. you are not going to catch me with no
american car.
the s2000 is cleaner in the interior though, but they both lack a lot.
no details like in european cars such as the tt. An ideal car for me would
be an s2000 with the interior such as the one the TT has. and about the
comment before I am still with it. you are not going to catch me with no
american car.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: Laurel
Agreed about:
-The American car bashing. It is ill informed My Z28 has always gotten better highway milage than the S2K. 65 mph is 1600 rpm in sixth and it cruises fine. Mileage is proportional to power-produced, not engine size.
-The adequacy of S2000 torque. It's fine.
The problem, though, is that the S2000 engine has low torque compared to it's horsepower class. I can't think of any other ~250 hp engine that has such low torque. That is how and why the comparisons are made. It just gets shortened to "no torque"
Course, no other 250 hp engine revs to 9k either...
There is definitly no need to be defensive about our engine or performance. Nor is there any need to be smug.
BTW, us calling the Vette interior a weak point is "the pot calling the kettle black." Have you ever really pondered our dash, visors, carpets, center tunnel, mats, clicking one-speed intermittent wipers, dead pedal, radio, speakers, radio door. C'mon. "It's supposed to be sports-car spartan" is really kinda self-deluding.
If our care ever ends up in a MOMA display, it won't be because of the interior. Now, the engine maybe...
-The American car bashing. It is ill informed My Z28 has always gotten better highway milage than the S2K. 65 mph is 1600 rpm in sixth and it cruises fine. Mileage is proportional to power-produced, not engine size.
-The adequacy of S2000 torque. It's fine.
The problem, though, is that the S2000 engine has low torque compared to it's horsepower class. I can't think of any other ~250 hp engine that has such low torque. That is how and why the comparisons are made. It just gets shortened to "no torque"
Course, no other 250 hp engine revs to 9k either...
There is definitly no need to be defensive about our engine or performance. Nor is there any need to be smug.BTW, us calling the Vette interior a weak point is "the pot calling the kettle black." Have you ever really pondered our dash, visors, carpets, center tunnel, mats, clicking one-speed intermittent wipers, dead pedal, radio, speakers, radio door. C'mon. "It's supposed to be sports-car spartan" is really kinda self-deluding.
If our care ever ends up in a MOMA display, it won't be because of the interior. Now, the engine maybe...