WRONG.

It's the chassis that makes F1 cars hard to drive than anything else.


Very little torque?? 300+ lb-ft is very little?? Let's see, the M3 has ~270 lb-ft of torque, and even with 3500 lbs, it's pretty easy to get sideways. Now 300 lb-ft in a F1 car (I dont' even know the exact weight ~1000 lbs) is not little.


So are you impliying that drag cars with 600 lb-ft of torque is easier to get on the throttle than sport cars with much less torque??

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BB AP1
[B]2 Totally different cars in a different league..
Do u want a Drag racer or Road racer..??
Domestic Vs Import
v8 vs 4 cyllinder

 

I have also heard more than once that Chevrolet measures horsepower and torque at the rear wheels, not the crank.
If a stock s2k develops about 185 HP at the rear wheels, the figures are a bit more even.
The Vette is a Vette... There are a lot of them out there. The new ones (1998 and up) have drastically improved looks and engineering and definately pack the most bang for the buck... 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and still get up to 30 Miles per gallon for $40 - $50K. the reliability rating is a bit low cuz it's made by uninspired, unmotivated union workers and maximum company profits.
Check out the Lingenfelter Vettes (427 and 350 twin turbo) in the July 2001 edition of Car and Driver.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lupin
[B]

WRONG.

 

if we're talking F1, it's not just the chassis or the engine per se..it's also largely due to the grooved tires and narrow tracks..this combination makes for a very nervous chassis when downforce is lost in a slow corner..that's why michael schumacher is getting 30 million a yr..
speaking of z06s, they are bad-ass cars no doubt about that..drove my friends at an autox and i overshot the first gate before i realized what had happened..woops, too much gas, too much torque..

 

So it really is a matter of preference. I think the smooth, torquey I-6 of the E36 M3 is ok. It's a good engine, but not as much fun as going to 9000 rpm. And I don't really care much about breaking the wheels free anyway.


I guess if you want a torquey roadster, you can opt for something like the M-roadster.

Case closed.

 

I am considering the exact same cars!!!..
S2000 or Z06??

S2000 looks better... Z06 performs much better... other things
like..

hardtop vs convertible
massive torque vs no torque*
burn out 1-3 gears vs clutch burn out..
DRL vs HID!!
Head up display vs ....
Big bus shifting vs snick snick..
ugly int. vs race car like int.
slippery seat vs recaro like seat
slightly big for me vs perfect size...
6500rpm redline vs 9k

Last but not least...
6k under MSRP(!!!!) vs MSRP if you're lucky
(though both doesn't apply to CA)
2002 Z06 can already be had at 1k under MSRP.. thats 405hp...

*I drove it before not just reading from mags... S2000 just doesn't
have that throw you in the seat feel... even when the vtec kicks
in... I am comparing it with my current car (97 E36 M3)... However,
I have to say that it is fast.. it just did it without that initial punch
like the torquier cars...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lupin
[B]

So it really is a matter of preference. I think the smooth, torquey I-6 of the E36 M3 is ok. It's a good engine, but not as much fun as going to 9000 rpm. And I don't really care much about breaking the wheels free anyway.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lupin
[B]

So it really is a matter of preference. I think the smooth, torquey I-6 of the E36 M3 is ok. It's a good engine, but not as much fun as going to 9000 rpm. And I don't really care much about breaking the wheels free anyway.

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the Z06 achieves 405hp with old pushrod technology. No multivalve, quadcam, gee weez gizmos here. Some good ole' engineering is needed to achieve those numbers with the technology used.