Corvette or S2000
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
From: Redlands
Can we imagine what GM and Honda (the Vette and Stook engineering divisions) could do in a cooperative design and production project? A small, sleek, mid-engine, VTEC, V6 (compromise between the two) that could yank your head off on a turn or a sprint. Don't expect that to happen!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
From: Durham, NC
Originally posted by lupin
Do you get it now?? Torque = wheelspin = bad.
Do you get it now?? Torque = wheelspin = bad.
Can't wait 'til I get some more torque!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,601
Likes: 1
From: La Habra
Boys, boys, play nice! But don't be smack-mouthing GM engineers. I work with some of those guys. The ONLY reason you don't see GM in F1 is corporate priorities. My opinion is they realize it won't help them sell more cars in America. If it is so trivial to engineer a Z06 then why doesn't every brand have such world-class performer for, relatively, beer budget?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: Springfield
Originally posted by RicePimp
Your absolutely right about the chassis. I was talking just about the engine. I wasn't very clear. Let me restate, "The reason F1 cars are hard to drive has more to do with the high revving nature of the engines than anything else *about the engine*". My fault.
Also, the amount of torque is very little only in comparison to the power. Obviously 300lbs-ft is a lot even in a heavy car.
Now first, I agree, power wins races, not torque. F1 cars are so light and powerful already that they aren't the best example. But since you bring up the M3, that's a good example. I have also driven both the s2000 and the (E36) M3, and in a straight line they are very, very comparable (I'm talking just about speed). But you can't tell me that the s2000 engine is smoother or easier to drive, especially around town. It may be more fun (*opinion*), but there is much less room for error with gear selection (say coming out of a corner). Honda could have increased the stroke and had more torque at the cost of some top end rpms and therefore power. They could also have increased the bore, which can increase the displacement without hurting the top end as much, since the piston speed wouldn't change. This would increase both power and torque. Now too much torque is a problem, but you can't tell me that the s2000 is exactly overpowering the available traction. You can't even break the wheels free with just the throttle at *any* speed. It just would be nicer if it had more torque. I think that was how this started in the first place. I think that Honda was definitely aiming at meaningless HP/liter numbers as a "gimmick" and adding a little length to the stroke of the engine would have lowered the redline enough to keep the power about the same and raised the displacement enough to ruin the 120hp/liter mark. I think if they had leaned in that direction it would have been a slightly better engine. But judging by the number of people who love the sound of the redline and the number of times that I have heard the 120hp/liter mark, I must say that Honda probably made the right decision. As is always the case on message boards, I suspect that we are closer to agreeing with each other than it might seem, but I just want to point out that there is definitely a case for more displacement. But in the end it really more about personal preference than anything else.
Your absolutely right about the chassis. I was talking just about the engine. I wasn't very clear. Let me restate, "The reason F1 cars are hard to drive has more to do with the high revving nature of the engines than anything else *about the engine*". My fault.
Also, the amount of torque is very little only in comparison to the power. Obviously 300lbs-ft is a lot even in a heavy car.
Now first, I agree, power wins races, not torque. F1 cars are so light and powerful already that they aren't the best example. But since you bring up the M3, that's a good example. I have also driven both the s2000 and the (E36) M3, and in a straight line they are very, very comparable (I'm talking just about speed). But you can't tell me that the s2000 engine is smoother or easier to drive, especially around town. It may be more fun (*opinion*), but there is much less room for error with gear selection (say coming out of a corner). Honda could have increased the stroke and had more torque at the cost of some top end rpms and therefore power. They could also have increased the bore, which can increase the displacement without hurting the top end as much, since the piston speed wouldn't change. This would increase both power and torque. Now too much torque is a problem, but you can't tell me that the s2000 is exactly overpowering the available traction. You can't even break the wheels free with just the throttle at *any* speed. It just would be nicer if it had more torque. I think that was how this started in the first place. I think that Honda was definitely aiming at meaningless HP/liter numbers as a "gimmick" and adding a little length to the stroke of the engine would have lowered the redline enough to keep the power about the same and raised the displacement enough to ruin the 120hp/liter mark. I think if they had leaned in that direction it would have been a slightly better engine. But judging by the number of people who love the sound of the redline and the number of times that I have heard the 120hp/liter mark, I must say that Honda probably made the right decision. As is always the case on message boards, I suspect that we are closer to agreeing with each other than it might seem, but I just want to point out that there is definitely a case for more displacement. But in the end it really more about personal preference than anything else.
But you can't tell me that the s2000 engine is smoother or easier to drive, especially around town. It may be more fun (*opinion*), but there is much less room for error with gear selection (say coming out of a corner).
I think that Honda was definitely aiming at meaningless HP/liter numbers as a "gimmick" and adding a little length to the stroke of the engine would have lowered the redline enough to keep the power about the same and raised the displacement enough to ruin the 120hp/liter mark. I think if they had leaned in that direction it would have been a slightly better engine
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
From: beaverton
Originally posted by Skorpion
Heh, elanderholm misspelled "genius".
Irony is funny
Heh, elanderholm misspelled "genius".
Irony is funny
Just so you get it...It was a joke because he was trying to play smart, but wasn't making any sense.