[QUOTE]Originally posted by frayed
[B]The s2k is a great handling, 'peppy' car below vtec.

 

No torque? Drive my 93 Civic DX (beater Car)with 102Hp@5900rpms and 98lbs/ft@5000rpms for a day and then we will talk about torque

Actually the S2k does not "FEEL" much faster then the Civ and my Moms 93 Jeep Cherokee "FEELS" much faster then the S2k, my brother in laws 01 Maxima SE (auto) also "FEELS" much quicker as does my buddies 92 Eagle Talon TSI...But I can roast any one of them...and they can "FEEL" their torqueiness(is that a word) as they watch my tailights pull away!!

 

Uh, lookslike you're the wound up one there Z buddy.
Actually no, Torque ONLY FEELS FAST it is actually HP that wins races. Not so with the likes of the S2K. Yes maybe yours is broken or you are use to a high torque V8.

158lbs is more than enough for this car and it's class of cars. I would rather have the HP in this case. I've beaten a SS before with no torque, now that's a real laffer.

 

NorCal.... really torque wins races...go ask an engineer. You race from point A to point B. You dont race to see what is the top speed at the end of the straight. Its all about time. Think before you write. When I ran formula atlantic in 98 we ran with fuel injection vs. running Carbs. The carbs where worth about 40 hp and you could run about 20 pounds lighter. If the car doesnt come off the corner good it doesnt matter what top speed you will hit becasue you wll never be able to catch up to the car in front.

 

And another thing Norcal...I am not use to a V8 except in the GTSR and the C5-r GT3. Most of all the cars I race are either 4's or 6's.
F2000 4
F3 4
FA 4
Porsche 944 turbo 4
Porsche 993 6
Spec racer 4
Lola Sr2 6
Viper GTSR 8
Pratt and miller C5r-gt3 8
F3000 8
Look at what cars are doing in the American Lemans series....the new BWMs went to a 4 ltr V8 and it was not the HP they are going after. going to a V8 they had to run a bigger restrictor......they where going after the huge gain in torque. Corvettes in GTs/ GT 2 did this also when they went to a seven ltr..bigger restrictor but the gain in torque was huge. Look ar how dominent Audi is with there LMP cars......
and another thing wow you beat up a SS comaro....I am really impressed. lets talk about the guy on here with the supercharged S2000 who was dead even in a race witt a S4 that had 2 other passengers in it. the S4 wieghs almost 1000 lbs heavier than the S2000. But your right NorCal its all about hp and not about torque. Go read the new issue of import tuner!

 

ZSR31 - Depends on what type of track your refering to but any real racer would take HP over torque any day regardless of track.

 

Why does it have to be a choice between torque and hp? I want both. S2000 has hp but it does not really have much torque. I don't believe that anyone would rather the current S2000 over one that was exaclty the same but had 2x the current torque.

Anyway, the car that S2000 competes with is M Roadster, BoxsterS and TT Roadster (include the 2.7 Boxster there too) - S2000 is by far the car with the least torque ... not just a smidget less but more like 1/2 torque of the others.

There's no point comparing the torque of the S2000 with the likes of Civics and Preludes ... noone, who is after somehting like an S2000 is going to look to those cars for comparisions ... it's like saying that an Celica is 'perfect' 'cos it is better than a 1.3L Suzuki Swift. Compare the S2000 to the cars that it competes with, not Civics.

btw, the torque of S2000 is suffiecient for driving the car at lower revs and it drives just fine ... it's no worse than a Civic or a Prelude, but then it's no Boxtser (2.7 or S), M roadster, Z3 3.0 or a TT Roadster - they do that part much better than the S2000. If S2000 is lacking something, then it is torque ... more torque could only make it a better car (and even better perfromance car).

ps. When I drove the S2000 for the 1st time I was plesanlty surprised by the drivability of the S2000 at low revs - the car is comfortably drivable. Though, when I drove the BoxsterS - that blew my mind by the tracktability at low revs ... that car has a lot of low revs torque as well as an awesome top end. S2000 just has an awesome top end.

 

The reason this topic causes contention is due to the fact that reviews stating "the S2000 has no low-end torque" rarely seem to qualify it - has no low-end torque relative to what? When one makes such a blanketed, unqualified statement you're going to find individuals who will, and can, argue the point.

If I say, "the S2000 has plenty of low-end torque for daily driving", there

 

This is such a lost cause!

The thing that always gets me in this discussion, is that I do not really know what people are talking about.

Please people, can you instead of complaining about the lack of torque, complain that low rev in-gear acceleration (say from 30 to 60MPH) is worse than for other cars? There you have it. An objective ground to base discussions on! (BTW, the S2000 beats other higher torque cars routinely, just compare it with the BMW Z3 3.0 or the Boxter 2.7, etc, etc...).

oh, and by the way, the BMW 330d (3 litre diesel engine) has more torque than the engine in the 3L williams BMW that took Ralf Schumacher to victory in Italy a fortnight ago.

Draw your own conclusions!

 

I agree, it's really not very useful to compare bhp or torque anyway. The only thing that matters is the resulting time (laptime, 0-60, 1/4 mile, whatever) of the whole package. The S2000 may have comparatively low torque, especially at low revs, but so what. It is not meant to driven the same way as a farm tractor anyway. Keep the revs in VTEC and you'll whip most other cars out there, high torque or not. Then they can brag about their torque all they want.

[grey]--------------------------o0o---------------------------[/grey]

[grey]2000 S2000 - 1998 VFR800 - 2000 Atos[/grey]