Zsr31, I did look before I wrote, and yes I did ask and engineer, and I see on this board that most people here agree. Again... Torque does not win races, because by the time your at your peak RPM for HP , your peak torque range at the lower RPMS are long gone. So all those cars in your IMPRESSIVE list have high TORQUE to PULL you through to the finish line? I don't think so, at best you may reach maximum torque between 6-7K RPM's if your lucky. Most likely between 4-5K rpm's. And yes I have beaten an SS your welcome to rent one and come race me I'll even pay for the rental if I lose to you, which I won't.

As BassMan said in his post

"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."




[Edited by NorCalS2K on 04-28-2001 at 01:10 PM]

 

OK, in that case - the acceleration from 10km/h to 45km/h is pretty weak in the S2000. Come to think of it, acceleration from any speed that is less than 35km/h is pretty weak. It may compare with the Civics but cars like Boxtser2.7 and Z3 3.0 will have it for lunch in those increments.

Also, Z3 3.0 is actually a close match for S2000 in the straight line. Here's figures from a German magazine "Sport Auto":

0 - 40kph = 1.6 vs 1.7 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 60kph = 3.0 vs 3.0 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 80kph = 4.4 vs 4.4 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 100kph = 6.2 vs 6.3 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 120kph = 8.7 vs 8.6 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 160kph = 14.8 vs 15.3 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 180kph = 19.2 vs 19.9 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
0 - 200kph = 24.5 vs 27.4 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)

As you can see the Z3 3.0 stays even with the S2000 until 140kph and the S2000 has a slight edge then up to 180kph. At 200kph the S2000 is flying away by untill then it was a very close match.

Now look at the rolling starts in 4th gear (Z3 has 'only' 5 gears so it it the 2nd highest gear for it):
80 - 100kph = 3.6 vs 3.2 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
80 - 120kph = 7.2 vs 6.4 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)
80 - 160kph = 14.8 vs 13.9 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0)

So while moving the Z3 3.0 will beat S2000 unless you start the run in the VTEC zone ... I actually though that the 80 - 160kph run would see the S2000 ahead but the 4th gear VTEC zone in the S2000 is not enough to pull back the Z3 3.0.

Just for comparision purposes, the TT Roadster whoops both cars in this rolling start excercise and manages 2.9, 5.9 and 13.3 for the 3 increments.

So, from this I'd say that if you 'race' a Z3 3.0 in a straigh line, it has a very good shot at beating you unless you're planning to run up to 200kph. if it is a rolling start than the Z3 3.0 has a nice advantage and from stand still it's more or less even.

The TT should be seen left behind from standstill but in rolling starts it will blow the S2000 away unless you started the run in the VTEC zone.

On the other hand, you get these cars on the track and you'll see the S2000 hand out some whopping (at Kurs Hockenkeim):
S2000 = 1:18.9
Z3 3.0 = 1:20.8
TT Roadster = 1:21.3

Though, put that down to handling and braking of the S2000 and not it's sheer straighline speed as the top speed reached at this track is about 170kph.

 

Ughhh Why did I read this????
You can talk about torque, and Hp all you want. Whay hasn't any one mentioned Lbs. per HP. This can make all the difference in the world. I would put my shifter kart up against any supercar in the world, and would bet that I would win. All with what a whopping 35lbs of torque?
Would I like more torque? Sure! But I say, point me to car that can do 0-60 in just over 5 seconds for around 32k and I might consider it. What, that's the S2K? Great I already own one

PS. ZR...Vipers Have V10's not 8's

 

I suppose this really boils down to only one point: the S2000s lower torque will cause it to have poorer acceleration times, relative to it's European brethren, up to about ~25 mph, but it doesn

 

One "problem" with the torque characteristic of the S2000 is the class of cars it is seen competing with. If it was being compared against the Miata or the MR Spyder, then there would be no complaint. But it is being compared against M-Coupes, Boxsters, and TTs.

A second problem is that to drive an S2000 effectively, you really need to think and plan ahead, so you'll be in the right gear. Most people are too damned lazy to do that, so they will bitch about acceleration in 6th from 55 to 70.

I've driven an M Coupe extensively, and it will really smoke the tires with very little effort. With the S2k, you need to work very hard to get any wheelspin (this is a function of the S02s as well.). For many people, this is proof enough that the S2K is wimpy.

I note that my SVO mustang is equally hard to spin the wheels on, but gives a walloping kick from 3k to the 6k redline. That is like getting VTEC from 4.5k all the way up to 9k. On the other hand, the S2K is geared even lower than the SVO (4.10 vs 3.85, I think), and it does run all the way up to 9k. I slammed the limiter on the SVO a lot after I'd driven the S2K for a while.

So, I'd say the S2K drives like a small-displacement turbo oriented toward HP rather than torque, with the advantage of no boost lag. It's just weaker until it gets in range.

I personally consider this characteristic to be a feature. It means you can bias the handling more towards oversteer, because the backend is less likely to be thrown around with the throttle except under bad conditions. It makes it easy (mandatory) to be inconspicuous after stops, and easy to control torque in nasty weather by upshifting a few gears.

Finally, I'll note another thing that has occurred to me watching the local Porsche and BMW drivers, who aren't particularly friendly. People who drive cars like this are competitive people. They don't like competition, and they don't like thinking they paid $nK more for their cars, and they like owning the road and zipping in traffic in high gear, dammit, I'm a rich bastard in a Porsche. That the S2K can be faster if driven well and being cheaper rubs them -so- the wrong way. They and all their sycophants are delighted to have something, like the "torque problem" to fling back in our faces.

I think I have more of a smile driving my S2K than most of the boxter and Z3/MC owners do. They seem grim most of the time when I look.

-dB

 

Norcal I seriously disagree with you............ I challenge you to go ask some reall race enginners to that question. Why dont you go to an American Lemans series race and ask people there?
I am done......... by the way this car has no torque!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socal28
[B]I actually wouldn't mind more torque on the lower end also!
I just don't like taking off from dead stop at idle and almost cutting the engine.

 

ZSR, you might want to tell it like it is instead of making a "blanket" statement that will get some of us wound up.

Try: "by the way this car has less torque than other cars in its class, and compared to all the larger-displacement cars I've driven on street and track, this car, relatively, has a lot less torque!"

Who's gonna argue with that? You'll have made your point, and your observation will garner just a little bit more respect.

I'd like to concur with the original poster that I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of driveability in the first 6k (relative to my 2 Civics and 2 Fieros FYI). But because the torque in the lower revs doesn't overwhelm your senses when you step on the throttle, I find that I'm being saved from a lot of tickets simply by having a car that isn't eager to drag race (unless u drop the clutch at 7k but I'm not willing to do that more than the one time I've done it, even though it was awesome).

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidM
[B]Now look at the rolling starts in 4th gear (Z3 has 'only' 5 gears so it it the 2nd highest gear for it):
80 - 100kph =

 

Luis, I checked those numbers and I tyred them out correctly. Also, I cross referenced them with "Auto" and "Sport Auto" magazines who got similar figures. I find German magazines very reputable and they don't seem to display any real bias ... actually the S2000 did win that comparison with Z3 3.0 and TT Roadster. The 80 - 160kph sprint surprised me as well, as from 140kph the S2000 was in VTEC zone. I guess it just lost way too much time at the lower revs and it could not make up the time in that final sprint. I'd say if anything, that shows that S2000 does not have that much 'pull' bellow VTEC.

Also, I don't really care if one car has 2x the displacement of the other. What I do care about is how much 'pull' a car has. If the defence of the S2000 is that it has 'only 2L of displacement' then it can use a bigger displacemnt engine (of no greater weight). This is what I looked at when getting a car:
- How well does it handle
- How much 'pull' it has
- How well it brakes
- How well it shifts
- How good a feedback from the car.

Just like I don't look at a car and think that "it brakes real well concidering it has only tiny drum brakes", I don't look at a car and think "it 'pull' real well concidering that it is only a 2L engine" ... I don't care about that ... all I care about is the final result. My father has a 5.7L V8 what weights 50% more than the S2000. Fact is it is a very close match for the S2000 in VTEC zone and it totally slaughters is when bellow. So in the straighline he has an advantage, the engine size is not important, just the final result. Granted than my car brakes batter, is more nimble, has better gearbox and has higher limits ... though, we're talking about straighline here and nothing else. Also, it does not matter either that one car costs 2x the other as I bet that if you look at something like a Civic at 1/4 price of S2000 then it is a much better 'perfornmace car for the price' than the S2000. Price is irrelevant when I state that "S2000 has pretty poor pull from 10 - 40kph" (ie. lack of torque).