Low revs-low power?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Pleasanton
Guys.....try coming from an Audi S4...you will soon realize that torque seems non-existant in the S2000. But I did not buy the S2000 for torque....I bought it for HIGH RPM KICK ASS DRIVING!!!!
This is why my S4 is my everyday driver...and the weekend I steal my wife's S2000 to do some fun driving!!!!!
This is why my S4 is my everyday driver...and the weekend I steal my wife's S2000 to do some fun driving!!!!!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
From: Coventry
My previous car was also an Audi, a S3. (some of you US guys
will not be familiar with it). Anyway, it had 210-220 bhp
and 210 lbs/ft torque. All of the torque was available
from about 2000-5000 rpm.
You could really feel it go as soon as the turbo wound
up, but you know what?
IT WAS BORING. Boring, boring, boring!! A beautifully built
car that looked pretty good, but was very anodyne to drive.
One thing I found fascinating when I researched into it was
the equation for BHP which is also quite simple:
Torque X Rpm
------------------- = BHP
5252
The reason the S2k produces so much BHP is it
will not be familiar with it). Anyway, it had 210-220 bhp
and 210 lbs/ft torque. All of the torque was available
from about 2000-5000 rpm.
You could really feel it go as soon as the turbo wound
up, but you know what?
IT WAS BORING. Boring, boring, boring!! A beautifully built
car that looked pretty good, but was very anodyne to drive.
One thing I found fascinating when I researched into it was
the equation for BHP which is also quite simple:
Torque X Rpm
------------------- = BHP
5252
The reason the S2k produces so much BHP is it
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Pleasanton
Comparing a Audi S3 to a S4 is stupid....the S4 has gobs more torque down low, makes it sooner, and IS a blast to drive...the car is 800lbs heavier than the S2000, yet can do 5.4 - 5.5 0-60 runs all day long, with relatively lazy launches....
I am not knocking the S2000....it is sweet. Both cars are a blast to drive!!!!
I am not knocking the S2000....it is sweet. Both cars are a blast to drive!!!!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
From: Coventry
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pleasanton 9k rpm
[B]Comparing a Audi S3 to a S4 is stupid....the S4 has gobs more torque down low, makes it sooner, and IS a blast to drive...the car is 800lbs heavier than the S2000, yet can do 5.4 - 5.5 0-60 runs all day long, with relatively lazy launches....
I am not knocking the S2000....it is sweet.
[B]Comparing a Audi S3 to a S4 is stupid....the S4 has gobs more torque down low, makes it sooner, and IS a blast to drive...the car is 800lbs heavier than the S2000, yet can do 5.4 - 5.5 0-60 runs all day long, with relatively lazy launches....
I am not knocking the S2000....it is sweet.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Killin' me, y'all...
Torque vs. HP... GT2000 hit the nail right on the head in a couple of the posts.
If the engine has the ability to rev high, you want power to be high too. Small displacement engines USUALLY have the ablility to rev high- without that, they have NOTHING. I have not seen too many small displacement engines make good, usable power down low- especially forced induction engines. You run into alot of problems- pinging, detonation, excessive loading in that range. Small motors need to rev to breathe... which is why an S2000 can suck as much, if not more, gas as a V8 or V10 under load when driven correctly. For puttering around town, it's not the most efficient way to go- zipping around traffic requires alot of high rpm use to get it going... but for highway cruising it's the BOMB... FYI from Asheville yesterday I was AVERAGING 28.5mpg @ 77mph. That's not insignificant for a car that is as quick in the curves as this car is.
Engines designed to rev up high (6000+rpm) usually have poor torque curve shapes in the midrange. The beauty of the VTEC head system in the S2000 is that the initial low cam produces significant low end power (at least, significant for a 16 valve 4 cylinder) with a low lift/duration cam, and compensates the high RPM load with a higher lift/longer duration cam lobe. Look at any dyno graphs for this engine- I would be surprised to see any other production NA motor in the 2l class have as much torque everywhere and rev as high as this one...
The reason why you want to rev the S2000 high isn't because we get a boatload of torque there- we don't. But, we make as much torque there (relatively speaking... we're not talking about 200ft/lbs difference) as when the engine is below VTEC- but we can take advantage of gearing- shorter gears coupled with high rpm torque capablities means that we can wring out the motor higher- which is why the HP figure is important in this argument, since it's the RATE at which the engine makes power- a meaningless number without knowing the torque curve shape...
Torque vs. HP... GT2000 hit the nail right on the head in a couple of the posts.
If the engine has the ability to rev high, you want power to be high too. Small displacement engines USUALLY have the ablility to rev high- without that, they have NOTHING. I have not seen too many small displacement engines make good, usable power down low- especially forced induction engines. You run into alot of problems- pinging, detonation, excessive loading in that range. Small motors need to rev to breathe... which is why an S2000 can suck as much, if not more, gas as a V8 or V10 under load when driven correctly. For puttering around town, it's not the most efficient way to go- zipping around traffic requires alot of high rpm use to get it going... but for highway cruising it's the BOMB... FYI from Asheville yesterday I was AVERAGING 28.5mpg @ 77mph. That's not insignificant for a car that is as quick in the curves as this car is.
Engines designed to rev up high (6000+rpm) usually have poor torque curve shapes in the midrange. The beauty of the VTEC head system in the S2000 is that the initial low cam produces significant low end power (at least, significant for a 16 valve 4 cylinder) with a low lift/duration cam, and compensates the high RPM load with a higher lift/longer duration cam lobe. Look at any dyno graphs for this engine- I would be surprised to see any other production NA motor in the 2l class have as much torque everywhere and rev as high as this one...
The reason why you want to rev the S2000 high isn't because we get a boatload of torque there- we don't. But, we make as much torque there (relatively speaking... we're not talking about 200ft/lbs difference) as when the engine is below VTEC- but we can take advantage of gearing- shorter gears coupled with high rpm torque capablities means that we can wring out the motor higher- which is why the HP figure is important in this argument, since it's the RATE at which the engine makes power- a meaningless number without knowing the torque curve shape...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,601
Likes: 1
From: La Habra
Hmm, am I the only one here who wants the car geared a little lower? And a 2.2L stroker makes sense for some torque, might even drop redline a smidgen to compensate for piston speed.
I'm not sure about dropping 1st gear so much as compressing the other 5 gears. I know, we need the gearing for 150 MPH tracks and good gas mileage. But I'd rather shift a little more and stay in "perfect" VTEC at the more moderate speeds I drive (100 MPH Max).
And I probably could find alternate gear sets but then I'd be illegal in "stock" class racing.
I'm not sure about dropping 1st gear so much as compressing the other 5 gears. I know, we need the gearing for 150 MPH tracks and good gas mileage. But I'd rather shift a little more and stay in "perfect" VTEC at the more moderate speeds I drive (100 MPH Max).
And I probably could find alternate gear sets but then I'd be illegal in "stock" class racing.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
I am actually considering getting the S4. Hmmmmmmmmm.
S4 new GIAC 1.2bar chip........MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ....chiiip
There is just so much more you can do with the S4 versus the S2000. I would miss the handling though. This car does need some real shocks though................
uh oh here we go again !!!!!!!!
S4 new GIAC 1.2bar chip........MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ....chiiip
There is just so much more you can do with the S4 versus the S2000. I would miss the handling though. This car does need some real shocks though................
uh oh here we go again !!!!!!!!