Why?

Are you claiming that all S2000’s manufactured before 2006 have no torque or traction because they don‘t have VSA?

 

, ofcourse not! i can only speak for 06 + from personal experience, so i guess if u take out the vsa part then it applies to all years

 

btw on a circuit isn't power more important than low end torque?, isnt that y f1 cars have obscene amounts of power and very little in the way of torque instead of the other way around? would the s2000 be faster if it had 240lbft of torque and 160hp? (like deisel engines).... i have only been to the track 2wice and found myself mostly in the powerband.

i am asking valid question not trying to argue cause i really don't know the answer to those questions,

 

I'm feeling bad to say this... But the previous owners of my S2K were actually a gay couple...

I bet the car never saw 4+K rpm in it's previous life... haha

 

VSA is for pussies. Right foot>VSA

 

We don't have any torque but due to its lightweight, it can be carried quite fast without much torque.

 

To an extent, power is more important. High horsepower will get you out of the turn at a higher speed, and it will help you carry that speed onto a straight. However, torque also has its place. In a circuit race with a standing start, torque may be the difference between first and last place off the line. Luckily most circuit races have a paced start.

Torque really shines when paired with proper gearing. For instance (and I'm using arbitrary numbers for the sake of argument) what happens when you put your S2000 in 6th gear and try to get off the line? It will huff and puff and sluggishly move until it reaches a few thousand RPM. This is because the engine doesn't have enough torque to overcome the force exerted back on the engine by gearing and traction. A diesel powered car could be seriously lacking in horsepower, but could be putting down 500 ft. lbs of torque. The use of high torque with higher gearing will result in a father distance traveled with less spins of the engine (since a larger gear will produce more axle rotations for every turn of the crankshaft), thus achieving acceleration. The only limitation is getting the engine to spin up fast, which is the benefit of high revving, high horse power cars, such as F1 cars.

A happy medium is great for the track. My friend Bob races an LS2 powered RX-7. The thing puts down over 350hp and 300 ft. lbs of torque, which may seem modest. However, after he is on the track he puts the car in 4th gear and NEVER has to shift around the whole 1.8 miles of our local circuit, which has high, medium and low speed turns. The car just has enough power to get him doing around 135 mph down the front straight (my S will only see 105 mph on the front straight), and enough torque for him to mash his foot and get through ANY turn on the track in 4th gear.

The S2000 is a momentum car, like a Miata. It's good at what it does, but will only be competitive in GT classes with heavy modification.

 

I never had any trouble making 350Z's get smaller in my rearview, even out of low-speed turns, in the S. Power/weight, that's IT. Torque is important inasmuch as it allows you to make power. If you have way more revs, you totally make up for lack of engine torque with gearing.

That is all...

 

1. Relative to most cars, the s2000 has a low amount of torque. 153 lb ft (AP1) and 162 lb ft (AP2) is not really a lot. Torque is a quantifiable value. Just because you beat something with lots of torque in an illegal drag race, that doesn't mean you have more torque. That's like saying if I beat you in a foot race, I'm stronger than you. BTW - what are you doing street racing escalades anyway?

s2krazee is right, the S2000, on track, should be driven as a momentum car. That is to say come into the turns faster and exit faster - don't drop below the powerband (too much). Whereas a 350z (with a similar power to weight ratio) can (intentially or accidentally) come into a turn slowly and use it's low-end torque to pull itself out of the corner).

F1 cars have lots of power and relatively little torque (compared to something like NASCAR) primarily because of the engine size restriction. A 2.4 liter engine will never give you copious amounts of torque. However, if you rev to 19k rpm, then you can get lots of power - which can be very beneficial especially when the weight of the car is kept down. If F1 were allowed to run bigger engines, they would.

I think the OP needs to read up on what hp and torque really are. But to put it as a simple equation, HP = (TQ * RPM)/5252.

2. Who says the S2000 has no traction? If it's the people who complain about oversteer, that is not an effect of poor traction - it's the effect of poor driving.

VSA is a safety net, not a performance enhancer. It doesn't give you more traction, it limits you from reaching the maximum amount of slippage to keep you going past it.

 

[QUOTE=ZDan,Dec 6 2009, 05:39 AM] I never had any trouble making 350Z's get smaller in my rearview, even out of low-speed turns, in the S.