S2K+ Comptech or Z4 si?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
From: University of Toronto
dude the z4 3.0si is pretty much the same car as previous z4 3.0's.
it is NO WHERE near the same league as a s/c s2000.
unless you are comparing it to the z4 M Coupe, the s/c s2000 smokes the z4 3.0si.
p.s. z4 3.0si's aren't 'known' for speed
it is NO WHERE near the same league as a s/c s2000.
unless you are comparing it to the z4 M Coupe, the s/c s2000 smokes the z4 3.0si.
p.s. z4 3.0si's aren't 'known' for speed
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
this is turning into a joke. show us your 'timing' results. show us these mythical slip. No one will dissagree with you if concrete evidence is provided showing car A is faster than car B.. but to this point, such evidence doesn't exist.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
so one dyno plot proves the car is a 'better performer'? I can shoot off tons of cars with more wheel hp and torque than the S2K that will end up in 2nd place when the two meet head to head.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 708
Likes: 1
From: Downtown Dallas TX
We can go back and forth throwing up links to different 0-60 and 1/4 times if you'd like. This could take a while but since it's paramount in your next vehicle purchase- the idea of spending too much time on the subject is unfathomable.
I'll start.
Z4 si
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_z4.asp
"The Z4 Roadster 3.0si accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds"
S2000
http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/s2000.html
"0-60 in 5.3 seconds"
I'll start.
Z4 si
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_z4.asp
"The Z4 Roadster 3.0si accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds"
S2000
http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/s2000.html
"0-60 in 5.3 seconds"
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Frustration,Feb 18 2007, 06:33 PM
Well, looking without blinders on, or with an open mind might help... The info is all over the web... In fact the stock S2K info is pretty easy to find in this forum...
The stock ZRsi chart...
stock si Here Thats 244 WHP and 223 ft lbs at 2800 rpm... I agree that there's a Joke here... But I think it's on those that insist that the stock S2K is the better performer... It's not. Less HP and less than half the torque till almost 7krpm, then still down huge, just leaves a hole.
You can search the web all day till you find something that suites your opinion, or you can just search with an open mind like I did...
I am certain that the charged S2K has a better peak and I already know I like the handling better...
My question from the beginning was about the character of the two cars...
That there are those that can't hear or read the info without getting their non SC panty's in a twist about the Z4si being a stronger performer that a Stock S2K with a similar weight distribution wasn't the intent, but it's certainly come up...
I never and still don't mean to offend...
Honestly I can't see why the question of how the performance differs in a car with a better torque number from far lower in the revs. The SI has a better number than the SC S2K and the SC s2k really needs to be put to the coals to perform on par.
The question will be wether or not I'm a fan of needing to be at or ablve 7000 RPM in order to have what the Z4si gives at less than half the revs (an able to hold it till almost 7000. But when the HP is in and it's turning the SC S2K should be a blast!
Like I said, after another ride, I didn't mind holding the stock S2K in the meat of the power band. I really liked it in fact.
It's the fact that the stock car was still substantially underperforming, even in the power band that means that I should really get a quick ride in the SC unit to clear up the gap. People are assuming that I want luxo, when It doesn't matter much. I just have to see how high strung the SC is, but It should be absolutely fine and Way more than fine around 7000 rpm.
I'm thinking I'll love it.
The stock ZRsi chart...
stock si Here Thats 244 WHP and 223 ft lbs at 2800 rpm... I agree that there's a Joke here... But I think it's on those that insist that the stock S2K is the better performer... It's not. Less HP and less than half the torque till almost 7krpm, then still down huge, just leaves a hole.
You can search the web all day till you find something that suites your opinion, or you can just search with an open mind like I did...
I am certain that the charged S2K has a better peak and I already know I like the handling better...
My question from the beginning was about the character of the two cars...
That there are those that can't hear or read the info without getting their non SC panty's in a twist about the Z4si being a stronger performer that a Stock S2K with a similar weight distribution wasn't the intent, but it's certainly come up...
I never and still don't mean to offend...
Honestly I can't see why the question of how the performance differs in a car with a better torque number from far lower in the revs. The SI has a better number than the SC S2K and the SC s2k really needs to be put to the coals to perform on par.
The question will be wether or not I'm a fan of needing to be at or ablve 7000 RPM in order to have what the Z4si gives at less than half the revs (an able to hold it till almost 7000. But when the HP is in and it's turning the SC S2K should be a blast!
Like I said, after another ride, I didn't mind holding the stock S2K in the meat of the power band. I really liked it in fact.
It's the fact that the stock car was still substantially underperforming, even in the power band that means that I should really get a quick ride in the SC unit to clear up the gap. People are assuming that I want luxo, when It doesn't matter much. I just have to see how high strung the SC is, but It should be absolutely fine and Way more than fine around 7000 rpm.
I'm thinking I'll love it.
Yes we must be all wrong. I guess it must all come down to RWHP when talking about 1/4 mile times. I guess things like gearing and light weight go out the window then huh?Please stop trolling these forums with useless information. Several knowledgeable members and world class publication have told/shown you that an S2000 is comparable in acceleration to a 3.0si and you continue to rattle on about how an S2000 is slower.
Heck, just pick up any recent issue of R&T for example. A Z4M roadster runs 13.2 in the quarter, whilst pulling 0.89G on the skidpad with a slalom speed of 68.7mph. It brakes from 80 - 0mph in 208ft. They have the S2000 running 13.9 in the quarter, whilst pulling 0.91G on the skidpad with a slalom speed of 69.7mph. It brakes from 80 - 0mph in 206ft.
In EVERY objective test save acceleration, the S2000 wins by a hair. Hardly significant, but then again this is comparison to a Z4M roadster. And what does this mean? A standard Z4 3.0si cannot possibly be "quicker" than the S2000 since I highly doubt that car can run anything better than a high 13. Not to mention, that the S2000 will conclusively beat it in any other objective test.
You then have the audacity to compare a supercharged S2000 to a stock 3.0si and say it would be "close". All I can ask is, are you stupid? Your comparing a car that will run high 12's to one that runs high 13's on a good day?
Please stop wasting our time. Go and buy your Z4 already.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,980
Likes: 0
From: Harbor City, CA
For what it's worth, 350Z's dyno around 240whp, and 200+ torque. It makes a lot of it's power down low. So judging by that, it's not an even matchup with an s2k right? The Z is way faster, and a supercharged S is close to performance with a stock z right? right 
.
I don't know what to say anymore. This thread is a lost cause. Please buy a Z4.
. I don't know what to say anymore. This thread is a lost cause. Please buy a Z4.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 63
Likes: 17
Get the S - that's a no brainer! But the M variant is a whole different animal. I speak from experience (have vin#175 from sept 1999 for my S and have a new BMW Z4 M Coupe). Both incredible cars but the s2k is without a doubt the funner car vs the stock Z4.
Ted
Ted
