As per usual Gad is correct!

It's actually the shape of the torque curve that determines a car's feel.

MX-5s, S2000s and Ferraris are tuned to have a rising torque curve, so the thrust builds as the revs rise.

With a 5.0 Flat 12, it's gonna start off a tad thrustier than a 2.0 S4!

It's also the general lack of insulation (both rubber and old rags) that makes it seem more real.

Gad's car has a very flat torque curve, big rubber in the frames and loads of old rags beneath the carpets. It therefore is smooth, effortlessly wafty and utterly different.

Absolute figures are again important. A flat torque curve in a small engined car (like a Jazz) just makes it feel slower than it truly is.

 

After checking the main 2.0 suspects with a decent engine i.e. Vauxhall Astra/Vectra, Alfa 147, Ford Focus ST170, Clio 172 none of them have more than the S2000's 160lb/ft, which is quite surprising.

The S seems to have both the highest bhp (which we knew anyway) and the highest torque figure of any current NA 2 litre I've been able to find so far!

 

Bhp is the engine's capacity for doing work (work in this case is what makes the car go fast), so the higher the bhp the more potential the engine has.
Torque is the ability of the engine to turn the driveshaft at a given revs. The more 'torquey' the engine the easier it is to exploit the bhp of the engine.
But you still need bhp to make the car fast, since that measures the work the engine is capable of doing.

Diesels have a lot of torque, all that means is that all the work the engine is capable of can be had in one big lump. But since the bhp is usually poor, they run out of puff (can't do any more work) quickly.

The S2000s engine has a relatively low torgue figure, but a high bhp, so by engineering the gears to exploit the nature of the engine, the S still manages to be able to accellerate more quickly than it's torque figure would suggest.

The V8 going in the Fury will have 220bhp and 250lb/ft of torque, so I'm hoping it will have both the torque to be able to acess the power anywhere in the rev range, and the power to be a quick car - the best of both worlds.

The short answer is that both are desirable, but things like weight then come into play too, since in n/a applications, capacity gives torque and can canel out any gains made.

 

In a 6-7 year old engine design.........

Not bad is it?

 

I've just done some checking and it appears that my 2.0 is closer to 160 (I'm sure I read 180 somewhere) with 190 bhp.

The S2000 runs 153lb/t which, although good, is not alone in producing that much. There are a few engines that produce more torque than the S. The Rover/K series which are 1.8!!!(used in caterhams has the R500 evo running 190lb/t etc). but I guess these are more specialist engines although the ZT 1.8 runs 160lb/t. bmw 2.0 runs 154lb/t.

 

What you need to ask yourself is

 

Torque available at the wheels when you choose to accelerate relative to the weight of the vehicle is what really matters for comparison.

Peak torque figures from an engine tell you very little other than the kind of peak efficiency of the engine.

The S2000 suffers a little in a few areas. The gearing is less than ideal - I reckon a longer 1st, longer 6th and a lower final drive ratio would be a nice improvement. Plus the low cam performance of the engine isn't that great - due to a heavily emissions biased low lobe camshaft profile, and some other factors. These things can be changed if you want though. You end up with an S2000 that feels eager anytime - it's a nice difference.

-sigh- what you really want off Honda would be tweaked gearing, improved low lobes (giving a nice boost from 4000-6000rpm), plus significant weight saving. Just imagine what a 1000kg S2000 with those other little tweaks would feel like.

If I had a lot of money (I don't - I'm skint!), then you could really go to town. For example, replace the gearbox with a nice 6 speed sequential - 20kg's lighter than the stock box, better ratios, faster gearchange. Though the box is a few grand, plus you'd need to have a bellhousing made up.

-Brian.

 

I think one of the things that people forget when they talk about how fast a car feels is what the ride is like, how loud it is, etc.

If you get in an old R5 GT they feel rapid cause the suspension is hard, they are noisey and not a great ride (you get thrown all over the place!) the same can be said for a 205 Gti etc. But a truely fast car is often smoother (not always the case) as the power has to be handled better, some cars really don't feel that fast but would beat either of the above hands down.

These factors just give a false sense of speed/acceleration.

 

I'd agree with that, how low you are, noise etc can give a different impression of speed. Also if it feels dangerous .. I think these diesel drivers do think their cars are quick and it does come down to slow then quick accelaration.. I had a mate years ago who had a big turbo on an Escort RS and it felt very quick but in reality had only 160bhp at the wheels, which is good in the scheme of things, but the car would not be as quick as it felt on that basis..

Torque clearly doesn't matter that much as the S can hold it own with a 350z which has barrels of torque 274lb/ft compared with S of 153lb/ft..

incidentally the S is tested in WHAT CAR at 5.6s 0-60 and the 350 at 6.9

that's what being a fat boy does for you then???

 

I doubt if an S2000 is sub 6 seconds to 60mph......0-60 just isn't the car's strong point