S2000.... 497whp @ 9700rpm on pump gas
Originally Posted by S2000man01
again the point i'm making is so what. if the guy runs 11's or 10's or whatever, do you really think the finish line gives a ****? what, do you think the torque fairy is gonna come by and give the loser a cookie cuz he has more torque than the winner?
i suppose next you'll tell me how 275lb/ft isn't driveable in the city.
i suppose next you'll tell me how 275lb/ft isn't driveable in the city.
Also, there's really no point in saying that ANY car isn't dribeable in the city. You could drive a pro-street drag car in the city. It all depends on what YOU as a person are willing to put up with.In any case, I wonder what kind of cookies the torque fairy gives out... maybe they're like those home-made huge chocolate chip cookies that are all soft and warm, and have those huge chocolate chips in them... MmMmMm...
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 
i guess i just disagree with the entire "no torque" statement.
first, compare the S2000 to OTHER 4 cylinder engines. In n/a form, no other 4 cylinder makes as much torque as the S2000 does. in fact, even in torque/liter the S2000 is among the best including ALL n/a engines, even V8's.
the problem is it doesn't make the amount of torque that other cars in its class do. even though, despite this, it's faster in the 1/4 mile than most cars in its class anyways, and can corner better than the majority of cars in its class as well. yet that seems to be what people point out. "the car can run a 13.7 stock". "yeah but it has no torque". "the car can outhandle just about most cars in its class". "yeah but it has no torque". so the other part of this, is it's "low torque" obviously doesn't hinder its performance ability to compete with other cars in its class. so who cares?
lastly, even though it has low torque, it has incredibly aggressive gearing to make up for it. with an effective final drive ratio of 4.756, it multiplies that torque far more than most other cars do. the fact that a "no torque" 153lb/ft S2000 can be faster than the 99+ 300lb/ft mustang GT is pretty good proof of that.
so despite the fact that it's torque doesn't hinder it's performance, people are so quick to point out that is has "no torque", even though that has little relevance to the car's performance.
first, compare the S2000 to OTHER 4 cylinder engines. In n/a form, no other 4 cylinder makes as much torque as the S2000 does. in fact, even in torque/liter the S2000 is among the best including ALL n/a engines, even V8's.
the problem is it doesn't make the amount of torque that other cars in its class do. even though, despite this, it's faster in the 1/4 mile than most cars in its class anyways, and can corner better than the majority of cars in its class as well. yet that seems to be what people point out. "the car can run a 13.7 stock". "yeah but it has no torque". "the car can outhandle just about most cars in its class". "yeah but it has no torque". so the other part of this, is it's "low torque" obviously doesn't hinder its performance ability to compete with other cars in its class. so who cares?
lastly, even though it has low torque, it has incredibly aggressive gearing to make up for it. with an effective final drive ratio of 4.756, it multiplies that torque far more than most other cars do. the fact that a "no torque" 153lb/ft S2000 can be faster than the 99+ 300lb/ft mustang GT is pretty good proof of that.
so despite the fact that it's torque doesn't hinder it's performance, people are so quick to point out that is has "no torque", even though that has little relevance to the car's performance.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by S2000man01
i guess i just disagree with the entire "no torque" statement.
first, compare the S2000 to OTHER 4 cylinder engines. In n/a form, no other 4 cylinder makes as much torque as the S2000 does. in fact, even in torque/liter the S2000 is among the best including ALL n/a engines, even V8's.
the problem is it doesn't make the amount of torque that other cars in its class do. even though, despite this, it's faster in the 1/4 mile than most cars in its class anyways, and can corner better than the majority of cars in its class as well. yet that seems to be what people point out. "the car can run a 13.7 stock". "yeah but it has no torque". "the car can outhandle just about most cars in its class". "yeah but it has no torque". so the other part of this, is it's "low torque" obviously doesn't hinder its performance ability to compete with other cars in its class. so who cares?
lastly, even though it has low torque, it has incredibly aggressive gearing to make up for it. with an effective final drive ratio of 4.756, it multiplies that torque far more than most other cars do. the fact that a "no torque" 153lb/ft S2000 can be faster than the 99+ 300lb/ft mustang GT is pretty good proof of that.
so despite the fact that it's torque doesn't hinder it's performance, people are so quick to point out that is has "no torque", even though that has little relevance to the car's performance.
first, compare the S2000 to OTHER 4 cylinder engines. In n/a form, no other 4 cylinder makes as much torque as the S2000 does. in fact, even in torque/liter the S2000 is among the best including ALL n/a engines, even V8's.
the problem is it doesn't make the amount of torque that other cars in its class do. even though, despite this, it's faster in the 1/4 mile than most cars in its class anyways, and can corner better than the majority of cars in its class as well. yet that seems to be what people point out. "the car can run a 13.7 stock". "yeah but it has no torque". "the car can outhandle just about most cars in its class". "yeah but it has no torque". so the other part of this, is it's "low torque" obviously doesn't hinder its performance ability to compete with other cars in its class. so who cares?
lastly, even though it has low torque, it has incredibly aggressive gearing to make up for it. with an effective final drive ratio of 4.756, it multiplies that torque far more than most other cars do. the fact that a "no torque" 153lb/ft S2000 can be faster than the 99+ 300lb/ft mustang GT is pretty good proof of that.
so despite the fact that it's torque doesn't hinder it's performance, people are so quick to point out that is has "no torque", even though that has little relevance to the car's performance.
).What people ignore is that POWER is niether horsepower nor torque, but rather the combination of the two. Remember, torque will help you out in low rpms and dies at high rpms and horse power thrives with rpms. The high horsepower cars like the S2K are designed for the hp, not the torque. A old muscle car is designed for torque, but the engines are very peaky, this makes for very bad power band and in the area of handling, this sucks. you are constantly shifting, which looses momentum (suspension aside) and that sucks for going around corners in an autoX or road course type of situation.
So my point is everybody has preformances. Some like torquey V8-V10's, while others like a high strong horsepower, both get the job done though.
You could say the S2000 is the anti-Christ of the musclecar.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 lol. well hp is derived from torque (work/time). so torque does directly determine what the hp will be, along with rpms (since torque is work/time)
anyways, aside from that. like i said, for the torque the car does produce it performs just as well, and even better, than cars that have even twice as much torque as it does.
the fact that it doesn't have torque in the low rev range is just that. a fact. but that comes down to preference. some people want that, and so the S2k isn't for them. no problem with that.
so really, when someone says the S2000 has no torque, that's really an uneducated statement. when someone says the S2000 has no low end torque when compared to other cars in its class, that's a fact. to me, i dont care if it doesn't have gobs of torque at 2000rpm. but that's personal choice. other want that torque down low, so to each their own.
anyways, aside from that. like i said, for the torque the car does produce it performs just as well, and even better, than cars that have even twice as much torque as it does.
the fact that it doesn't have torque in the low rev range is just that. a fact. but that comes down to preference. some people want that, and so the S2k isn't for them. no problem with that.
so really, when someone says the S2000 has no torque, that's really an uneducated statement. when someone says the S2000 has no low end torque when compared to other cars in its class, that's a fact. to me, i dont care if it doesn't have gobs of torque at 2000rpm. but that's personal choice. other want that torque down low, so to each their own.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by S2000man01
lol. well hp is derived from torque (work/time). so torque does directly determine what the hp will be, along with rpms (since torque is work/time).
Originally Posted by S2000man01
the fact that it doesn't have torque in the low rev range is just that. a fact. but that comes down to preference. some people want that, and so the S2k isn't for them. no problem with that.
so really, when someone says the S2000 has no torque, that's really an uneducated statement. when someone says the S2000 has no low end torque when compared to other cars in its class, that's a fact. to me, i dont care if it doesn't have gobs of torque at 2000rpm. but that's personal choice. other want that torque down low, so to each their own.
so really, when someone says the S2000 has no torque, that's really an uneducated statement. when someone says the S2000 has no low end torque when compared to other cars in its class, that's a fact. to me, i dont care if it doesn't have gobs of torque at 2000rpm. but that's personal choice. other want that torque down low, so to each their own.
4 cyclinders down, 4 to go.....
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
From: North Augusta, SC
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by S2000man01
when you run an 11 second 1/4 mile, do you think the finish line gives a sh*t if you make 275lb/ft of torque @ 6000rpm? no. i didnt think so. 
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by acjones21
500whp and 2800 lbs should give more than an 11 second 1/4 mile, I wouldnt brag. Guys get stock Zo6s with drag radials into the 11s and they are ~360whp and 3000lbs ....cough...V8...cough
read the last 5 posts by him (S2kman) and I
Excellent points by both you, s2000man01, and jrfish007. Yes, it is my personal preference in choosing cars that have more torque in the low-end. Why? Well, I couldn't tell ya... I just love that jolt that gobs of torque down-low can bring...
Also, s2000man01, you still didn't answer my question about what kind of cookies the torque fairy gives out, exactly.
Also, s2000man01, you still didn't answer my question about what kind of cookies the torque fairy gives out, exactly.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by acjones21
500whp and 2800 lbs should give more than an 11 second 1/4 mile, I wouldnt brag. Guys get stock Zo6s with drag radials into the 11s and they are ~360whp and 3000lbs ....cough...V8...cough
we have 2 S2000's in the 500+whp range and they run low 10's on street tires. but this is with slipping clutch and tires breaking loose constantly, even on the 3-4 shift.
Last edited by S2000man01; Feb 13, 2005 at 09:55 AM.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by HorrorSkopes
that is an ish-load of hp, but im not too fond of the torque 
(please don't give me negative rep)
(please don't give me negative rep) Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by evopanop
Excellent points by both you, s2000man01, and jrfish007. Yes, it is my personal preference in choosing cars that have more torque in the low-end. Why? Well, I couldn't tell ya... I just love that jolt that gobs of torque down-low can bring...
Also, s2000man01, you still didn't answer my question about what kind of cookies the torque fairy gives out, exactly.
Also, s2000man01, you still didn't answer my question about what kind of cookies the torque fairy gives out, exactly.
I went to prison a boy and came out a man with a sore ass!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 1
From: Gallup/ABQ, New Mexico
Rep Power: 294
Originally Posted by ACURAwerx
doesn't torque help pull stufff and help you get out if your stuck in something?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fpte4.htm
Originally Posted by acjones21
500whp and 2800 lbs should give more than an 11 second 1/4 mile, I wouldnt brag. Guys get stock Zo6s with drag radials into the 11s and they are ~360whp and 3000lbs ....cough...V8...cough
Originally Posted by S2000man01
they are chocolate *** cookies if i remember correctly.
Not exactly the kind of cookies I was hoping for, LoL.Also, sorry to be a 'bit off-topic, S2000man01, but if I were to get an S2000 would I be better off getting an earlier model year 2.0 because they're so much cheaper by now and just get the 2.2L stroker kit for it, or would I be better off getting a newer 2.2 because of all the other improvements they've made to the car?
Last edited by evopanop; Feb 13, 2005 at 12:33 PM.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by evopanop
You also have to remember, though, the differences in the setup of the rear-ends of each car. I would imagine the S2000 is quite a 'bit harder to launch correctly when compared to a Corvette.
Also, sorry to be a 'bit off-topic, S2000man01, but if I were to get an S2000 would I be better off getting an earlier model year 2.0 because they're so much cheaper by now and just get the 2.2L stroker kit for it, or would I be better off getting a newer 2.2 because of all the other improvements they've made to the car?
Also, sorry to be a 'bit off-topic, S2000man01, but if I were to get an S2000 would I be better off getting an earlier model year 2.0 because they're so much cheaper by now and just get the 2.2L stroker kit for it, or would I be better off getting a newer 2.2 because of all the other improvements they've made to the car?
As for an 00-03 car or an 04-06 car, personally I'd rather have the 2.0 liter. The new car has a small amount more of torque down low, but the redline is only like 8200rpm. They also didn't adjust the gearing to compensate, so just to reach 60mph, you have to make a 2-3 shift. The 2.2 liter car also is softer ride quality, but doesn't seem to handle as well as the previous generation S2k's.
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
From: So Cal
Rep Power: 0 There are a few 4bangers that make more torque than the s2k (specV, ralliart, tC, 2.5rs), but there all lacking top end. The fact the s2000 runs the quater that fast (low 14's, high 13's) is it's weight. Gotta love "power to weight ratio". 350z, and s2000 run similar numbers, but for example...
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
Originally Posted by HorrorSkopes
There are a few 4bangers that make more torque than the s2k (specV, ralliart, tC, 2.5rs), but there all lacking top end. The fact the s2000 runs the quater that fast (low 14's, high 13's) is it's weight. Gotta love "power to weight ratio". 350z, and s2000 run similar numbers, but for example...
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by HorrorSkopes
There are a few 4bangers that make more torque than the s2k (specV, ralliart, tC, 2.5rs), but there all lacking top end. The fact the s2000 runs the quater that fast (low 14's, high 13's) is it's weight. Gotta love "power to weight ratio". 350z, and s2000 run similar numbers, but for example...
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
350z: 287hp, 274trq WT:3200lbs
s2000: 240hp, 162trq WT:2835lbs
s2000 is lighter, so the torque factor isn't a must. Thou, the 350z which weights more, has that extra needed torque to get it off the line. If the s2000 weighted as much as the Z, it would run low 15's, high 14's, thus needing more torque to get off the line. If the Z weight as much as the s2000, it would run low 13's easily, might break 12's with a good driver.
aside from that, weight does somewhat play a part, but not as much as you might think. there's a 400 pound difference between the cars. if the 350Z was 400lbs less it could run maybe a 13.3 with the best drivers. but not in the 12's. likewise, the S2k would be a 14.1 car with the best drivers if it weighed 400 more pounds. (a general rule of thumb is .1 seconds off your 1/4 mile for each 100 pounds you shave. this is general, but usually pretty close for cars that trap ~100mph)
the major difference again, here, is the gearing. The S2k has far more agressive gearing than the 350Z, therefore it doesn't need as much torque at the flywheel as the 350Z does. dont get me wrong, you're definitely right that weight is a factor, but gearing is even more important in this situation. make sense?
Originally Posted by HorrorSkopes
^^^ rx8 is a high 14sec car. the s2000 motor is better than rx8. Put it like this, I can hang w/ an rx8 in my ralliart, I cannot hang w/ a s2000 in my ralliart.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 yeah but there is more difference than just weight. gearing and powerband also affect the 1/4 mile time of the rx8.
