Ask the Car People.SM


Integra Type R's, Celica GTS, Prelude Sh, Eclipse GT, Which car is better - READ ONLY

95 messages,  Last post on Apr 18, 2000 at 11:06 PM

You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.

Messages Page 10 of 10

#86 of 95 by judas

Apr 18, 2000 (6:04 pm)

They didn't prove what they stated? What do you accept as proof? If they come to your house and show you the time slip? Let you ride in one? THEY tested it. That's what they said it would do. They didn't make it up. They didn't estimated it. They tested it. Why would they lie? How do you know the S2000 makes 240 HP? You don't, you're relying on someone else's testing, just like I'm relying on someone else's testing when I say it takes about 12 seconds for it to get to 60 shifting at 5500 rpm.


if you thought there was such thing as "low end torque", time to learn!


Kinda changed your tune here didn't you? In this statement you accuse someone else of being ignorant while being blatantly ignorant yourself. Yeah, of course its better to have a flat torque curve. It's also better to have your torque peak at less than 7500 RPM or whatever it peaks at on the S2000. It's also better to have more than 153 lb/ft of torque when youre selling a 32,000 performance car. The BMW competetion sure has more torque. So does the Boxter, which makes them more fun to drive.


Yeah, there is a difference between sports cars and muscle cars. I can argue whatever I want to, however, because a) its a free country and b)I could afford an S2000 easily, and when I'm considering purchasing a vehicle I take into account all the different cars that catch my eye. So for me, the S2000 and the Mustang are direct competetion, because I would consider owning both of them.


Why didn't you address your definition of torque? I'm curious how you're going to clarify that one so that it makes even a small amount of sense. I'm also curious on how you can think you know more than I after that definition.

#87 of 95 by judas

Apr 18, 2000 (6:53 pm)

Why is it better to have torque peak at 4000 versus 7500? Because you dont rev to 7500 every time you shift gears, and if you do you'll kill your engine. Look at the cars youre comparing it to? The SE-R? The G20? The Ford Zetec? These are engines found in 15,000 econo cars, not 32,000 performance cars. And the S2000 isnt meant to compete with the base Z3, its meant to compete with the 2.8 Z3. Give me a break.
Of course you changed your tune. You said there was NO SUCH THING as low end torque.
Incredible 153 lb/ft? 153 lb/ft isn't incredible. Its good from a NA 4 banger, but its far from incredible considering a $17,000 POS Pontiac Grand Am has more than that.

#88 of 95 by robertsmx

Apr 18, 2000 (6:55 pm)

Muscle cars versus Revvers:
I didn't want to argue that but since you insist, keep your hopes high till they are straightened up in some real situations, and if you're really considering S2K versus Mustang, you don't know what you want.


Torque:
I don't have another definition of torque, it just means differently to me in that I don't ignore what the engine translates it into. To make it in short, don't make HP look like a meaningless term. There is a reason to why we have two set of measurements for output from an engine, and neither is meaningful without the other. Let me know if engine's capabilities can be deduced from this,
4.6 liter/V8 SOHC, 302 lb.-ft 4000 rpm, redline 6000 rpm (Mustang GT). Or,
3.2 liter/F6 DOHC, 221 lb.-ft 4500 rpm, redline 7250 rpm (Boxster S)

#89 of 95 by robertsmx

Apr 18, 2000 (7:58 pm)

Judas:
Do you understand a tiny bit of what I'm saying? There can be a 1.3 liter four banger and a 2.5 liter four banger, they will not develop same torque. Do you think if Honda increased the displacement on the 2.0/I-4, they would still get 153 lb.-ft? Remember, 153 lb.-ft from a 2 liter power plant means 76.5 lb.-ft/liter displacement (and without LEV like most of its competition, it amounts to 80.5 lb.-ft/liter!). If displacement is just bumped up to equal Prelude's (2.2 liter), I'd expect the torque to be between 162-165 lb.-ft.
Honda could have used the originally intended 2.5 liter engine (220 HP) or even one of the engines they already have as 2.5TL in Japan (called Inspire/Saber). The latter is a three stage SOHC VTEC (identical technology as that in Civic EX) develops 200 HP 6200 (compare to Boxster's 201 HP 6250 rpm) and 177 lb.-ft 4600 rpm (compare to Boxster's 181 lb.-ft 4500 rpm), but it would make it just another Boxster, not as unique as it stands now, much in line with the first Honda (S500) to celebrate the 50th birthday of Honda as a company (35 years into making cars). It is an F1 car made for the streets.
Do you think Honda should have used CR-V engine instead, in S2000, since it provides peak torque of 135 lb.-ft at only 4500 rpm (peak power of 146 HP 6100 rpm), that would allow less than 12 second run to 60 mph if shifted at 5500 rpm? First I don't understand why anyone buying S2K, for what it is, will want to shift early (unless previous experience was a "low end" car), and second, even if anybody wanted to, they will spend 12 seconds to figure out how to keep the revs below 6000 rpm. Shifting at 7500 rpm delivers you 153 lb.-ft and at 5500 rpm, it will deliver 150 lb.-ft, so go ahead! It is a much better number than that in Camry I-4, and even Accord I-4 at the same rpm.
Evenif I was driving BMW M3 (3.2/I-6; 236 lb.-ft 3750 rpm) or Acura CL-S (3.2/V6; 232 lb.-ft 3500-5500 rpm), I would be shifting either of them past 6500 rpm everytime (although the M3 torque falls considerably at that point, to about 190 lb.-ft, and CL-S's to about 205 lb.-ft). To not have to shift leads to the slush box!

#90 of 95 judas by judas

Apr 18, 2000 (8:54 pm)

Why do you insist on comparing the engine in the S2000 to cars that have a completely different mission? Comparing the S2000 engine to the Camry, or the Accord, or the CRV, or the G20 or Sentra, is pointless and stupid. Compare the engine to it's competition, which all use 6 cylinders or larger. People don't buy engines, they buy cars. Since the S2000 engine is the best engine ever made would you buy a fullsize truck that had one in it? How about a station wagon with the S2000 engine? All you do is sit there and quote numbers and say how much better the S2000 engine when compared to 4 cylinders in either family cars or cars that cost half as much.

#91 of 95 by judas

Apr 18, 2000 (9:13 pm)

 On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds.


This is a direct quote from the MT article in question. Doesn't say it was a guess, or an estimate, or anything. They did it. And thats what it was. There went one of arguments.


Your right, torque is meaningless without taking into account HP as well, and the HP on the S2000 is pathetic below about 6000 RPMS, which is why its 0-60 is so abysmal when you dont redline the engine every time.

#92 of 95 by robertsmx

Apr 18, 2000 (10:26 pm)

Judas:
Don't make comments that cannot be supported without facts, and when I bring up facts, you take a corner telling me that the cars don't compete. I'm not disagreeing with that, S2K has a completely different purpose to serve than tow a trailer. Agreed?
Let me take your number, how much torque (hence HP) do you think S2000 engine develops under 6000 rpm? Less than other four bangers that go faster than 9 seconds to 60 despite of being 400 lb. heavy? Don't be clueless and make ignorant comments. Do you think MT tests and puts like, 0-60 in over 8 seconds or under 9 seconds? Or do they say, 8.3 seconds? Keep guessing. I don't believe fact-less statements.
BTW, there are $45K cars that come with even smaller four bangers. FYI, a Lotus Elise dedicated site mentions those sportsters to be brought to this side of the Atlantic, to make them street legal in USA, they will be equipped with Integra Type-R engines from Honda. Hold on, price tag, $55K. That will be S2K competition.
The problem with S2K is its competitiveness with cars that have significantly larger displacements, and more cylinders. Clicks something?
A better place to discuss this will be in coupes section (Honda VTEC… ), rather than consuming this space. Hope to see you there. You could even bring your Mustang V8 with you.

#93 of 95 by robertsmx

Apr 18, 2000 (10:28 pm)

One more...
At 6000 rpm, S2000 develops 170+ HP (thats more HP than Integra GS-R at 7600 rpm, or Ford 2.5/V6 at 6200 rpm)!

#94 of 95 nutype by nutype

Apr 18, 2000 (10:37 pm)

try to shift your car at half its redline and see what kind of number you would get. remember the S2000 has a fuel cut of 9100 and a buick would have 5600 rpms.

#95 of 95 carlady by mzn

Apr 18, 2000 (11:06 pm)

I think this topic needs some chill time. I'll open it up again once everyone has settled down a bit. Can we agree to disagree agreeably?


carlady/host

Messages Page 10 of 10

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement