No, S2000's gear is 3.13 and Z28 M6 is 3.42 so Z28's gears are shorter.
Also, what reliability issues are plaguing F-bodies? I've had my SS for two years now without any problems.
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Torque, while a interesting and more physically worthwhile number, CANNOT be considered on its own. Torque from the engine and torque from the wheels are related by the transmission and differential ratios--which vary considerably from car to car (I'm willing to bet the S2000 is geared MUCH shorter than the Z28). Horsepower is NOT effected by the gearing (think: conservation of ENERGY)--which is why it is a better measure of an engine's overall performance.
Now as for my opinion on the S2000... high build quality, good looks, decent performance, and a high-wailing engine (9000 rpms!). The Z28 has a good bit of appeal (I grew up driving my dad's 69)... but it appeals to a different audience. Not to mention the reliability issues that plagued the F-bodies... and sometimes iffy build-quality. But lots of fun.
Originally posted by: Jzero
Some people like 2-seat roadsters reminiscent of a day when companies like Fiat, MG and Triumph made cars that might not have been fast as much as they were "zippy."
They want to wander around on mountain roads where you can have fun spinning the engine up to high revs and negotiate tight turns.
Other people like bigger, faster, powerful cars, reminiscent of a day when companies like ford, chevy, buick and plymouth made cars that pure muscle.
They want to plow down city streets with their V8s roaring. The cars look like muscle, sound like muscle, drive like muscle.
Different strokes for different folks.
Comparing the S2000 to a Camaro won't help you understand what the "big deal" is. If you aren't into those little roadsters, you'll never "get it," because there is nothing to "get."
That's just the final drive ratio. The overall ratios for the individual gears are almost certainly shorter.Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Torque, while a interesting and more physically worthwhile number, CANNOT be considered on its own. Torque from the engine and torque from the wheels are related by the transmission and differential ratios--which vary considerably from car to car (I'm willing to bet the S2000 is geared MUCH shorter than the Z28). Horsepower is NOT effected by the gearing (think: conservation of ENERGY)--which is why it is a better measure of an engine's overall performance.
Now as for my opinion on the S2000... high build quality, good looks, decent performance, and a high-wailing engine (9000 rpms!). The Z28 has a good bit of appeal (I grew up driving my dad's 69)... but it appeals to a different audience. Not to mention the reliability issues that plagued the F-bodies... and sometimes iffy build-quality. But lots of fun.
No, S2000's gear is 3.13 and Z28 M6 is 3.42 so Z28's gears are shorter.
Also, what reliability issues are plaguing F-bodies? I've had my SS for two years now without any problems.
I hope you were beeing sarcastic... Honda put the redline at 10k for a reason - it can handle the high RPM's. Hondas have been known for reliability, and generally the 4 bangers will out last the v8's (generalization, I know, but still) They are fun cars to drive, my mom was looking into getting one but decided to get another v6 accord. I don't remember how much the camaro costs, but the s2000 is like 33,000 I believe, couple this with better gas mileage (heh barely though) and better reliability, and you save money while still driving a sports car.Originally posted by: Ultima
LMAO.. 3 times the displacement and gas mileage is about the same. I bet that V8 will last a lot longer too, since it doesn't have to rev at 8000 RPM to make power.
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: forcesho
It's pretty amazing to crank out 240 HP from a 4 cylinder. So you need a 5.7 v8 to crank out 310 hp ? So if you triple the displacement of a Honda but only cranking out 70 more hp ?
240 / 2.0 = 120HP / Litre
310 / 5.7 = 54.38HP / Litre
Unless your some Arab prince that loves American car that sucks gas.. I wouldn't take the Camaro
You can kiss ass to HP/L all day long, but 310 > 240.
End of story.
Viper GTS
Originally posted by: OS
uhhh, are you reading the dyno right?? You're looking at the HP line. Look at the chart very carefully and compare peak numbers to the scales on each side.
The torque line is not flat at all, it falls off gradually at 2.5K then rapidly after 4.3K. Basically the motor runs out of breath very rapidly towards upper revs.
Heh now those things are FASTOriginally posted by: Mwilding
If I want to run my engine at >8000 rpm, I'll get a Sport Bike...
Originally posted by: vi_edit
I would prefer a S2000 with a 3 liter six.
That's the NSX and it'll cost you three times the amount
Originally posted by: DaiShan
I hope you were beeing sarcastic... Honda put the redline at 10k for a reason - it can handle the high RPM's. Hondas have been known for reliability, and generally the 4 bangers will out last the v8's (generalization, I know, but still) They are fun cars to drive, my mom was looking into getting one but decided to get another v6 accord. I don't remember how much the camaro costs, but the s2000 is like 33,000 I believe, couple this with better gas mileage (heh barely though) and better reliability, and you save money while still driving a sports car.Originally posted by: Ultima
LMAO.. 3 times the displacement and gas mileage is about the same. I bet that V8 will last a lot longer too, since it doesn't have to rev at 8000 RPM to make power.
Originally posted by: N8Magic
Uh, no I was looking at the torque line.
I still consider it fairly flat even though it peaks early and slowly drops off. It drops off rapidly after 4.3K because the redline of the engine is at 4700RPM.
I'm sorry, but having 80-100% of peak torque throughout the usable RPM range (in this case, 1500-4300RPM) constitutes a flat torque curve to me.
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Differential ratio and overall ratio are different.... check the gear ratios in first and second. I might be surprised though...I don't know specifically with the S2000.... but I know its a big trend with the old muscle cars... small blocks were frequently geared MUCH shorter than the big blocks (my dad did restorations for a long time).
I've seen modern Z28s in horrible shape.... not necessarily the engine, though. I've seen tons of interior problems--trim falling off, seats ripping early, dashes nearly falling apart. Not to mention panel gaps that you could stick your pinky in. GMs biggest issue is quality control--they make some beauties, but they make some lemons. They make GREAT V8s (and the new I6 is good too)... but their interior and panel fits are very rough these days. Its one of the things that Bob Lutz should help fix (his famous line "you can't zero-percent finance away a dog").
Originally posted by: OS
uhhh, that cliff you call a torque curve isn't flat by gasoline motor standards. 80% thru 4.3K?? Do you know how to count?? Maybe you should use a calculator to help you. (100 ft-lb)/(150 ft/lb) is 2/3rds! At 4.3K, you lost a third of your torque!! Last time I checked, 66% wasn't the same thing as 80%.
You get nothing like that even with the supposedly torqueless integra type R.
Originally posted by: N8Magic
Originally posted by: OS
uhhh, that cliff you call a torque curve isn't flat by gasoline motor standards. 80% thru 4.3K?? Do you know how to count?? Maybe you should use a calculator to help you. (100 ft-lb)/(150 ft/lb) is 2/3rds! At 4.3K, you lost a third of your torque!! Last time I checked, 66% wasn't the same thing as 80%.
You get nothing like that even with the supposedly torqueless integra type R.
You're quite right, it isn't flat by gasoline motor standards. This might be because it not a gasoline engine, and because it uses forced induction. Have a look at a 1.8T dyno and you'll see that again, the torque peaks low and slowly falls off as the revs increase. Look and you'll see the same phenonmenon with the famous Nissan SR20DET dyno.
At higher revs, the turbo can't keep up with the required airflow, and the numbers slowly drop off. Does this make the engine a dog? No.
Originally posted by: OS
Ugh, again my point is, your first post is still misleading, if not flat out wrong. Torque numbers alone mean sh*t.
Originally posted by: N8Magic
Granted, we got a bit off-track there.
But why would you say torque figures alone mean sh*t? Torque is a measure of force being output by the engine. No force = no work being done, and therefore, no horsepower.
Ok, I see what you mean now.Originally posted by: OS
Because you have to take into account the shape of the torque curve also. If you make a huge spike of torque at the bottom, but lose it as revs build, you won't make any respectable power.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't own a S2k. I don't want one or need one. But I've seen enough of them in person and I've seen them crap out in person enough to know what I'm talking about.
How many have you seen crap out in person?
What's the big deal about the Honda S2000?
One had a Comptec prototype blower on it. The second had a bad oil pick up which it had day one from the factory. The owner could never get Honda to fix it. The third was at the track and the driver was trying for a magical 7000+ rpm launch (which can be done, but not by most people).