Toyota rep at Frankfurt IAA said FT-86 weight will be 1,160kg (2,555 pounds)

[serialk11r]

Thing is, 4k rpm happens at a lower speed on the S2k, at which the Cavalier might have lower power. I'm 100% positive that off the line, the s2k is faster until the first shift, where the short gearing would then keep engine speed up and possibly give the s2k an edge beyond that. After that it's a question of how the gears are spaced on the cavalier. Also note that the cavalier has a massive displacement advantage yet fails to give anywhere close to that advantage in torque.

By the way, why do people want to accelerate so quickly on public roads?

[Want.FR-S]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Thing is, 4k rpm happens at a lower speed on the S2k, at which the Cavalier might have lower power. I'm 100% positive that off the line, the s2k is faster until the first shift. After that it's a question of how the gears are spaced on the cavalier. Also note that the cavalier has a massive displacement advantage yet fails to give anywhere close to that advantage in torque.

The reason I picked 4K is where you would rev your engine to be noticeable by the other drivers. As many automatic transmission cars shift at ~3K most of the time. If you rev past to 4K, other people would know you are driving a manual.

Now, check your knowledge. The 2003 Cavalier shown here has a 2.2 L displacement. The 2003 S2K AP1 has 2 L engine. I would not consider that as a massive displacement advantage. (I am scratching my head seeing people mentioning about the 3.1 L cavalier. Where did that come from? Not even in the Z24 (2.4 L engine).)

Secondly, when you start in first gear, assuming you rev it to 4K, that does not take too much time (< 2 seconds maybe). Given that the S2K engine has somewhat less power/torque, I wonder if it is 100% faster than cavalier. However, if the rev limits of 4K is removed, I am sure that S2K will keep revving while cavalier needs to shift into second gear, and S2K is indeed faster in this case.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

My RSX has a power/weight ratio very close to a miata of its time. 160hp/2700+ lbs vs 140/2400+ lbs. And even the new miata is 160hp/2550 lbs. Its not a big difference in my eyes.

1999 MX5 140 hp / 2299 pounds
2003 MX5 142 hp / 2387 pounds
2012 MX5 Sport 167 hp / 2447 pounds
Acura RSX 160 hp / 2716 pounds
Acura RSX-S 200 hp / 2775 pounds

The RSX has 400+ extra pounds over its front wheels than the 2012 MX5 Sport!

Originally Posted by Want.FR-S

Sorry for going off tangent here: is it true that under normal driving condition (revving up to 4K max on the street), a S2K would be slower than a cavalier because of less torque in that sense? Somehow I got this impression but I do not know where I get this.

Any car will accelerate slowly if shifted at less than half its redline:

F = P / v

For any given vehicle velocity (v), force at the wheels (F) increases if power at the wheels (P) increases. If you shift early, you never get to those higher power levels.

Also, I wouldn't call 4k max normal driving. Yes, about half of my shifting is <=4k, but when I want/need to accelerate quickly, I use the RPM range as it was intended.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Look at any dyno chart of the S2k, you'll see torque is actually pretty constant. On the low speed cam it's a tiny bit lower to save fuel obviously, but the torque is very respectable throughout the rev range. For people who complain about lack of low end torque, it's all in their heads, real data shows this is not the case.

When people complain about a lack of low-end torque, they are usually really complaining about an overall lack of torque. Also, cars like the MS3 and WRX not only make more torque, but their peak is early on (and then it gradually drops off as the RPMs build). The S2k's shorter gearing helps it:

1st gear redline
API 8900 44 MPH
AP2 8200 38 MPH
WRX 6800 39 MPH
MS3 6900 35 MPH

But even after accounting for it and the S2k's weight advantage, the WRX and MS3 make so much more torque (especially down low) that they have more oomph below ~30 MPH. That's not a priority to me, but I understand why it is to some.

Originally Posted by Want.FR-S

So, I understand that S2K is a fast car that can achieve good 0-60 time whereas cavalier maybe a POS in 0-60 time. However, the key point in this discussion is at the rev limit of 4K. At 4K point, Cavalier has > 100 HP and > 125 lb-ft of torque, whereas S2K has < 100 HP and < 125 lb-ft of torque. If we just forget about the gearing issue and the free revving characteristic of S2K for now, just compare it on numbers S2K is inferior to Cavalier. I think this maybe the complaints of the "gut-less" motor. In the regular city driving, the motor feels gutless.

As serialk11r mentioned, you can't ignore gearing in a comparison like this, but yes the S2k is gutless. However, there's no reason you can't shift at above 4k in regular city driving.

In summary if you don't like downshifting or revving the car, don't get an S2k. Or a Toyobaru for that matter.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Want.FR-S

The reason I picked 4K is where you would rev your engine to be noticeable by the other drivers. As many automatic transmission cars shift at ~3K most of the time. If you rev past to 4K, other people would know you are driving a manual.

Now, check your knowledge. The 2003 Cavalier shown here has a 2.2 L displacement. The 2003 S2K AP1 has 2 L engine. I would not consider that as a massive displacement advantage. (I am scratching my head seeing people mentioning about the 3.1 L cavalier. Where did that come from? Not even in the Z24 (2.4 L engine).)

Secondly, when you start in first gear, assuming you rev it to 4K, that does not take too much time (< 2 seconds maybe). Given that the S2K engine has somewhat less power/torque, I wonder if it is 100% faster than cavalier. However, if the rev limits of 4K is removed, I am sure that S2K will keep revving while cavalier needs to shift into second gear, and S2K is indeed faster in this case.

Sorry I'm getting massively confused, I saw someone post something about an engine with 185 ft-lb torque...and only 160hp? (GM fails pretty hard, barely over 50hp/L and 60 ft-lb/L wtf?)

Anyways I didn't say 100% faster, I said I'm 100% positive it is faster lol. By the time 1st gear is maxed out on an S2000, we are at >200hp, so there is a greater amount of torque going to the wheels in first gear for sure. Second gear though, I don't know, can't say.

The appealing thing about turbo cars I guess is exactly what you described, peaky power down low. Feel like your car is really fast on the street, even if it dies off at higher rpm (which is never used).

[SUB-FT86]

Looking at that s2k dyno you can tell if the revs aren't above 6300 rpms it will feel gutless. That dyno tells the story of how I feel about the s2k powerband from being inside the car. It seems to really feel sporty in acceleration after 6300 rpms. But revving that high in DD is a pain in the ass.

[DaveyG]

I can't believe your comparing a s2000 and cavalier in anytype of way. I understand the agrument but I'm going to throw up.

[SUB-FT86]

He wasn't comparing the ability of both platforms. He knows the s2k is the drivers car. Everybody knows in fact. He was talking about usable powerband and saying the cavalier has a richer powerband below the average daily driver rpms..

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Deslock

As serialk11r mentioned, you can't ignore gearing in a comparison like this, but yes the S2k is gutless. However, there's no reason you can't shift at above 4k in regular city driving.

there's no reason you cant, but there's also no reason why you should have to...

THAT'S where the complaints come in. the car forces you to rev higher and the shorter gearing forces you to shift more often. can you rev all the way to redline? can you downshift to pass? of course! but in other cars you dont necessarily have to. and so the criticism is valid.

it must be said again, gearing CANNOT replace engine torque. you WILL have to compromise somewhere else.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by madfast

there's no reason you cant, but there's also no reason why you should have to...

THAT'S where the complaints come in. the car forces you to rev higher and the shorter gearing forces you to shift more often. can you rev all the way to redline? can you downshift to pass? of course! but in other cars you dont necessarily have to. and so the criticism is valid.

it must be said again, gearing CANNOT replace engine torque. you WILL have to compromise somewhere else.

With the longer powerbands that high hp, high rpm motors have, you basically can replace torque with gearing.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Dimman

With the longer powerbands that high hp, high rpm motors have, you basically can replace torque with gearing.

but at what cost? in theory world yes, but what about in $5 a gallon reality...?

and if anybody wants to pull the we enthusiasts dont give a crap about mpg you gotta pay to play BS, then what about wear and tear of high rpm? the higher cost to make the engine reliable at high rpm? etc etc etc ad nauseam. nothing is free, you will have to compromise elsewhere.

[SUB-FT86]

I also feel these gutless engines is even worse with added occupants in the car. These cars obviously was meant for one lightweight driver IMHO!! Lol

[Spaceywilly]

Originally Posted by madfast

but at what cost? in theory world yes, but what about in $5 a gallon reality...?

and if anybody wants to pull the we enthusiasts dont give a crap about mpg you gotta pay to play BS, then what about wear and tear of high rpm? the higher cost to make the engine reliable at high rpm? etc etc etc ad nauseam. nothing is free, you will have to compromise elsewhere.

In $5/gal "reality" (premium is hovering around 3.90 here), I'll take a 2L NA engine over a turbo or something with more cylinders. That low end torque everyone is so obsessed with isn't free, it is literally created by burning more gas, either by having bigger/more combustion chambers or by forcing more air into the chamber, and in turn more gas as well. You can only increase volumetric efficiency so much, and then the only way to get more power is to increase volume. This car with a 2.0l NA engine and DI should get pretty great fuel economy when you aren't pushing it, and it will still have the power up high when you want it. Yes, you might have to downshift... dear god the humanity

[SUB-FT86]

A civic Si gets 29 mpg on the highway. A GC 3.8 liter gets 26 mpg on the highway. A 3.7 Mustang gets 31 mpg on the highway. I dont see a major difference in this day and age and the sad part is the coupes I mentioned weigh 550+ lbs heavier than the Si with the k20. This isnt 1998. A high revving 2.0 liter is shitty on gas too. And also those coupes use regular gas.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

This isnt 1998. A high revving 2.0 liter is shitty on gas too. And also those coupes use regular gas.

Hell, even back then the story wasn't much different. Folks who drove their Hondas "enthusiastically" would get worse gas mileage than people with Mustang GT's driving at equal speeds/accelerations.

I will let Jeremy Clarkson illustrate this further.
[u2b]_JdOH7GrE6Q[/u2b]