0-60 mph - forget handling ability for 5.9 seconds

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

0-62. That's as high as I'll go.

Sorry I didn't clarify. 60-70 horsepower. The family sedans you generalize have 60-70 more hp than the FRS, not 100.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Sorry I didn't clarify. 60-70 horsepower. The family sedans you generalize have 60-70 more hp than the FRS, not 100.

OOh, okay. thanks.

[ahausheer]

Originally Posted by SuqMadiq

You couldn't be more wrong. For straight line performance torque is going to be the determining factor. HP is essentially torque measured over time. What you want for acceleration is torque. Let's recall high school physics days... F= MA, or Force = Mass * Acceleration. Now to solve for Acceleration we get A= F/M. Toque is a force measured in lb-ft.

So ultimately that leaves us with Acceleration = Force (torque) / Mass (of car). Now if you're wondering how HP and gearing are part of the equation. Well, HP measures the amount of power over time. So high HP will net high speeds as it is an extended period of torque to the wheels. The gearing is also very important because it derives how much force is actually being sent to the wheels. The reason a high revving engine is good, is because the car can maintain the high torque being applied to the wheels. So having a high revving engine will also help your acceleration.

I'm not wrong, apparently you didn't read the link I posted. Torque is what you feel, but Hp is what gets the job done. If you had two cars, all else being equal, and one had more Hp, the higher hp car will win in a drag race, but at max torque each will ''pull'' just as hard. To oversimplify, torque is instantaneous acceleration, merely the potential to actually move something, Hp is what determines how long that torque can move something. You can have a lot of torque, but if it is not moving anything no work is being done by the object. F=MA, when you stand on a scale you are not moving but you apply your potential to move (the force of gravity) to A. Force does not imply motion. F=MA even for a stationary object. Torque measures a force with the potential to actually move something, Hp measures how much actual movement is being done.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by ahausheer

Not really. The S2000 weighs about 2,800 lbs, has about 155 ft/lbs of torque and it will get to 60 faster than the BRZ and the GTI. I think its more a function of gearing, tires, manual shift times and Hp.
Read this, http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html check the Corvette comparisons. You want Hp, not torque to win a race.

An S2000 is only like .2 seconds quicker than a GTI and it should've been even better than that by like 1 whole second but it isn't. Let's see here.

240hp in a 2750 lb RWD roadster

vs

200hp in a 3200 lb FWD coupe

You would think that with the extra 400+ lbs and 40 hp disadvantage paired with FWD traction that the GTI should be at least 1 second slower but it's not.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...0/viewall.html



http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html



Sometimes power 2 weight ratio is overrun by other things.


Also I like this little quote from the S2000 in MT.

The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds. Herein lies the car's biggest problem: Most people will never drive in the best rpm range (7000 to 8500), shifting too early. Our advice is to treat the S2000 like you hate it and you'll get the most out of it. We did and loved every minute of it.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1qRl8ocXT

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

An S2000 is only like .2 seconds quicker than a GTI and it should've been even better than that by like 1 whole second but it isn't. Let's see here.

240hp in a 2750 lb RWD roadster

vs

200hp in a 3200 lb FWD coupe

You would think that with the extra 400+ lbs and 40 hp disadvantage paired with FWD traction that the GTI should be at least 1 second slower but it's not.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...0/viewall.html



http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html



Sometimes power 2 weight ratio is overrun by other things.


Also I like this little quote from the S2000 in MT.

The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds. Herein lies the car's biggest problem: Most people will never drive in the best rpm range (7000 to 8500), shifting too early. Our advice is to treat the S2000 like you hate it and you'll get the most out of it. We did and loved every minute of it.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1qRl8ocXT

You can't go by crank HP. GTI's are underrated from the factory and are FWD so there is less drive train loss. I'd also like to point out that s2k's are 2800 something pounds not 2700. Anyways the s2k has more drive train loss being that its rwd. Put them bought on a dyno, and then weigh them. Crunch the numbers, and you'll see the s2k has the power to weight advantage and does indeed out accelerate the gti. power to weight never lies, except when its an issue of applying the power.

[serialk11r]

The reason the GTI is fast is it has a turbo that makes a lot of low end torque but dies off at high rpm. Thus it has more horsepower available at low speed. NA cars have crappy looking 0-60 because they make approximately constant torque, and this means in first gear they are only putting down an average of about half their maximum power.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The reason the GTI is fast is it has a turbo that makes a lot of low end torque but dies off at high rpm. Thus it has more horsepower available at low speed. NA cars have crappy looking 0-60 because they make approximately constant torque, and this means in first gear they are only putting down an average of about half their maximum power.

EXACTLY!!!!

[ahausheer]

^Ow my digital ears are ringing, stop yelling so loud

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by jor8888

sooo the GTI with same HP and heavier is faster? the Japanese are falling behind.

[Levi]

How do so many dare compare the S2000 to a GTI ?

GTI<---------------------------------------------------------------------------<S2000

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Levi

How do so many dare compare the S2000 to a GTI ?

GTI<---------------------------------------------------------------------------<S2000

Because you failed to see what the comparison was about. I feel a lot of people just see the words "GTI" and "S2000" and assume that people are saying that they are rivals. We are talking about Power 2 Weight ratio and how sometimes it doesn't add up to a much better acceleration as expected. Nobody is talking about handling or feel here we all know which is the champ at that.

[carbonBLUE]

[u2b]0QZLlFLUh98[/u2b]

i used a stop watch, started it when the car started moving, stopped it when he chirped tires going into third

got 6.5 with that horrible launch, 5.9 is possible, hes a good driver though when it came to the cones

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by SuqMadiq

You couldn't be more wrong. For straight line performance torque is going to be the determining factor.

{snip}

The reason a high revving engine is good, is because the car can maintain the high torque being applied to the wheels.

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

^ I 'm neither engineer nor physicist but even with mostly-forgotten high school physics something smells oversimplified or just plain wrong with that statement, simply on the basis of dyno charts.

Lots of cars have near-flat torque curves these days. So keeping things simple, if you have a CVT car with a flat torque curve, according to your explanation it would never have to rev faster than say 2000 rpm where the torque curve levels off since reving any higher would provide no additional torque. But of course we all know that is not what happens in practice - stomp on the gas in a CVT'd car and the revs shoot up and stay there until you ease off the gas. That obviously is necessary to get more power to the wheels or the engine would not be programmed to do that (it burns gas more quickly in that state) so torque alone is not the explanation for acceleration. Something about horsepower's (force X distance)/time must come into play here making hp important.

Can anyone offer a more complete understanding? Wikipedia on horsepower was not directly on point.

Power is the determining factor:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129241 (see item #3)
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129439 (bicycle comparison)
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=78781 (wheel torque examples)
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=78973 (math)

Engine torque is also relevant because you don't always drive around at peak power, and you can't make high power at low/medium engine speeds without high engine torque.

Part of the confusion might stem from some people using the general term torque when describing engine torque while others use it when describing wheel torque (and not everyone understands the difference).

[Sport-Tech]

^ Big thanks for this! Will be an interesting read.