meevo wroteI would not. There is a slight change in thrust when the S2K switches from the low rpm cam profile to the high rpm lobes. The M's continuously variable vanos system and much broader torque ban gives a sensation of smooth steady acceleration.Has anyone felt what the Honda S2000 feels like when it hits the vtec? Would you guys describe the sensation as similar?
22.6KVIEWS
58REPLIES
0APPRECIATES
05-29-2009LAST POST
Ronin13 wroteRight, there isn't that much of a change. Those cars are seriously under powered. I think they've had the same 240 BHP and 160 lb-ft for the last 9 years.I would not. There is a slight change in thrust when the S2K switches from the low rpm cam profile to the high rpm lobes. The M's continuously variable vanos system and much broader torque ban gives a sensation of smooth steady acceleration.
arr0gant wrotes2k's aren't underpowered. Obviously they aren't the fastest thing in a straight line but a car doesn't need 400hp to be fast if it handles like its on rails.Right, there isn't that much of a change. Those cars are seriously under powered. I think they've had the same 240 BHP and 160 lb-ft for the last 9 years.
meevo wrotepeak tq in the s2k hits very high in the rpm range unlike the m3 tq curve which is flat from 2600ish to 6000ishHas anyone felt what the Honda S2000 feels like when it hits the vtec? Would you guys describe the sensation as similar?
duk wroteNot to split hairs, but the M3's torque stays flat at around 255 until about 7200RPM where it slowly dips to 230 before it drops to 0 at 8400.peak tq in the s2k hits very high in the rpm range unlike the m3 tq curve which is flat from 2600ish to 6000ish
seriousm3 wroteI find our 3rd+ gear quite long. I raced my friends evo and clearly beat him because while I was still in 3rd he was shifting to 5th.The high redline in addition to short gearing allow cars like m3's and s2000's to accelerate as quickly as much larger displacement cars.
effectively what you have is a lance armstrong vs. a body builder in a bicycle race. the body builder may have legs twice as strong but he can only pedal so fast... whereas skinny athletic lance armstrong can pedal alot faster and use a lower gear so he doesn't have to be as strong... this allows him to go faster then the body builder. m3 vs. mustang or corvette.
Simple analogy obviously you have to account for weight, traction, etc.
meevo wrotelolHas anyone felt what the Honda S2000 feels like when it hits the vtec? Would you guys describe the sensation as similar?
just think about it this way
"vtec kicked in yo" was done in a s2000
The effects of torque at the wheels is a very tricky thing to conclude based of graphs. Compare two cars, one a turbo and the other a N/A, the turbo makes it's torque early and it usually very linear but can't rev beyond 7k, where as the N/A makes less torque but higher in the rev range and can rev to over 8k. Both make similar amounts of HP but at different peak revs and the turbo makes more torque but much lower down.
When you view the race you will see the turbo pulling away at the start of each gear with the N/A starting to catch at the end of the gear. It's swings and roundabouts or in other words two different ways to get the job done, each have there benefits and pitfalls.
In my opinion the M3's torque is too linear which makes forward progress a matter of stirring the pot (gearbox) compared to the likes of the 335i.
It all depends on which you prefer.
When you view the race you will see the turbo pulling away at the start of each gear with the N/A starting to catch at the end of the gear. It's swings and roundabouts or in other words two different ways to get the job done, each have there benefits and pitfalls.
In my opinion the M3's torque is too linear which makes forward progress a matter of stirring the pot (gearbox) compared to the likes of the 335i.
It all depends on which you prefer.
I had a CLK55 and I loved it for its great exhaust note and comfortable interior. But everytime I rode in an M3 (e46 then), I couldnt help but notice that it seemed to pull harder all the way to redline... like much harder
i found this similar discussion way back in one of the mb forums but of course it got shot down
but it made sense to me
now i know why every m3 driver always zings past me at high revs
i found this similar discussion way back in one of the mb forums but of course it got shot down
but it made sense to menow i know why every m3 driver always zings past me at high revs
As someone who has owned a couple generations of S2k's, you cant knock that car! It may sound "underpowered" but look at the weight and suspension. It is by far the most fun car I've owned. It does not need more power IMO, and I totally disagree about lackluster performance in low RPMs, its fine. Remeber what this car costs and what you get for your money. Its an astounding car.
s2k funfactor = 9
m3 funfactor = 7
Getting back to the torque discussion, I do feel the M3 is a bit down. I came out of a z06, so I miss the grunt off the line. This car should have 350 tq.
z06 funfactor= 10
s2k funfactor = 9
m3 funfactor = 7
Getting back to the torque discussion, I do feel the M3 is a bit down. I came out of a z06, so I miss the grunt off the line. This car should have 350 tq.
z06 funfactor= 10
seriousm3 wroteWhen I 1st drove an S2000 in 2000 it felt quick once the RPM's got up. I drove one last year and it felt seriously lacking in power, but this was after I had driven and owned (and gotten used to) a lot of cars since i 1st drove the S2000.s2k's aren't underpowered. Obviously they aren't the fastest thing in a straight line but a car doesn't need 400hp to be fast if it handles like its on rails.
Hell, even my 2000 Boxster S felt a lot faster. There was a time that the S2000 competed with the Boxster. Now the Boxster is way too fast and powerful for the S2000 to compete.
The S2000 could use a bump in displacement and HP as well as torque.
Subw00er wroteThat's because the car has no traction and the rear end is always loose!z06 funfactor= 10
/joke
Subw00er wroteDo you feel the same way about the GT3? The GT3 is geared the same way as the M3. 415BHP, 300lb-ft and redlines at 8400. I think you need to drive an M3, seriously.As someone who has owned a couple generations of S2k's, you cant knock that car! It may sound "underpowered" but look at the weight and suspension. It is by far the most fun car I've owned. It does not need more power IMO, and I totally disagree about lackluster performance in low RPMs, its fine. Remeber what this car costs and what you get for your money. Its an astounding car.
s2k funfactor = 9
m3 funfactor = 7
Getting back to the torque discussion, I do feel the M3 is a bit down. I came out of a z06, so I miss the grunt off the line. This car should have 350 tq.
z06 funfactor= 10
yeah too bad the S2000 is retired... it should have had a 3.0 liter V6 with 320hp and 240tq
duk wrotePerfect way to put it. Honda hasn't attempted to improve upon it in 9 years. It was once a great car.yeah too bad the S2000 is retired... it should have had a 3.0 liter V6 with 320hp and 240tq
duk wrotebecause more weight on the front axle is a good thing. right?yeah too bad the S2000 is retired... it should have had a 3.0 liter V6 with 320hp and 240tq
My opinion is that torque numbers only confuse most people's minds. You need to remember that when a manufacturer quotes torque they are talking about "peak" torque at one specific RPM. That says nothing about the real shape of the torque vs rpm curve, which is after all one of the most important measures of engine performance. Not only does the S65 rev high while allowing the M3 gearing to multiply engine torque, but the torque curve itself is very flat compared to most other engines. It is this flatness that may be responsible for the feeling that it has little torque compared to say the 335 which "bumps" the torque after the turbo has spooled up. It seems as though we don't feel the acceleration as much as the impulse, i.e. the change in acceleration.
The utility of a flat torque curve is that it allows finer modulation of engine output. This makes it easier to control the car around curves at high speed and helps the driver to drive the car in a "smoother" fashion which is the key to getting the best performance.
The utility of a flat torque curve is that it allows finer modulation of engine output. This makes it easier to control the car around curves at high speed and helps the driver to drive the car in a "smoother" fashion which is the key to getting the best performance.
seriousm3 wroteHey man, if you think a current sports car that hits 60mph in 6.5 secs when it used to compete with Boxster/Z4 is acceptable, then by all means, leave it just the way it is.because more weight on the front axle is a good thing. right?
ersin wroteVery well said. Mag racers don't get it.My opinion is that torque numbers only confuse most people's minds. You need to remember that when a manufacturer quotes torque they are talking about "peak" torque at one specific RPM. That says nothing about the real shape of the torque vs rpm curve, which is after all one of the most important measures of engine performance. Not only does the S65 rev high while allowing the M3 gearing to multiply engine torque, but the torque curve itself is very flat compared to most other engines. It is this flatness that may be responsible for the feeling that it has little torque compared to say the 335 which "bumps" the torque after the turbo has spooled up. It seems as though we don't feel the acceleration as much as the impulse, i.e. the change in acceleration.
The utility of a flat torque curve is that it allows finer modulation of engine output. This makes it easier to control the car around curves at high speed and helps the driver to drive the car in a "smoother" fashion which is the key to getting the best performance.
arr0gant wroteGT3 is much lighter than the E9X M3. That's why Mixja's actual wheel torque/weight vs vehicle speed graphs are so informative. Check out the M3 vs C63 and M3 vs RS4 comparisons there.Do you feel the same way about the GT3? The GT3 is geared the same way as the M3. 415BHP, 300lb-ft and redlines at 8400. I think you need to drive an M3, seriously.
That link again: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157633
Too bad he doesn't have the GT3 in there as well.
P.S. Of course, those plots are for WOT, so driving around town part throttle will result in different impressions across cars.
lucid wroteWow, that's awsome.GT3 is much lighter than the E9X M3. That's why Mixja's actual wheel torque/weight vs vehicle speed graphs are so informative. Check out the M3 vs C63 and M3 vs RS4 comparisons there.
That link again: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157633
Too bad he doesn't have the GT3 in there as well.
P.S. Of course, those plots are for WOT, so driving around town part throttle will result in different impressions across cars.
Anyway the GT3 is WAY faster, as it's WAY lighter. However, these cars were geared and powered with the same principles. Low displacement, high horsepower, very usable torque at every point with a wide/flat range and a high revving engine.
Although, the M3 has more usable torque down low and mid than does the GT3.
arr0gant wroteCant really comment, I've only driven a few 911s's.Do you feel the same way about the GT3? The GT3 is geared the same way as the M3. 415BHP, 300lb-ft and redlines at 8400. I think you need to drive an M3, seriously.
I own a 08 m3 btw. Have you driven the s2k and evaluated it, observing that its 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of these other cars?
