Highest Output 2ltr N/A engine

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Piotr

The s200 has around 80% of peak torque availible from 2k right to redline. Its not as gutless down low as people think. Its only the awesome top end that leads people to beleive they are gutless down low (But above 2k they produce more torque than the focus does at peak).

Think that shoots the crap out of Steffos observations.

People have the same misconception about four cylinder motorcycles verses two cylinder motorcycles with the twin seemingly havimg heaps more mid-range torque when in fact they don't. It just seems so because their top end is so flat while the fours go berserko at the top end.

[pb02]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Think that shoots the crap out of Steffos observations.

People have the same misconception about four cylinder motorcycles verses two cylinder motorcycles with the twin seemingly havimg heaps more mid-range torque when in fact they don't. It just seems so because their top end is so flat while the fours go berserko at the top end.

Exactly, they are completely different. You don't jump on a 4 after riding a twin and only rev it to 9000prm just because that's what you did with the twin.

I had a mate that used to say that if I only revved the S2000 to 6000rpm he would beat me in his V8. My reply was ok, but the second race we both have to rev to 9000rpm and see what happens.
The point is all engines are different, you can't make a blanket comparisson for different catagories. Everything needs to evaluated and used based on it's own merits and design.

[XR Martin]

Personally I think the engine in the S2000 is pointless.
If you compare it to the Astra VXR engine, they have similar capacity and Kw. Yet the VXR makes its max power where the S2000 is making only 100kw. Also where the VXR is making its max torque, its nearly double what the S2000 is making at the same RPM.
So in conclusion youve got a car that weighs 150kg more, yet is just as fast, if not faster than the S2k. (in a straight line)

Forced induction > N/A

[pb02]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Personally I think the engine in the S2000 is pointless.
If you compare it to the Astra VXR engine, they have similar capacity and Kw. Yet the VXR makes its max power where the S2000 is making only 100kw. Also where the VXR is making its max torque, its nearly double what the S2000 is making at the same RPM.
So in conclusion youve got a car that weighs 150kg more, yet is just as fast, if not faster than the S2k. (in a straight line)

Forced induction > N/A

Your missing the point in the design of the car. It's not built for straight line acceleration. Due to the overall design and engine size and position it has perfect 50/50 weight distribution. The Astra VXR has one of the worst chassis around and understeers like a dog!

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Think that shoots the crap out of Steffos observations.

People have the same misconception about four cylinder motorcycles verses two cylinder motorcycles with the twin seemingly havimg heaps more mid-range torque when in fact they don't. It just seems so because their top end is so flat while the fours go berserko at the top end.

Take a ride in an S2k (14 sec car) after being in a 14-sec XR8 or SS and tell me the difference in feel. At 3000 those things actually push you into your seat, and 3000 the S2000 is just buzzing and feels like nothing's going on. :

It may have 80% of its torque at 3000rpm... but that's only 175Nm.

Originally Posted by pb02

Your missing the point in the design of the car. It's not built for straight line acceleration. Due to the overall design and engine size and position it has perfect 50/50 weight distribution. The Astra VXR has one of the worst chassis around and understeers like a dog!

The conversation isn't about the layout of the vehicle, its about the engine. And for all intents and purposes, the engine in the Astra is a better thought out, more useable piece of kit then Honda's effort.

As for beating Z3's, no surprises there. Modified Boxster's? Obviously you're a better driver then they were, because a stock Boxster S with two equal drivers makes a stock S2000 cry.

Oh and one more thing, 50/50 weight distribution does not automatically equal perfection. Many of the best performing cars in the world aren't setup like that.

[Des]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Take a ride in an S2k (14 sec car) after being in a 14-sec XR8 or SS and tell me the difference in feel. At 3000 those things actually push you into your seat, and 3000 the S2000 is just buzzing and feels like nothing's going on.

Yeah but you should compare apples with apples (or as close as possible).
8 cylinders vs 4 cylinders = 200%.
3000 rpm then equates to 6000 rpm.
5408cc & 6000cc vs 1998cc's
Most std (14 sec) factory V8's are slowing down by then (or stopped), where as the S2000 is still partying and willing for more.

[pb02]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Take a ride in an S2k (14 sec car) after being in a 14-sec XR8 or SS and tell me the difference in feel. At 3000 those things actually push you into your seat, and 3000 the S2000 is just buzzing and feels like nothing's going on. :

It may have 80% of its torque at 3000rpm... but that's only 175Nm.

Again your comparing apples to oranges.....

If you want to make that comparison then you must obviously continue and look at when the power comes in. Between 6000rpm and 9000rpm the S2000 engine sings and is brilliant. How is the XR8 and SS engine doing at these sort of rpms???????

[Ives]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Personally I think the engine in the S2000 is pointless.
If you compare it to the Astra VXR engine, they have similar capacity and Kw. Yet the VXR makes its max power where the S2000 is making only 100kw. Also where the VXR is making its max torque, its nearly double what the S2000 is making at the same RPM.
So in conclusion youve got a car that weighs 150kg more, yet is just as fast, if not faster than the S2k. (in a straight line)

You cant compare turbocharged engine to an N/A engine.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by pb02

Again your comparing apples to oranges.....

If you want to make that comparison then you must obviously continue and look at when the power comes in. Between 6000rpm and 9000rpm the S2000 engine sings and is brilliant. How is the XR8 and SS engine doing at these sort of rpms???????

They don't need those kind of revs to make power. : :

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Des

Yeah but you should compare apples with apples (or as close as possible).
8 cylinders vs 4 cylinders = 200%.
3000 rpm then equates to 6000 rpm.
5408cc & 6000cc vs 1998cc's
Most std (14 sec) factory V8's are slowing down by then (or stopped), where as the S2000 is still partying and willing for more.

I said 14 sec XR8s and SSs... so that's 4942cc and 5665cc.

Most standard V8's have blown by the S2000 before its starting to party and will for more. It takes so long to get to that stage...

Hell, most good standard fast 6-cyl and 4-cyl engines have blown by the stupid thing before its in its power. 176kW @ 8300rpm and 208Nm @ 7500rpm and nothing below aren't impressive figures. Sure, the power is high, but its in a useless bit of rev band that 99% of the time you're not going to get close to.

Give me something like the 2.0 Turbo FSI in the upcoming Audi S3 please. 195kW @ 6000rpm and 350Nm @ 2500-5000rpm. Now that's an engine! Any gear, any revs, any time you want, stomp the right foot and you're off. None of this billion rpm, fifty thousand downshift garbage... feel like going fast? Stamp your foot down and you're going fast!

One really funny thing... the VE SV6 has the same amount of power as the upcoming S3 with LESS torque, from a 3.6litre V6 (over 40% more capacity and two extra cylinders)...

[mcnews]

Well Steffo you must really, really hate rotaries then. I think you would prefer tractors to cars :->

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by pb02

Your missing the point in the design of the car. It's not built for straight line acceleration. Due to the overall design and engine size and position it has perfect 50/50 weight distribution. The Astra VXR has one of the worst chassis around and understeers like a dog!

No, Your missing the point.
Im comparing engines, not cars.
A turbo charged 2L 4cyl engine making 176kw will always be a much better engine than a N/A 2L making 176kw.

If you had a choice between the two engines in the S2000, the turbo engine would be chosen 99% of the time.

I see the S2000 really usable around the track by being able to control the thing around longer corners, dive into the corner at 4000, plant the accel, and hold it there, you can still use the 6-9000rpm region coming out of the corner and you don't have to change gear.

[Homer1]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

No, Your missing the point.
Im comparing engines, not cars.
A turbo charged 2L 4cyl engine making 176kw will always be a much better engine than a N/A 2L making 176kw.

If you had a choice between the two engines in the S2000, the turbo engine would be chosen 99% of the time.

Then I'd be in the 1% cause Id pick the S2000 engine anyday!

Tha turbo engine is good, but the problem is that its too good for the chassis its mated to (yeah I know you're comparing engines only, but an engine is pretty useless without a car attached to it as well)

[Ives]

--editted--

Ah never mind, S2000 is good. It's bloody expensive though. $72,990 + on-road costs.

[B-Series]

Steffo hasn't even driven an S2000 :. Riding shotgun is one thing, actually driving it is another.

[Piotr]

So basically Steffo is trying to say he likes having alot of torque.

Please stop comparing the S2000 engine with turbo engines, of course the turbo is gonna have more torque and more power thats the whole reason the turbo was invented. The advantage N/A engines hold is throttle response.

The S2000 is special because it has a nice small engine(Lightweight) that revs very high while still retaining a a relatively flat torque curve. It has more then enough torque down low for daily driving and if you wanna overtake just drop it down a gear or two it isn't hard.

Every man and his dog can build a 4L I6 that produced power but it takes something special to build a 2L that has the same sort of power and piston speeds that rival f1 cars.

[mcnews]

And because the S2000 is not a fat overweight taxi it doesn't need too much mumbo to get things moving. I would love one.

[Des]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I said 14 sec XR8s and SSs... so that's 4942cc and 5665cc.

Most standard V8's have blown by the S2000 before its starting to party and will for more. It takes so long to get to that stage...


One really funny thing... the VE SV6 has the same amount of power as the upcoming S3 with LESS torque, from a 3.6litre V6 (over 40% more capacity and two extra cylinders)...

S2000 vs XR8/SS, depends if there's corners or not. In prduction racing the S2000 whipped the XR's (6T&8) & the SS's around Winton.
Gotta agree with the SV6 comment though, after driving one, gutless POS.
Still, a Jonathan Palmer Clubman would whip all of 'em, 4, 6 or 8. Straight line or corner.

[XR Martin]

Who cares if it takes 'something special' to build such an engine? It takes something special to build a 2dr VK like at the Summernats but that doesnt make it great.

Id much rather a Pontiac Solstice. RWD, roadster, 195kw 2L Turbo ecotec, USD$25k. While your harping on about your S2000s Hp/L, youd be getting beat like a redheaded step child in a straight line and on a road course.

[XRDRIFT]

Away from the topic just a little, but the Toyota 4AGE 1.6ltr 20valve motor had the highest power/kw per litre ever produced, having more horsepower per litre the engine had.

Had something like 187bhp from a 1.6litre, could be wrong but those engines rev and move in the right car.

I had a 1984 AE71 corolla and installed a 100kw 4AGE in it,dyno'd with 70 rwkws, and raced a S2000, didnt flog me by much....until his VTEC caught up, the cars are nuggets.

But cubic inches always helps too.....

Oh, and old school euro cars like the Peugot 108/9 gti had a 1.9 litre twin carbs and reved to 18,000rpm, redline at 14,000 or therebouts, fugly car but quick, standard.

[MITCHAY]

You got to laugh when someone says "but you have to rev the crap out of it to do anything" Well no **** shirlock, it's doing what it was designed to do FFS!

It was designed to rev hard and make peak power at high revs, when you WANT to use all the power!

[Walkinshaw]

I think we can all sort this arguement. We all just have to resign to the fact the S2000 motor is puss.

[M&Ms]

But isn't the whole point of a V-tec motor to improve fuel economy when doing low speed, low RPM city driving, but to give a boost in power once the revs rise and the driver wants to be a race driver? I'm sure that is what V-tec was designed for, whereas the VCT in the Fords (for example) was designed to give the motors greater torque in both halves of the rev range.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

But isn't the whole point of a V-tec motor to improve fuel economy when doing low speed, low RPM city driving, but to give a boost in power once the revs rise and the driver wants to be a race driver?

That is how I have always understood it to be.

[5tumpy]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Id much rather a Pontiac Solstice. RWD, roadster, 195kw 2L Turbo ecotec, USD$25k. While your harping on about your S2000s Hp/L, youd be getting beat like a redheaded step child in a straight line and on a road course.

The only thing that the pontiac has over the S200 is 19kw mate...


Actually shows how little you know about the s2000.... It's rear wheel drive,
roaster, 176kw n/a, weighs only 1.2 tonnes, and once you factor in the cost of bringing the pontiac over (converting to RHD, import taxes etc.) the s2000 isn't that much more expensive...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 5tumpy

The only thing that the pontiac has over the S200 is 19kw mate...


Actually shows how little you know about the s2000.... It's rear wheel drive,
roaster, 176kw n/a, weighs only 1.2 tonnes, and once you factor in the cost of bringing the pontiac over (converting to RHD, import taxes etc.) the s2000 isn't that much more expensive...

Solstice GXP has 194kW @ 5300rpm to the S2000's 176kW @ 8300rpm. So it's got 18kW more power coming in 3000rpm earlier.

It's got 352Nm @ 2000rpm to the S2000's 208Nm @ 7500rpm. So it's got 144Nm more torque coming in 5500rpm earlier.

It redline's at 6300rpm - 1000rpm above its power peak. S2000 is 9000rpm, 700rpm above its power peak. So its got a bigger, more useable real spread of power... 2000 - 6000rpm or thereabouts, to the S2000's 7000 - 9000rpm.

Its 1340kg to the S2000's 1253kg, giving it 144.77kW/tonne and 262.68Nm/tonne to the S2000's 140.46kW/tonne and 166Nm/tonne. Advantage Solstice.

The only advantage the S2000 has is the six speed vs five speed manual gearbox. But with a power curve like it has and such, it needs every gear it can get.

And speak of the taxes and yadda yadda, the point is, the Honda still costs more, for an overall inferior product. Not to mention that the Solstice is physically larger, so bigger, taller people can actually drive/sit in the damn thing.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

But isn't the whole point of a V-tec motor to improve fuel economy when doing low speed, low RPM city driving, but to give a boost in power once the revs rise and the driver wants to be a race driver? I'm sure that is what V-tec was designed for, whereas the VCT in the Fords (for example) was designed to give the motors greater torque in both halves of the rev range.

That's what they like to talk about yes.

What it helps with mostly is giving them the ability to make such a short stroke high revving engine have a liveable bottom end power curve, so they can actually be friendly day to day. Its an expensive way of solving a self imposed problem.

[B-Series]

There we go steffo... comparing apples and you know what again. The S2000 is simply one of the best NA 2.0L engines around. So stop comparing it to a turbo powered vehicle or a ferrari V8.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

There we go steffo... comparing apples and you know what again. The S2000 is simply one of the best NA 2.0L engines around. So stop comparing it to a turbo powered vehicle or a ferrari V8.

The thing is, the S2000 and Solstice GXP are direct competitors. So I'm comparing apples to apples.

Just because the S2000 is, well, not better, and costs more, doesn't mean the Solstice is a whole different sort of car... :