veloceracing

I thought that the 14.4 of the S2000 was faster than the Mustangs 14.7

coldasice

FYI, the 99+ Mustang GT's do high 13's/low 14's in the 1/4 mile stock.

Buger

Hi Veloceracing,

I was going to respond to your post about using math to derive 1/4 mile times from hp but it is no longer here?

It will be very interesting to see how the weight and gearing ratios turn out in the next year. While I am as optimistic as anyone that the rx-8 will come in at 27** lbs, I believe Road & Track's weight was without the driver.

From the article:
Curb weight: est 2970 lb

From Road & Track's website:
Our Curb weight measurement is taken with a full fuel tank, but no driver (below). Test weight includes our tester and whatever fuel is in the tank (most of the time it’s full).

Link is below:
(http://www.roadandtrack.com/RoadAndT...eral_data.html)

I am still hoping that Mazda will have another "operation gram per head" like they did to cut 250 lbs from the 2nd gen before production but think that it's likely that the rx-8 will come in around 28** lbs.

Of course the weight and the gearing ratios are the 2 biggest variables which we haven't had any concrete data on. Personally, I would hope that the gearing is tightly spaced and has lower gearing (numerically higher ratios) than any previous rotary car (The car will have room for 4 adults so the gearing should take the weight of 4 adults into consideration).

Actually, the most amazing thing about what we have seen come out about the renesis is that it will have "90 percent of peak torque available at 3250 rpm". Assuming that the torque curve doesn't go up and down like the vtec s2000 one, this would mean that there will be 5500 rpms of 90% or greater torque in the Rx-8's powerband!!!!

If geared properly, Mazda will surprise a lot of people when the Rx-8 comes out... :D

Brian

Buger

Hi Coldasice,

While I agree with you that torque is very important, surely you will agree (I won't call you Shirley anymore) that weight is also important.

Another important issue is the torque curve. The s2000 has a range of approx 2750 rpm (5750 - 8500) of 90% peak torque or greater. The vtec's first peak in the torque curve does not hit the 90% mark and the torque actually drops before slowly rising again at 4500 rpm again. This is why the s2000 has had a reputation of being "peaky".

Despite having a measly peak 152 lbs/ft of torque (less than some accord models!), the stock s2000 can still get to 0-60 in less than 6 seconds which is better than many cars with 200 lbs/ft of torque that are heavier.

And proper gearing of the renesis' flat torque curve can produce a lot more oomph than people will expect. (max torque at high rpm can be geared a lot)

Brian

Buger

Hi Coldasice,

Nothing against Mustangs but the following website has the below numbers:

http://www.fast-autos.net/honda/s2000info.html
2001 S2000
Curb Weight: 2755 lbs
Horsepower: 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque: 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
0-60 mph: 5.5 sec
0-100 mph: 13.8 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.1 sec @ 99.6 mph

http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/mustanggtinfo.html
2001 Mustang GT
Curb Weight: 3113 lbs
Horsepower: 260 bhp @ 5250 rpm
Torque: 302 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
0-60 mph: 5.5 sec
0-100 mph: 14.5 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.1 sec @ 99 mph

Other websites have #s that differ a little bit but they all have the s2000 and the Mustang performing pretty close to each other so I wouldn't agree with the statement that the "stock GT Mustang (will) easily walk the S2000 even though it is heavier by far".

Despite having nearly double the torque of the s2000, the extra several hundred pounds of the Mustang and the lower gearing (numerically higher ratios) of the s2000 make it an almost even battle according to many websites.

I would note that the s2000 costs almost 10,000 usd more than the s2000 and a Mustang GT with 10,000 in mods would easily blow the s2000 away though.

Brian

spwolf

Well, notthing against 0-60 and quarter mile numbers, but in day to day operations, S2000 is much harder to drive fast since you have to keep it above 5750 rpms to get some power out of it...

For me, 80-120 kmh or 50-70 mph test in 4th and 5th gear would be more usable as I dont see keeping my car in 6,000 rpm range in day to day traffic, just in case some M3 wants to play... this is when torque comes in play since GT can pull cleanly from low revs while with Honda you will have to shift into 3nd gear and wait for few seconds... by that time, M3 will be long gone.

As to RX-8, I dont think it should be compared to S2000 since it has more power in lower revs, so it should start pulling from 3000 rpm which is much more acceptible.

Buger

Exactly. The rx-8 will have the usual characteristics that we love.

People WILL compare the s2000 and the rx-8 because of the similar peak torque and peak horsepower numbers and we should welcome this.

Many people are already thinking of the rx-8 as similar to the s2000 because of the low torque and high rpms.

A comparison between the 2 will highlight the fact that the rotarys flat torque curve will give it a tremendous advantage.

Brian

Apex

Well at least that whole thing with the Z thug seems over.

This weekend my father said that the RX-8 sounds more like a performance go kart with a V6 yanking it down the road than a Porsche 911. I think it was his way of complimenting the car or something.
I later asked him if that was good or bad, he said as far as a sports cars go, that’s good.

Thought that would be kinda humorous or something.
Taking in consideration what started this thread in the first place!


Apex

The Inflammatory 3 Rotor is attached (though it would be humorous too -check the beginning of this potentially volatile thread to see why-)