RX-8 or 350Z
 

I can't decide between the two. Its killing me.

Performance wise, the Z will clearly outclass the RX-8 in a straight line, while the 8 should keep its own around the twisties.

As a day to day vehicle, with all that extra torque, the Z should be easier to drive.

Looks wise, I dunno... they both look nice, though I'm leaning towards the Z because its line is a little "cleaner".

Now this is my problem... Clearly, the 8 will be a MUCH more practical car. Those two seats (two REAL seats) make a HUGE difference; not to mention itl actualy have a back end you can fit something in.

This is tough =(

99% of the time the 350Z and RX-8 will be neck and neck because the numbers you read are only accomplished by good drivers.

The straight line time from the RX-8 and 350Z should be very similar with normal drivers. If you want that 5.4 second time that C&D gets don't expect to have a clutch very long.

Anyways, the choice is yours. You need to figure out if you want the 'alleged' power of the 350Z or the total package of the RX-8.

The Rx-8 has two things that set it apart from the 350Z. One is the suicide doors, and, two, is the rotary engine. Every other car in the world has a piston engine. The RX-8 also has 4 useable seats and a far superior dash and interior. As to styling, the RX-8, to me, is a better design. Finally, the RX-8 weighs more than 300 pounds less than the Nissan.

By the way, there is much discussion on the virtues of each of the cars above.

I currently own a 350Z. I ordered back in January of this year and took delivery on August 30th. I love the Z, but have to admit I've got a hard-on for the RX-8. It looks to be a killer, little car.

As you've already surmised, the Z will be an easier daily driver if you're lazy and don't want to be bothered with downshifting all of the time. I can leave my 6MT in fourth gear while some dolt in front of me slows to 20 mph to turn off on a side street, get back into the throttle and the thing doesn't even get close to bogging down. The torque on the Z is for real and is always available. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Cruising at ~20 MPH in second gear, I can punch it to go around somebody and the damn thing will start fishtailing with the traction control off.

All that being said, I still think the RX-8 has a definite fun factor that would not be present in the Z. Lighter weight, ~9K RPM redline, three friends can join you in the car... I'd go out and test drive an S2000 right now to get an idea of how the RX-8 will be as a daily driver. The specs are almost identical and I'd bet the handling will be somewhat similar.

One last thing. My Nissan dealership experience has been f'ing HORRIBLE! Worse than when I drove domestic trucks years back. Keep that in mind as well. You don't want to love your car and hate the dealer because eventually you start to hate the car. :(

Stock, I'm sorry guys.... the Z is gonna take the 8 in the 1/4 and 0-60 fairly easily; unless Mazda changes a few things. If you think the 8 is gonna keep up with the Z from a stop, you're fooling yourself.

But hey, 0-60 times, and 1/4 mile times arent what make a car; if they were all that mattered I'd buy a domestic with a V-8. Why don't I buy a domestic with a V-8? Because they are all pieces of crap =) Well, maybe the vette is ok.

As for the interiors on the two cars, I was disapointed with the Z's... who knows what the production 8's will be like. Has anyone on these boards had a chance to sit in a production 8 at all?

I'm starting to lean towards the RX8. I'm definetly going to wait until it comes out to buy my next car; to give it a chance to seduce me.

The Z will win a drag race, but not by as much as you might think. I expect the 8 to have acceleration times very similar to the S2000. It may end up being slightly down on power-to-weight VS the Honda (depending on how much the 8 weighs in the end) but it has more torque across a broader RPM range. And if a shift will come at a critical numbers point, like 60mph or right at the finish line of a drag strip, you can wind out the wankel beyond redline before the rev limiter kicks in and avoid an extra shift.

Hmm, actually R&T shows the S2000 out accelerates the Z in the 1/4 mile by 0.2 seconds (14.1 vs 14.3). But it has a lower trap speed. I expected the 350Z to be touching on 13s actually.

Anyway, whatever difference there is I expect it to be slim. Around a track, all three will fly I'm sure. I've personally seen how blazing fast S2000s are in the right hands - haven't seen it with a Z yet but I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't think you can go wrong with any one of the three really. The RX-8 is my pick because it's on the same performance plane while being much more practical than either - and rotaries are cool. ;) Having just munched the bottom end of my "boinger" motor a week ago on the track (oil starvation/burning in the turns, methinks), I'm intrigued more now by the simpler rotary powerplant.

I just can't get past the weight and impracticality of the Z, myself. If I'm going to buy an impractical 2-seater, it's going to be mid-engined. That's just the way I think. :) Front-engined, rear drive funmobiles need to have at least a big hatch cargo area, if not a small back seat.

As for torque and daily driving... eh. :) I guess since I've been driving a car with 97ft-lbs of torque at 5k RPM for the past 3 years, I'm used to it. The RENESIS will have much better torque than my 4AGEs do.

But in the end it comes down to a test drive for you. I've already made up my mind. ;)

The RX-8 will be a very good performing car, nearly equal to the Z in a straight line, and superior in the corners. The Z has already been noted for it's understeer (but that can be improved via aftermarket).

But the 8 holds all the aces as a much more practical car as well. Two usable rear seats for carrying up to 4 people, and a small, but usable trunk. The strut tower brace in the rear of the Z makes it nearly impossible to put anything larger than a medium sized overnight bag.

The G35 coupe has a rear seat and is an excellent car, but will probably cost $6,000-$8,000 more when similarly equipped. That's likely too much for most folks to take. Trunk is smaller too.

Do you have any facts to support that? The power to weight ratio is probably the best simple esitmate of how two cars will perform in a straight line, and they're nearly identical for the 350Z and RX-8.

350Z
Weight (Edmunds base model, lowest # available): 3188
HP: 287
lbs./HP: 11.1

RX-8
Weight (est. R&T): 2970
HP (est. R&T): 250
lbs./HP:11.9

That's a tiny difference, about 6%. Sure, the 350Z may be a hair faster at the drag strip, but in terms of meaningful performance differences there just isn't one. I certainly wouldn't say that the 350Z would take the RX-8 "fairly easily". The only acceleration difference will be on paper.

The numbers I found from a quick google search were 5.3 (R&T), 5.4 (www.99complete.com/reviews/gm.htm - 38k), 5.4 (Car & Driver), 5.9 (carsdirect), etc. If the RX-8 comes in under 6.0 seconds, that's just a few tenths of a second off. Certainly a difference, but nowhere near a meaningful one. The driver's skill usually makes up more than a few tenths. When you add in the ability to carry 4 people and the benefits of the rotary, it seems to me that it's a pretty clear decision if you like the styling.

Note: I'm not trying to bash the 350Z at all. There are benefits to that car over the RX-8. Either way you go you'll end up happy, I suspect. Good luck with your decision!

Nowhere near a meaningful one, huh? Every tenth of a second is good for a car length at the end of the 1320. Since there are no solid numbers for the RX-8, let's assume around 6s 0-60 and 14.5 in the 1/4. If a Z hits the 1/4 in 13.9 best case, that's six car lengths. That is a huge difference.

Mag racing is bad, ummkay? There are a few dolts on my board that claim that the difference between an E46 M3 and the Z's 0-60 is only .5 seconds and the race should be close. I'm sorry, but it won't be close. Also keep in mind that with a rev happy engine like the one in the RX-8 will probably have to be launched as aggressively as the S2K by a skilled driver. Poorly driven S2Ks pull 16s 1/4 miles times. Poorly driven Z's (by owners who left traction control on) are still pulling 14.5-14.7 quarter mile times.

Likewise, I'm not here to bash the RX-8. I REALLY like it and would put in an order right now if an FI version was available at launch. Don't go down the same road we did with the Z in hyping it up too much to the point were you think it's invincible. There's always someone faster and I'm still looking around for that faster car that's ~40K and NOT a domestic. ;)

Cheers!

*nod* the key is all in the launch...

That being said, 90% of people that buy 'performance' cars drive them like old women. They get it for the look, the name, whatever.

Besides if you stoplight race you're a moron anyway. A drag race is a measure of car vs car (generally) while a track run shows driver skill. I'd prefer the latter and come in ten seconds ahead of a guy that doesn't know how to brake, heel and toe, and power out of the corner.

herc first you say for 0-60 and 1/4 mile the key is all in the launch and then you say drag racing is a measure of car vs car (generally). isnt drver skill needed in the launch?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like the car that everyone REALLY wants is the new RX-7...

Same skill drivers, a drag race comes down to the car.

Different skill it *can* come down to the driver.

What I'm saying is that most of the time when we talk about 'beating' another car on any online forum, sadly we refer to stoplight racing. And in that, most people don't know how to drive anyway, so a drag race from a stoplight will come down to the driver and the launch.

I'm just saying that 0-60 isn't really a measure of performance, it's a marketing tool. 1/4 mile is better for measuring speed, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not discounting the driver's skill in a drag race, but it's minimal compared to tracking a car.

I think you're on to something there... ;)

Not me. I need the rear seats. I don't mind a tad slower car, but the handling must be good.

I think the RX-8 will make me a happy camper. I'll get the MPS version when that's released and then I'm in heaven.

The only reason I am leaning towards the RX-8 over the G35 (not the 350Z) is the 4 doors. I wouldn't be interested in a 2 seat RX-7. My wife insists on a 4 door/4 seat car. I'm sure there are many of you who are married and in this same situation.

And don't say I that I don't have any balls, if she had her way, I'd be buying a Navigator! Ugh!

the same can be said for any type of racing.
i hope you are talking about stop light racing again. if not may i suggest getting in a top fuel car and seeing if you can beat don garlits, kenny bernstein or shirley muldowney? ;)

rx8 or 350z
 

well from my point i think that the 350z will be easier to take care of than the rx8. and its cleaner , like others say , but u wanna stand out , so get an rx8 ifu can treat it good.

unemployedpimp -
why do you think that?

i am not a big fan of the look of the 350z, but it certanly stands out in a crowd. why do you think it doesn't. (one could argue that it stands out simply because of the ugliness of the back end)

i don't think he's saying he could, or that most track racers could beat every drag racer there is or something stupid like that...
what he is saying is that the range of a drag racer's skills necessary to be the best isn't as wide as if you were going to be a touring world champion or a karting world champion...
drag racing is about timing, shifting a couple of times (in the upper echelons, isn't that automatic anyways?? i know it is for some, but i've got no idea about top fuel...), and a little bit of counter steering to keep the darned thing in it's lane... what'll win you the race, though, is just a faster engine...
everything's gotta be just perfect, and really really fast, so obviously it's something only the best can do well... and things like strategy come into play too, but that's only as far as

Grand Prix drivers need to do a few more things, like braking (especially), tyre and fuel management, and passing, along with everything else, but keep it up for thousands of shifts, hundreds of corners, and (hopefully) a few passes, over the course of a few hours... and for endurance touring racers (obviously) even longer than that!!
not to mention rally, which is another world unto itself...
again, this doesn't have to be as fast, but the races are longer, and the range of skills wider... and mistakes are just as costly.

drag racing's cool, but probably not the pinnacle of motor racing competition.

If mazda can supply me with an RX-8, with a limited slip, and traction control for 26k... I'm probably gonna take one.

Thanks wakeech :)

Especially if that's all you'll ever see. :p Just kidding, man. Don't go freaking out on me. ;)

you are of course correct wakeech. i just hate it when people imply that drag racers dont have skills. as ive mentioned in the past i spent alot of time around drag racing when i was very young and have great respect for what the people i have mentioned and others like them do. and i felt like picking on herc a little.;) :cool:

if thats all i ever get to see i hope they make some changes or i'll end up wrecking what ever i'm driving from the sheer horror of it. i'm only partially kidding because i think they really need to do something there. especially the reverse lights. but i hope i can get ahead of one in my rx8 at least some of the time, especially when i have a couple of freinds along to gloat to. :D now dont freak on me:p

Drag racers don't have skills!

*pushes zoom's buttons*

I saw a 350Z in the showroom of my local Nissan dealer and I looked at it's interior finish as well as the exterior, and I had to say that I dissappointed in the quality of materials. Even when I compared it to the old 90-96 300ZX whose interior was a lot more classy and materials more refined, I was not impressed by the new Z's accoutraments. On the other hand, the RX-8 interior, from what I read from Mazda, will be a mixture of different textures. I wonder though if Mazda plans to create it's dash using polyurathane, which I hope they will do because it's thickness can be as much as you like, it's tough, and it has a great feel. I recently had the chance to sit my hinnie in an '03 Mercedes-Benz E500 that had those new polyurathane dashes and the feel of it was exquisite. I know in the past, that I and a lot of others complained about the lateness of the RX-8's arrival, but I must admit this: I am glad that Mazda is going to do this thing right, they are a car company that excites the senses as well as providing awesome performance, and sometimes you have to wait in order for a total package to be complete. Don't get me wrong, I like the 350Z, but unlike the RX-8 ( which is a new thinking in automobiles) the Z is made up of parts from Nissan's parts ben, and for some people that's fine, but for me it's only....acceptable.

I agree with that conclusion, and let me add...

The word of the day is: accoutraments. :D

He He!!!
 

Every now and then Hercules, I can blab a big word.:)

hmmmm.... no pics of the rear on the website. :p

Z is the real deal, not a parts bin sports car
 

I haven't seen the interior of a Z, but the car as a whole is an all-new platform for Nissan. The Z and the G35 are different variations of this platform, with the Z obviously built for performance. Judging from the photographs, I'm not a huge fan of the RX-8's interior either. It looks kinda "boy racer" to me. I am hoping that the real thing is better than the photos. P.S. I need 4 doors and a real back seat, and I want to stay under $30k, so the Z/G35 cars don't work for me.

Ok, I guess there's SOME people that want the 8 more (which is good since this is the RX-8 forum :p )

But you have to admit, there are many people on this site that are looking forward to the new 7 at least as much as the new 8.

I must admit, I'm not a fan of the straight on rear shot, but I do like this angle from my site. :D

http://www.waynewmedia.com/350Z/images/885.JPG

Dunno, it still looks like it's missing something.

The best view of the 350Z is the front in my opinion.. the rear end is bass ackwards :)

yeah i meant straight on from the rear and i was talking about your site. your site looks pretty good, i'll have to do something like that when i get my car. the car looks ok from that angle but i have to agree with herc- it definetly looks better from front angles. and it looks better in black and white too;) :p

It comes down to daily vs. 2nd car
 

I believe it comes down to daily driver vs. 2nd car.

If the car is your only car. Get the RX-8. If you have the money for 2 cars, get the Z. (assuming you like the styling of both).

I have a Porsche Boxster as a second car. It is a great second car. But can NEVER be a only car... If you have a family.

If you have a family and only want one car the RX-8 wins as a TRUE sports car with 4 REAL seats!

I look at the 911 and I bougth the Boxster because like the 911, most sports cars have "fake" back seat and no trunk. At least the Boxster has TWO half trunks.

I will sell the Boxster and my Land Rover and purchase the RX-8. I get first pick at my dealership at MSRP!!! I cannot wait for the Detroit auto show for more info!!

Roachman

It's kinda neat how the Z roofline angle is the same as the taillights..
Personally from pics only I prefer the Mazda interior. I don't care much for the rear seats but it's good to know that I will have that option, just like in my present car. For me the big thing is the weight of the car.. 300 or so extra lbs must affect the "feel" of the car.. I already think my Prelude is heavy enough and it's at about 2960lbs.. I will try both when I'm in the market in spring 2004 but from what I've seen/read RX-8 for me please. :)

It comes down to daily vs. 2nd car
 

I believe it comes down to daily driver vs. 2nd car.

If the car is your only car. Get the RX-8. If you have the money for 2 cars, get the Z. (assuming you like the styling of both).

I have a Porsche Boxster as a second car. It is a great second car. But can NEVER be a only car... If you have a family.

If you have a family and only want one car the RX-8 wins as a TRUE sports car with 4 REAL seats!

I look at the 911 and I bougth the Boxster because like the 911, most sports cars have "fake" back seat and no trunk. At least the Boxster has TWO half trunks.

I will sell the Boxster and my Land Rover and purchase the RX-8. I get first pick at my dealership at MSRP!!! I cannot wait for the Detroit auto show for more info!!

Roachman

droidekaus -

You sound like you're not satisfied with the car for some reason. Does the car feel heavy, or do you think that it isn't fun to drive for some reason? I'm just wondering, because I'm planning on buying a new car around summer 2003, and right now I'm on the fence between the Z and the 8. Although I guess I'll find out when I go for test drives...

While the RX-8 does seem like a 4-door S2k in many ways, I think it's a common misconception that the RX-8 has similar torque characteristics. The RENESIS has a bit more torque overall, but the big thing is that it has a relatively flat torque curve from 3,000 RPM on up. So I don't think the '8 will need a super aggressive launch like the S2000.

There's also the gearing to consider. The S2000 has a *very* long 1st gear.

Can you direct me to the thread or source of info with the gear ratios? I'd be very interested in reading up on that.

Thanks!

There was some in-depth discussion on gearing a while back, I think this is the thread: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ht=gear+ratios

It's all kindof over my head (actually I'm just too lazy to crunch the numbers ;)) so I skimmed over it. But I do know that a properly sorted first gear can make a world of difference for launching the car quickly.

I did a quick Search for "gear ratios" and came up with that thread, among others. Maybe try one for "gearing" and see what happens.

If you were looking for actual gear ratios on the '8, I don't believe those have been released yet.

Have a look at this thread for the torque curve: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ght=dyno+graph

Looks like the RENESIS is making 110ft-lbs at 1,000 RPM. :) My MR2 only makes 97ft-lbs at its peak of ~5,000 RPM!

m477,

I'm about 95% satisfied with my Z overall, and 110% satisfied with the driving experience. The Z is like a Japanese version of the Mustang GT with just enough brute force that it always feels like it's just about to get away from you, yet never does. Judicious second gear throttle in sharp turns brings the tail around nicely and with a slight sweep of the wheel, gets right back on course. As I mentioned before, the torque is abudant and I really enjoy mashing the throttle, ALL OF THE TIME. :D As such, I only get ~18 MPG combined city/hwy.

The 5% of NOT being satisfied boils down to my Nissan dealership experience and a couple of minor details. My dealer and other local dealers really suck when it comes to service. Nearly four months after I've taken delivery and these guys STILL cannot perform any service beyond an oil change without calling Nissan headquarters. There are *some* transmission problems appearing in the 6MT that require engineers from CA to fly out all over the country and replace trannys. Good thing is that Nissan's not f'ing around with fixes and just swapping trannys and clutches no questions asked. I hate the fact that I paid full MSRP for my car, gave the dealer a $3,500 profit and still get treated WORSE than some schmuck in a base model Sentra who paid a dollar over invoice. As far as what I don't like, the HIDEOUS door panels (minor issue, not a deal-breaker) for one, and the non-adjustable Camber, Caster and barely adjustable Toe-in. Within 5000 miles the insides of both of my front tires were feathered and although they are the notoriously sh*tty RE 040s, I'd like to see some attempt at diagnosising the problem on Nissan's part before I throw on a set of S-03s and potentially burn through those way too early.

I'm here because the RX-8 intrigues me. I like the overall design even though I do have issues with the rear of the greenhouse and the back glass. The front is KILLER, IMO and reminds a little of the new Enzo. I also come from a long line of Hondas and love free-revving, little engines. I would have bought either the S2K if it came in a true coupe, or the RSX-S if it would have been a bit closer to the ITR than it is now. There are details in the RX-8 that make it appear even more of a driver's car than first glance suggests. Details like the shape of the pedals, the throttle in particular. I noticed the other night that the throttle has almost an identical shape found in a mod that the 3rd-gen RX-7 owners were making to their own pedals to easier facilitate heel-toe shifting. That's cool, IMO.

I'm not jumping ship anytime soon, but I do hope you all don't mind me hanging around in the mean time. I'm not here to toot the horn for the Z, but if I do see info that is blatantly wrong, well, it'd be my duty to correct it. ;)

http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno_...99TvsS2000.pdf
The S2000 curve is pretty nice too.. Looks like 90% from 2500 rpm until redline..

Hmm, I stand corrected. It seems everyone's been harping about the lack of torque in the S2000 so much, I thought it'd be less linear (well, there seems to be two planes of torque depending on whether you're on the cam or not). I bet the long first gear has even more to do with the difficulty of launching the car then.

Hmm, wild shot in the dark, might the rotary have fewer drivetrain losses with its fewer reciprocating parts and carbon fiber driveshaft?

This is one way mid-engined cars are advantaged... fewer drivetrain losses through their transaxles. This is (in part) how the 138hp MR2 Spyder can out-accelerate the 155hp Miata.

IIRC, that's "carbon-fiber reinforced" driveshaft. Nissan made a big to do about this as well in the Z and the benefits are NOT showing. Several dynos are reporting only ~230 RWHP which equates to ~20% drivetrain loss when SCC got 244 RWHP. WTF? I'm of the belief that Nissan owes me some ponies ala the '99 Cobra and Ford. ;)

Don't put too much stock in that driveshaft just yet.

Hi Quick_lude,

I posted on this very same subject on the caranddriver forum last week and even used the same link that you quoted to look at the torque curve over 90%. Below is what can be determined:

http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno_...99TvsS2000.pdf
peak wheel torque: ... 139.0 ft-lbs
90% of peak: ......... 125.1 ft-lbs
range above 90%: ..... 6200 to 8600 = 2400 rpms or 27%

The tick marks on the dyno graph make it easy to determine the #s pretty accurately. I know there are some pretty *enthusiastic* s2000 people out there just like there are many *enthusiastic* rx-8 people out there. Despite the s2000 propaganda that is put out, it does not have 90% of its torque for 6400 rpms (8900 - 2500). Other sources give very similar numbers.

I also posted the below comparing the s2000 torque curve to the LS1 since some s2000 *enthusiasts* were saying that the s2000 had a wider powerband than the new LS1 corvette!!? :confused:

"As Cappy mentioned earlier, percentages of width are more significant to width in rpms. I assume your ~100% refers to 95% of peak torque since that is what percent seems to correlate with your rpm numbers.

I came up with 1650 LS1 rpms over 95% but using the numbers that you came up with still proves my point:

s2000
torque peak: ... 153
rev limit: ..... 9000? (could be higher but that would make s2000 #s look worse)
engine band: ... 8300 (9000 - 700)
95% or > tq: ... 27.7% (2300/8300)
90% or > tq: ... 33.7% (8600-5800 = 2800, 2800/8300)
80% or > tq: ... 79.5% (8900-2300 = 6600, 6600/8300)

2001 LS1
torque peak: ... 385
rev limit: ..... 6200
engine band: ... 5500 (6200 - 700)
95% or > tq: ... 29.1% (1600/5500)
90% or > tq: ... 51.5% (5780-2950 = 2830, 2830/5500)
80% or > tq: ... 88.7% (6200-1320 = 4880, 4880/5500)

As I mentioned previously, "Whatever numbers are used still show that the LS1 is in it's powerband earlier and for a greater percentage of its range than the s2000 engine. The f20c is a great technological achievement but that shouldn't blind people to appreciate that engines like the LS1 have their strong points too."

s2000
first gear speed >95% peak torque
6000 rpm = 28 mph
8300 rpm = 39 mph
39 - 28 = 11, s2000 is in 95% powerband 11 mph out of 42 in first gear

first gear speed >90% peak torque
5800 rpm = 27 mph
8600 rpm = 41 mph *I rounded mph up here*
41 - 27 = 14, s2000 is in 90% powerband 14 mph out of 42 in first gear

first gear speed >80% peak torque
2300 rpm = 11 mph *waldorf quoted 2500 rpm as start of 80%*
8900 rpm = 42 mph
42 - 11 = 31, s2000 is in 80% powerband 31 mph out of 42 in first gear

LS1
first gear speed >95% peak torque
3760 rpm = 32 mph
5410 rpm = 46 mph
46 - 32 = 14, LS1 corvette is in 95% powerband 14 mph out of 51 in first gear

first gear speed >90% peak torque
2950 rpm = 25 mph
5780 rpm = 49 mph
49 - 25 = 24, LS1 corvette is in 90% powerband 24 mph out of 51 in first gear

first gear speed >80% peak torque
1320 rpm = 11 mph
6000 rpm = 51 mph *note that 80% peak actually goes up to the rev limit of 6300*
51 - 11 = 40, LS1 corvette is in 80% powerband 40 mph out of 51 in first gear

You can see that adding gearing into the equation makes the powerband difference more noticable. While the s2000 > 90% powerband is 65% (33.7/51.5) less than the LS1, gearing makes the disadvantage bigger. The s2000 has only 58% (14 mph/24 mph) of the > 90% 1st gear powerband of the LS1 Corvette in the real world. My original point was that gearing an engine higher would effectively "squish" the torque curve horizontally. If the s2000 had a 8.2 rear diff instead of a 4.1, it will be geared to have twice the amount of torque (before losses etc.) but it's torque peak would be even peakier because the curve gets "squished" twice as much horizontally...

...Whatever the case, if people weren't tired of my posts before, I'm sure they are now. I didn't think that the concept of the LS1 having a wider powerband than the f20c would be so hard for some people to accept. I also didn't think that it would be so hard for some people to accept that a torque curve gives us more information than peak hp and peak torque (2 points on the curve). In my eyes, the horse has been officially declared dead. There is no need to beat it further."

Brian

Hi BryanH,

Perhaps you weren't wrong after all? See my previous post on this (although it is ridiculously long). Notice that the graph doesn't show the curve from 1000 but starts at around 2000 rpm. The s2000 torque curve starts low and has a peak from the low end cam around 2800 rpm, then another peak at around 6400 rpm from the high end cam. It is the high ratio gearing (compared to other engines) that makes the real world performance even peakier than it is.

Brian

I'm in awe of Buger. Math is never my strongpoint but looking at numbers somehow makes me feel smarter :)

that back of the 350z is ugly!!