Printable View
The way to overcome the lack or low rpm torque is simple. Add more cylinders and bump the capacity. To look for F20C-equivalent engines with larger capacities would be the E46 M3's 3.2L. It has double Vanos that does cam timing and lift, makes high RPM power as well as still staying drivable. And another example is the Ferrari F430. :) The catch is that you need to multiply the cost of the engine. That's why you don't see many high hp/litre cars down in the lower price range.
Yeah no arguments there with torque, I mean your always gona get better torque with a V8 then a S2K N/A, well at least these days anyway. But what do you mean advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoNode
I mean you can effortlessly drive around suburban areas with the S2000 also, stay under 6000rpm and drive around anywhere fine, and if you wish to go hard, well simply go over 6000rpm and keep pushing it. I dont see how hard it is. With the S2000 normall everyday driving you will get much much better fuel economy than with your high powered HSV.
I dont understand when you just say "HSV definately has the advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly, without needing much revs what so ever".
All I can say to that is, maybe its easier to drive because 1. Completely different cars 2. HSV made for comfort 3. Its not a convertible, so better sound absorbtion 4. The VTEC engines easpesialy the S2K's are very harsh and loud. Maybe your just getting a plesibo effect :) haha
Hey maggie :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Chanel
So it was you with the new Jazz ;) looks good.
One look at the power curve for both cars is all that's needed to know which one can be driven lazily without having to constantly be hunting for correct gear. All that torque in the HSV will have no probs to be in the wrong gear and still pull effortlessly for example up a hill. The S2000 reminds me of turbo lag on the STi, it's gutless until that turbo kicks in.Quote:
Originally Posted by s2king
And cruising on the highway at 110km/h, what revs is the S2000 doing? With it's short gearing, IMO it's not very practical at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not biased to either of the cars, but at the end of the day the HSV will most likely be easier to drive in everyday conditions. Disregarding what potentials that may be apparent when pushed to the limits, if you drive according to the book that is.
But given that I wouldn't buy a HSV. Hope that clears it up what I meant.
As the saying goes, "Torque gets you moving, Kilowatts keeps you there"
But it doesn't matter, there's always a reason why someone would buy a Mini, Mazda MX5, Lotus Elise etc, even if they are better buys out there for less money.
When you say "its not practical at all" is subject to opinion. And its just your opinion, everyone has different driving styles and what they like out of a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoNode
For me personaly, I dont find the S2000 hard to drive, I find it practical because I didnt buy the car to carry 4 other passangers, I didnt buy the car so I can have great torque, and as for your comment about the highway, I certainly didnt buy the S2000 to be driving constantly on a highway. Like I said it comes down to personal choice, because they are so different.
The "flaws" that might be in any car, might not be a flaw for somebody else.
Do notice the "IMO" which stands for "In My Opinion"Quote:
IMO it's not very practical at all.
I definately knew my opinion is highly subjective that's why I placed the "IMO" in the first place.
Cheers.
Actually, in daily everyday driving below the speed limit, the throttle opening that you use is very small and coupled by the low revs under 4000rpm means you are using a very small amount of power, probably about 50hp if you are not gunning it. Both cars will be able to do it. You only use more power when you are overtaking. To do so you can either increase the torque (by opening the throttle) or by increasing the revs. The HSV does it by increasing the torque, while the S2000 increase the revs.
At 100km/h, the S2000 should be at 3500rpm if I remember correctly.
To me, short gearing doesn't mean that it is impractical. The only disadvantage is that you'd be at a higher RPM and could cause your passenger to have a droning ride. The good thing is that you only have 1 passenger complaining instead of 3! Rather, a small drop in RPM when upshifting is more impractical for driving around the city. Lots of shifting will be involved then. The S2000's RPM drop when shifting is not bad.
For some reason after reading your other posts and obviously your nick... you're going to defend the S2k to the death. Hard to be not biased huh? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by s2king
Anyway, I wasn't talking about efficiency which you seem to love to bring up. Yes we know per litre it's very impressive but that's not what I'm talking about. Let ME compare them...
We'll use your example..... HSV Clubsport R8 LS2
6.0L V8 (Not 5.7L...)
297kw @ 6000rpm (Not 260kw approx)
530nm @ 4400rpm
Redline 6500rpm
Weight?
Fuel economy?
vs
Honda S2000 F20C
2L 4 cyl
176kw @ 8300rpm
208nm @ 7500rpm
Redline of 9000rpm
Weight of 1255kg
10 Litres per 100km
Now it's obvious, you have to rev the shit out of the S2000 to get it to go anywhere. In MY opinion, that's not very common for an everyday car. Most have or aim for a flat power/torque curve. For your AVERAGE driver, I don't see them rev-matching or down gearing often just to drive around the city... do you? For the R8, it's called pedal to the metal... and you're gone. We all know you're a pro driver and the S2000 is heaven sent, but I think most other people here mean your average joe/yuppie who will be choosing between them (if they were the options although very different...).
Now straight line speed equal?
R8 from the HSV website www.hsv.com.au
1/4 mile in 13.3 secs (Auto is for babies)
0-100km/hr in 5.1 secs
S2000?
From here...
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7
0-100km/hr in 6.2 secs.
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/timesli...page=25&page=2
0-400m... assuming hondaboy is a good driver, 14.691
Hell let's throw in a modded example... Supercharged.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...8scc_comptech/
0-400m... 13.8 secs
.5 seconds is still a fair difference between the two, considering one is modded. So... I've shown my proof, where's yours? Identical in a straight line? I don't think so.
Fuel consumption? Ask RX-7 owners about fuel consumption and see if they care? If they have fun and are friggin fast, I'm sure you wouldn't care either. But without figures on the HSV R8, I can't clearly compare. Although you're probably right, but how "right" I can't say...
Crap under the bonnet? Like plastic? Ever looked in your S2000's engine bay recently? If I remember the air intake design involves alot of crap... ABS heat shielding and other bits and pieces. But that's just a glance... have you worked on both cars and pulled them both apart?
You don't know why people like them when they're almost equal?? Didn't you say that TO YOU, it's fine driving around in the city but different to other people? So why do people have to like the S2000 like you instead of the HSV? Double standards don't you think?
You didn't simplify squat of my "main problem" and your points really aren't credible as I've just shown... so what are you getting at... really? Try to be a bit more open minded when comparing... instead of making stuff up.
Basically two different markets... although both are "sports cars" in their own regards, there's still no point in comparing. Apples to Oranges. That is to say... imo :)
...and aka_NSX... say again?
PS: Ahah sorry for the long post but I actually wanted to read up more proper figures on both cars anyway so...!
man comparing cars is like comparing religions, why bother... go with the one that u like! i drive S2000 everyday to work etc, save me petrol and ohh that VTEC sound... :P why bother compare Family Sedan VS Sports Convertable pull out all the facts and stats who cares... test drive it and go with the one that you feel right! personal opinion i wouldnt buy the HSV coz they are everywhere and looks like commodore :P
agree w/ dragons2k just get the one u feel right . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by dragons2k
IMO forget the HSV, its just a commodore w/ V8 + kit
One more thing to add. If you are comparing the peak power that the car makes, then the fuel consumption figures that you all are quoting goes out the window. No way do you get 10L/100km when you are extracting 176kW. Heck, even if you were constantly extracting 1/2 of that power (88kW), you'd still exceed 10L/100km.
Hehe, that 10L/100km figure was off the Honda website... but yer if you're redlining every gear, laters to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
And yer, I say it's all up to personal choice cause they're too different for "like-minded" enthusiasts (Convertables, Lightweight RWD etc or High powered Family "Sports" sedans etc). But somebody decided to compare them originally... then compare them again with bs... so.... :)