itsmeek

tru...i meant 1/4. there is no "maybe" about it, the autos consistenly put out better 1/4 miles then the manuals. and this is on the camaro, firebirds, and vettes.

05BerlinaFan

Actually the WS6 also pertains to the ram air (bigger nostrils on the hood). They were rated 15hp higher in stock trim, but I don't know how much they were putting to the ground compared to normal Trans Ams

brockLT1

auto LS1's will put out 285rwhp on the low side to 300rwhp on the high side, while most manuals put down 300rwhp to 320whp.

A formula, Ws6, z/28, and an SS will all dyno within 5rwhp of each other, dont let the badges fool you, they are pretty much all the same.

M6's will consistenly put down better 1/4 mile times because of their superior rear end ratio ~ 3.42, whereas most auto's are equiped with a 2.73 rear end and a few got 3.23's.

Here are the gear ratio's for an Auto LS1 4L60E gear ratios:
1st 3.059
2nd 1.625
3rd 1.000
4th .0696.

Here are the ratio's for a S2000;
1st Gear Ratio 3.12:1
2nd Gear Ratio 2.05:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.48:1
4th Gear Ratio 1.16:1
5th Gear Ratio 0.97:1
6th Gear Ratio 0.81:1

Now many of you will find this interesting I hope. Now to find out how much gearing affects torque, and therefore horsepower, and finally acceleration....

many of you like to race from a roll, and I see a lot of races from a medium mph like around 50...so lets take the 2nd gear on the LS1 and multiply it by the rear end number and then finally the torque, this way we can see how much torque is exerted by the LS1 in second vs the S2000 in second.

LS1: 1.625*2.73*350tq= 1552.68lb's of torque in 2nd
S2K 2.05*4.10*153tq= 1285.96 lb's of torque in 2nd

You can see there is a 266 ft/lb advantage for the LS1. Now figure in the weight advantage by roughly 400lb's-500lb's, and you can see why so many S2K's beat Auto LS1's from a roll. Third is even worse if you calculate it out.

itsmeek

great explanation!

Eluded

Which car? If you are refering to my S yes its slower than hell. That is the reason I bought it! It keeps me oughta trouble and is even a non arrest me color unlike my fast car.

Eluded

Brock I changed your Physics intro (I'm not sure I have it right yet, physics PHD's flame away), corrected the Honda's final gear calculations, included a 3.23 rear end to make things a little more fair, and took the liberty of some additional calculations.

Ladies and Gentlemen let the real bench racing begin

LS1: 1.625*2.73*350tq= 1552.68lb's of torque available to the tyres in 2nd (1837 with 3.23

brockLT1

haha nice, I just wanted to see how much gearing really affects acceleration. I came upon those calculations a long time ago, and it really makes sense why S2000's accelerate so hard. Cool stuff

orr89rocz

auto ls1's dont trap 100-102mph like S2k's...

ls1 anything will pull hardcore on a stock s2k. you gotta look beyond peak numbers.... and look toward power across the rpm range.... ls1 has soooo much more power everywhere. thats to be expected from a bigger v8. and dont always look at torque, but at the hp too.. hp is whats pullin down the track, torque just gets the car moving, so they say

what is that 1.16 from?? i see gear ratio, final drive ratio and torqe, but whats the 1.16??

no_really

stock S2000's don't trap at 102. 100 tops, on an ideal night.

A person can use all the math they want, but bottom line, even an auto LS1 is going to tear a new one into any stock S2000. There is a possibility of catching an auto LS1 car at a speed that keeps the trans from downshifting, but it'll still comeback and pull like a train as speeds get up there. Hell, even most supercharged S2000's are outrun by an LS1 f-body.

YBS1

Secondary gear reduction ratio.