E36 M3 Vs. S2k
03-28-2002, 07:01 AM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: VA
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R6E36:
Maybe you live in an area where there are more "immature" (as indicated by you) s2k drivers than "mature" ones.
All S2Ks I have come across, they seemed pretty cool. We would be driving side by side and checking out each other's
ride but none of them have challenged me so far.
But, I've seen a few 3 Series (yes, not M, but 3 series) challenging me though. And I don't have to tell you the result.
Surprisingly, old (E36) and new (E46) M3s never challenge me either. We would be driving side by side, acknowledging
each other's ride.
My take on this, people who "NEEDS to prove something" tend to appear as "immature" drivers.
Most of us, car enthusiasts, know what our cars are capable of and do not need to prove anything.
Oh, by the way, I am asian and I drive M Roadster, do I qualify in your stereotype?
Maybe you live in an area where there are more "immature" (as indicated by you) s2k drivers than "mature" ones.
All S2Ks I have come across, they seemed pretty cool. We would be driving side by side and checking out each other's
ride but none of them have challenged me so far.
But, I've seen a few 3 Series (yes, not M, but 3 series) challenging me though. And I don't have to tell you the result.
Surprisingly, old (E36) and new (E46) M3s never challenge me either. We would be driving side by side, acknowledging
each other's ride.
My take on this, people who "NEEDS to prove something" tend to appear as "immature" drivers.
Most of us, car enthusiasts, know what our cars are capable of and do not need to prove anything.
Oh, by the way, I am asian and I drive M Roadster, do I qualify in your stereotype?
03-28-2002, 07:46 AM
#94
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lighten up Calson, It's just an expression. Can't take the credit for that one. About the racist comment. I am not even going to get into that.
I think we should we should end this thread and move on since the topic have change from the original intent of my post. I am not here to bash the S2k, I just wanted some friendly comparinson between cars. I respect the S2k and might end up getting one myself.
Peace guys.
I think we should we should end this thread and move on since the topic have change from the original intent of my post. I am not here to bash the S2k, I just wanted some friendly comparinson between cars. I respect the S2k and might end up getting one myself.
Peace guys.
Originally posted by carlson
I think you are the "retard"!!!! Most people competing in the Special Olympics are physically challenged, rather than mentally challenged. You are worse than kids with an attitude in their S2Ks!
Please, don't get the S2K, you may be able to afford it, but you don't deserve it. Drive your "fast" E36M3 and continue to be a stuck-up racist!
I think you are the "retard"!!!! Most people competing in the Special Olympics are physically challenged, rather than mentally challenged. You are worse than kids with an attitude in their S2Ks!
Please, don't get the S2K, you may be able to afford it, but you don't deserve it. Drive your "fast" E36M3 and continue to be a stuck-up racist!
03-28-2002, 08:21 AM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zoran
Hey LateApex, excellent analysis!!
You only forgot one thing: S2000's have an additional final drive multiplication of 1.16 through driveshaft.
So your final torque/weight number for S2000 should shift an additional 16% into S2000's favor.
In addition, you should assume an 180 lb driver in both cars. This will, of course, hurt the S2000 more than the M3.
Hey LateApex, excellent analysis!!
You only forgot one thing: S2000's have an additional final drive multiplication of 1.16 through driveshaft.
So your final torque/weight number for S2000 should shift an additional 16% into S2000's favor.
In addition, you should assume an 180 lb driver in both cars. This will, of course, hurt the S2000 more than the M3.
Hmm. That's very interesting about the driveshaft. I've never heard of one that does that. Are you certain the 1.16 ratio you're talking about isn't actually the 4th gear? The numeric ratio is the the same.
-Apex
03-28-2002, 04:31 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David, I agree with you completely. In fact that is how the car magazine got their best acceleration numbers on the S2k, they dropped the clutch at 6000RPM. But how many of you are willing to do that with your own car just for a street race? the M3 in the other hand is best launched around 3k RPM which I can do all day long. So it's not totaly unreasonable that most street races the S2k will loose to a E36M3 and not by the car's fault (cause it has the ability) but rather because the driver does not know or willing to do what it takes.
Nothing wrong/incorrect about what you say here r6e36, but what I was saying is that beating an S2000 that does not launch from 6000rpm+ is nothing spectacuar ... most family sedans will be able to do that. My father has a 5.7L V8 (~330hp) 4-door sedan which will totally annihilate my S2000 when taking of the lights with a 'street' launch (for him that is taking off from idle). The only way I can keep up with him is by dumping the clutch from 6000rpm+ and in that case the two cars will stay very even all though the 1st 4 gears (I have not tried to go any higher).
You're correct that the M3s acceleration is a lot better when doing a 'street' (ie. low revs) launch, but so is the basic 2.7L Boxtser let alone BoxsterS. I'm sure an MX5 (Miata) can keep the S2000 honest when doing a 'street' launch. That's why I said that an S2000 without a high-revs-clutch drop of the lights is not really racing ... yes, I do 'street' launches 99% of the time, but when I do want to race then I'd drop the clutch to get an 'optimal' launch ... afterall, you're doing all you can to get an 'optimal' launch by dropping the clutch at 3000rpm and the 'strain' on the drivetrain/clutch is probably the same for the M3 at 3000rpm as it would be for the S2000 at the 6000rpm.
If I don't want to drop the clutch from 6000rpm+ then I'll ask/do a rolling start racd from about 30mph as that way I can be already in my 'power zone'.
Nothing wrong/incorrect about what you say here r6e36, but what I was saying is that beating an S2000 that does not launch from 6000rpm+ is nothing spectacuar ... most family sedans will be able to do that. My father has a 5.7L V8 (~330hp) 4-door sedan which will totally annihilate my S2000 when taking of the lights with a 'street' launch (for him that is taking off from idle). The only way I can keep up with him is by dumping the clutch from 6000rpm+ and in that case the two cars will stay very even all though the 1st 4 gears (I have not tried to go any higher).
You're correct that the M3s acceleration is a lot better when doing a 'street' (ie. low revs) launch, but so is the basic 2.7L Boxtser let alone BoxsterS. I'm sure an MX5 (Miata) can keep the S2000 honest when doing a 'street' launch. That's why I said that an S2000 without a high-revs-clutch drop of the lights is not really racing ... yes, I do 'street' launches 99% of the time, but when I do want to race then I'd drop the clutch to get an 'optimal' launch ... afterall, you're doing all you can to get an 'optimal' launch by dropping the clutch at 3000rpm and the 'strain' on the drivetrain/clutch is probably the same for the M3 at 3000rpm as it would be for the S2000 at the 6000rpm.
If I don't want to drop the clutch from 6000rpm+ then I'll ask/do a rolling start racd from about 30mph as that way I can be already in my 'power zone'.
03-29-2002, 05:44 AM
#98
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>the 'strain' on the drivetrain/clutch is probably the same for the M3 at 3000rpm as it would be for the S2000 at the 6000rpm. <<<
FWIW I launch my 2.3 liter 4 cylinder E30 M3 at around 2500 RPMs and do not have to DROP the clutch. You merely lift your foot fairly quickly and modulate the go pedal as required. Not too difficult. There is enough low end torque/inertia to be useful in avoiding a bog.
S2000s seem to need a very abrupt sudden clutch drop, faster than you can lift your foot. So that the tires are shocked loose. But before that happens the impact load travels through the drivetrain. The sudden impact might be the factor that is so hard on some of the parts. If you don't drop you'll bog.
Stan
FWIW I launch my 2.3 liter 4 cylinder E30 M3 at around 2500 RPMs and do not have to DROP the clutch. You merely lift your foot fairly quickly and modulate the go pedal as required. Not too difficult. There is enough low end torque/inertia to be useful in avoiding a bog.
S2000s seem to need a very abrupt sudden clutch drop, faster than you can lift your foot. So that the tires are shocked loose. But before that happens the impact load travels through the drivetrain. The sudden impact might be the factor that is so hard on some of the parts. If you don't drop you'll bog.
Stan
03-29-2002, 06:47 AM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey DavidM:
I think you're giving too little credit to our car.
Yes, it's a dog off the line if not launched, but even with an off-idle launch it will do a 14.6-14.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile. You won't be beating any M3's or new Mustang GT's with that time, but you won't be losing to Miatas or Integras either.
The absolutely worst thing you can do to your S2000 and to your 1/4 mile time is doing a "half-ass" launch - i.e. dropping the clutch at 4000rpms or so. The revs are not high enough to break the tires loose, so you'll bog and kill your 1/4 mile time. On the other hand, since the tires didn't spin, all the impact of the engine gets absorbed in the drivetrain - a recipe for breaking stuff.
I think you're giving too little credit to our car.
Yes, it's a dog off the line if not launched, but even with an off-idle launch it will do a 14.6-14.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile. You won't be beating any M3's or new Mustang GT's with that time, but you won't be losing to Miatas or Integras either.
The absolutely worst thing you can do to your S2000 and to your 1/4 mile time is doing a "half-ass" launch - i.e. dropping the clutch at 4000rpms or so. The revs are not high enough to break the tires loose, so you'll bog and kill your 1/4 mile time. On the other hand, since the tires didn't spin, all the impact of the engine gets absorbed in the drivetrain - a recipe for breaking stuff.
03-29-2002, 03:55 PM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S2000s seem to need a very abrupt sudden clutch drop, faster than you can lift your foot. So that the tires are shocked loose. But before that happens the impact load travels through the drivetrain. The sudden impact might be the factor that is so hard on some of the parts. If you don't drop you'll bog.
I'm not sure if what you 'need to do' in the S2000 is any different to what you decribe in your M3 ... it's just at different revs. I do execlty what you describe (ie. lft my foot) just from very high revs (ie. 6000rpm+) and then I feather the throttle. Yes, you do need to spin the wheels, but don;t you do the same (ie. spin the wheels)? If you do then I don't think I was too far off with my statement.
Zoran,
Could be true that you still get a better 1/4 mile time but by then you'll be doing speeds of excess of 90mph. If you just go though the first 2 gears then even the 'average sedan' could take us .... afterall, the 0-60mph time can drop to be as low as 7.5secs with an off-idle launch. Yes, you can improve on that by a good 1 sec by getting it just right but it's probably easier to stuff up the off-idle launch then a high-revs launch.
The power (or torque at wheels) for the S2000 at anything bellow 6,000rpm is pretty low ... it's a fraction lower then Boxster (2.7L), let alone M3s, TTs or BoxsterS in the same rev-range. I'd say that lower then most family sadans out there as they usually have bigger engine which meant low down power.
I think last time I looked at it, S2000 bellow 6,000rpm was marginally better then an MX5 (though the whole rev range). Though, when I mentioned an MX5, I ment an MX5 launching from 3000 - 5000 rpm (ie. proper launch for the MX5) while the S2000 was launched off idle - which is the situation that r6e36 mentions for his encounters. So to rephrase my statement - "A properly launched MX5 will keep honest an off-idle launched S2000".
I'm not sure if what you 'need to do' in the S2000 is any different to what you decribe in your M3 ... it's just at different revs. I do execlty what you describe (ie. lft my foot) just from very high revs (ie. 6000rpm+) and then I feather the throttle. Yes, you do need to spin the wheels, but don;t you do the same (ie. spin the wheels)? If you do then I don't think I was too far off with my statement.
Zoran,
Could be true that you still get a better 1/4 mile time but by then you'll be doing speeds of excess of 90mph. If you just go though the first 2 gears then even the 'average sedan' could take us .... afterall, the 0-60mph time can drop to be as low as 7.5secs with an off-idle launch. Yes, you can improve on that by a good 1 sec by getting it just right but it's probably easier to stuff up the off-idle launch then a high-revs launch.
The power (or torque at wheels) for the S2000 at anything bellow 6,000rpm is pretty low ... it's a fraction lower then Boxster (2.7L), let alone M3s, TTs or BoxsterS in the same rev-range. I'd say that lower then most family sadans out there as they usually have bigger engine which meant low down power.
I think last time I looked at it, S2000 bellow 6,000rpm was marginally better then an MX5 (though the whole rev range). Though, when I mentioned an MX5, I ment an MX5 launching from 3000 - 5000 rpm (ie. proper launch for the MX5) while the S2000 was launched off idle - which is the situation that r6e36 mentions for his encounters. So to rephrase my statement - "A properly launched MX5 will keep honest an off-idle launched S2000".