__redruM

Don't be Dim, this is an S2000 site. And you could post "Which would you chose breathing or the S2000" and get 100 posts about how the S2000 destroys breathing.

Its a silly troll trick, that anyone can do, even newbies using their brothers' room-mates' account.

ZDan

The S isn't more nimble because it has less power.
It is more nimble because it has less WEIGHT.

trinis2001

Yes, the "more nimble because of less power" had me thinking, until I remembered: non Honda driver always have something to say about our torque or lack there of it, even though the same Hondas run neck and neck with cars with 100+lbft of tq. I wonder what such people have to say about a Lotus Elise?

S2KBDub

I've had both, two times over. I'm on my 2nd S2000, briefly had an 04 Z cabrio, and simultaneously had an 07 S and a G35 6sp coupe (Which is the same car). They're both different beasts. The Z and G feel like GT cars - and in no way did I ever look at them as a "replacement" for the S, simply as a compliment. The S is more communicative, nimble, and connected - while the Z and G, although more powerful, are more isolated, softer, and less tossable. The S isn't for everyone, so if you're asking this question as a matter of self edification because you like the S, but want a Z - do what feels right to you.














(not my Z, but the same car)

JackS

Anyone interested in a "sports car" that has any degree of common sense, practicality, and conservatism will be driving a Z.
This is exactly why I perfer the S2000.

RED MX5

For some reason there are a lot of people out there who are too dim to realize that gearing multiplies torque, and that higher revs allow lower gearing, which translates into greater torque multiplication. When someone says that the S2000 is slow because the engine makes very little torque, what they are really telling you is that they don't actually knonw how cars work. It is the equivalent of saying "I don't have a clue."

As for acceleration, it's a function of thrust divided by mass, so the Elise will be quick, because it's light weight. Mass, torque, and gearing, have to be viewed together.

OR, you can just look at HP and mass, because HP isn't affected by gearing.
Next time somebody talks some crap about S2000 torque, just do this ...
... ...
and walk away. There is no future in getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

__redruM

[QUOTE=RED MX5,Feb 4 2008, 07:13 PM] For some reason there are a lot of people out there who are too dim to realize that gearing multiplies torque, and that higher revs allow lower gearing, which translates into greater torque multiplication.

RED MX5

Haha, you left out a a symbol.

HP = (rpm x T) / 5252.

If we used the metic system we would use the "magic number" 9550 rather than 5252, which is why I usually just specify the relationship.

150 ft.lbs. of torque at 5252 RPM yields 150 HP.
150 ft.lbs. of torque at 10504 RPM yields 300 HP.
150 ft.lbs. of torque at 15756 RPM (F1 territory) yields 450 HP.

Like experience, not all torque is created equal.

ZDan

There's still a "magic number" required in the metric system.

kW = N-m * rpm / 9550

There is no metric value for pi!
(no metric minute either)

S2kDr!fter

It pisses me off when someone talks crap about the S2000 having less tourqe than other cars. So I was like WTF!?,,, who cares, the S doesnt need massive tourqe to do its job.