Okay here's my ride:
92 RS w/a new ZZ4 (405ftlbs, 355HP) , 4150 670cfm Holley (vac sec), 3.23, Eaton posi, headers and Dynomax exhaust. 700R4 tranny.

My friend put a Vortech supercharger on his s2000.

Assuming he doesn't launch destructively, when do you guys think he'll catch me??

I've driven his car and it has NO NUTS below 5k....

 

you should have the upper hand on him. I can beat a stock one with my 540i on the highway on a roll.

 

around top of his 1st gear so 40 but hopefully ull be long gone. sooner or later he wil catch you because of your gears

 

You should still beat him. You are in LS1 territory and from I read over on LS1.com supercharged S200's still can't hang with stock LS1's. They hang for a bit and fall off really bad.

 

Ya, that wonderful (and imean it, it really is an impressive little 4 cyl) honda engine is so maxed from the factory that basically to make the s2000 go faster they need a differant engine. You should roast the guy with the slight exception of way up into the triple digits, but by then he will be way back. Have fun lookin at him in the mirror.

 

Quote:

Ya, that wonderful (and imean it, it really is an impressive little 4 cyl) honda engine is so maxed from the factory that basically to make the s2000 go faster they need a differant engine. You should roast the guy with the slight exception of way up into the triple digits, but by then he will be way back. Have fun lookin at him in the mirror.

Whats funny is I DID replace my engine for the same price he paid for that stupid supercharger.
ZZ4=$4000 completely ready w/a carb.
Vortech super charger for a s2k = $4000.

I keep telling him he ought to stick a v8 (or even a v6) in that car.

Should be fun roasting his ***!....

 

Think an S2000 with a supercharger is only good for about 300hp - too much boost and ee-boom.

 

I've seen a road test of a supercharged s2000, and it was actually funny! It ran the 1/4 mile in 13.8@ 102mph, so you should have no problems with them at all.

 

That's kind of funny. I've heard of S2000s running that time-- stock.

 

Ok, he finally got it running on Friday and took it for a spin (I wasn't in the car tho). Anyways, he was talking about a little fishtailing on dry pavement when accelerating from an intersection. I'm thinking its cuz the tires and road were cold (10 deg.) and there was no weight in the back (those cars are really light).

He also said he could spin the tires at a stop now, so the thing gained a little torque

Quote:

You should still beat him. You are in LS1 territory and from I read over on LS1.com supercharged S200's still can't hang with stock LS1's. They hang for a bit and fall off really bad.

LS1?? I feel special now...

 

I have always read that they were really heavy. Like 3800lbs or so. And that is another reason for their slowness.

 

they are not near 3800lbs

hwo could they be?
I mean a car that is smaller then mine weighing 1000lbs more?
hell they are a lot smaller then a thirdgen and to weigh more then one?

as far as there slowness they come in at around low 14's stock while some have hit the 13.8-13.9 range though I have heard of some a little faster

but they weight around 2800lbs I think
not 3800 and if I remember right we have already talked abou tthis before

 

The simple answer is, much like a Saab, they're made of lead. Even the tires.

 

I'll get some info from a magazine as soon as I can. I'm assuming the possibility of an error could cost you big when racing one of these.

Off the top of my head...3000 lbs at the heaviest and times between 13.8-14.5 are what I can think of. 0-60 in 5.??. It varies somewhat there as well. But just think of how different it would be if someone didn't know how to drive it, OR did, but made a mistake...

Hey, RX7speed, I've got some more members to my weak little site at yahoo.

 

S2000s are very light. if you're trying to figure out why a lightweight 240 HP car is so slow, it's a honda! it makes 240 HP at 8900 rpm, from idle -8000 rpm it's making less than 100, and there is literally NO torque. a ZZ4 should mutilate that car

 

Well put. Please keep us updated...

 

lmao @ s2000 weighing 3800...i weighed my car and it was 3500

 

If he has enough power to catch you it won't be for a long time so you'll at least win for sure for a while, but I vote that he won't even be able to catch you. The ZZ4 is a torque monster if tuned properly and assuming your tranny is shifting hard. Wind it to about 5400-5500 and watch as he goes down!!!

 

Yeah I raced one when I still had my stock 91 gta, w 305 tpi and cai, and that was it and I kept up with him through a couple of gears, so You should absolutely kill him, keep on killing those hondas, supercharged? and still can't even hang with an LS1, that's kinda funny

 

a stock s2k shoudl have taken you easily if the driver was worth a darn

those cars are easily low 14 second cars with a good driver which is much better then a low 15 high 14 second car




as far as the s/c s2k if I remember right they shoudl be able to pull about low 13's or so if the driver is any good


think about it
6 psi on 11:1 compression 4.56 gears (which gearing does make for more torque) in a 2800lbs car

 

gearing doesn't make more torque, it merely bumps the cars average operating range into high (in a honduhs case more favorable) part of the powerband. they are still *** awful slow cause they've got 1000 RPM of usable power, and not much of it.

 

ive had a couple encounters with s2000s and they always lose..and i run a 14.5.

 

the power band is fairly flat though much of the omph doesn't start till a little later yes


but gears do create torque

it is a simple idea that has been around for some time, even before cars.

if you don't believe that gears create torque try driving in 5th gear all the time

I would venture to say that you would be lucky to even get the car rolling and it isn't because you are out of your powerband... you start at the same rpms using first

 

S2000 powerband is flat until 8000 RPM when it goes from 100 HP to 240. putting 4.56 gearing in it hasn't done much at all because inspite of having 4.56 it still is a slug out of the hole, it's not quite in its powerband. the engine speed at x MPH is different gear to gear. when I'm driving at 40 MPH it's at 5000 rpm in 1st, 2500 in second, 1500 in 3rd, and it's loafing at 1000 in 4th gear. so the idea that I am in the same powerband in each gear is incorrect, which is why you need to downshift if you want to go from cruising to accelerating. torque ultimately comes from the displacement of a motor. i can't really say it'd make torque. it's mechanical advantage, like a lever and such. a longer lever won't make more force, simply allow you to make the most out of the force you are exerting on it. a honda, regardless of gearing, is still going to be a pooch and make very little torque, unless you gear it to with 6.55:1 ratios, in which case, no one would buy the car cause it'd have a 50 MPH top speed, but it;d get there in 4 seconds or less

 

not trying to knock ya but why the talk about still being the powerband for different gears?
do'nt understand where that came from

but yes more gear does create more torque by multiplication
take two motors both make 200lbs/ft
one using 2:1 the other using 4:1 gears
motor a is going to put down 200lbs/ft to the wheels while b is putting down 400lbs/ft
so it isn't just using it more effectiently but actually make more of it

as far as the honda yeah in stock form the S2k is about maxed out but with a s/c it does make some decent torque numbers just like most hondas they are up higher in the rpm range

 

Don't get this confused with axle torque. Yes there is torque mutiplication but that is not toqrue used to accelerate the vehicle. Plenty of farm tractors put thousands of foot pounds to the ground but are slow as molasis and would dyno equally as low. Great for pulling stumps but not great for low ET's and dyno numbers. So the vehicle with 2:1 vs 4:1 will not dyno higher. It could tow a boat better but the dyno won't show that.

 

THIS IS AXLE TORQUE that I am talking about
being that your rear end is hooked to your axles and the torque trasmitted to the rear end gets sent to the axles where would all the torque multiplication go?
well to the axles which goes to the wheels then going to the ground

when you go to get a dyno done it does not tell you how much torque you are putting to the ground

when you go to get your car put on the dyno they have a sensor hooked up to sense rpms

and with that taken into account with rpms of the drum factors in the gearing for you

so really what you are reading it engine torque minus drivetrain loss not real axle torque put down to the ground



but here if you think there is no torque multiplication used to accel the vehicle go out to a 5spd car
put it in 5th and slowly let off the throttle without using the gas
try doing the same thing in 1st gear
tell me why you can get the car moving in 1st but not really in 5th

now next test
go out and dump try to take off by dumping at about 2200rpms or so
what happens in first?
now what happens in 5th?

if there is no torque multiplication whats going on?
it isn't drag being that we are at a dead stop
it isn't because of the powerband being the car started at the same rpm for both test using both gears

really one of the only things left is torque to the wheels
1st gear puts more torque to the wheels then fifth gear does which allows you to start the car and get up and moving


but again the dyno will not show it but that doesn't mean it isn't there since the dyno doesn't tell you real wheel torque

as far as the tractors go I do not know much about them as far as gearing/shifting/torque or anything like that so I can't really comment but only guess as to what is going on


here is another interesting tidbit to think about

even though your wheel torque goes up vs motor torque
the hp stays the same between the motor and wheels

fairly simple to understand though

 

Yes you are correct but maybe you missunderstood me. Yes there is toruqe mutiplication and I was trying to agree with you. And you are correct in your 1rst and 5th gear analogy. However that mutiplication does not contribute to accelerating the vehicle at a higher rate. The drums determine speed by the rate that they are accelerated. A tractor will not accelerate hardley at all even though it can put tons of torque to the ground. Vehicles are dynoed at 1:1 or close to that so that the number more closely represents what the motor makes, and that it does not show more power because the vehicle was in a gear that would make output power more than imput (back to gear multiplication). Therefore the motor accelerates at the same rate that the rear end does. Horsepower does change between motor and wheels but that is a function of torque and not really important right now. I think we are trying to say the same thing in different words. Now put the tractor in a 1:1 gear and it loses all of its pulling power but will dyno at its advertised output minus parasitic losses.

 

even if you put the tranny in a 1:1 gear ratio you still are not turning the wheels the same as the motor being that you rear end also has gears in it
so in 4th you a car might be turning 2.73 revs of the motor to one rev of the tires
this is how a dyno woudl be able to factor in gearing though
with torque multiplication lets say a car that puts out 240lbs/ft of torque at 2000rpms
it is using 2:1 final gearing
so in an ideal situation it would be putting 480lbs/ft to the ground
the dyno sees that ok the motor is spinning at 2000rpms due to the sensor attached
but also sees that the drum is only spinning at 1000rpms
so it figures that there is a total gearing of 2:1 now it takes 480/2=240lbs/ft

again this isn't taking into account rear wheels effect on gearing or drivetrain loss though since that is not what we are talking about

but torque is defined as the amount of force put against an rotational point at a specific rpm right?

so the more force you apply the easier it is to get something moving
the easier it is to get something moving the faster it will get up to speed


again going back to that 1st gear vs 5th gear thing
you can'treally accel in 5th because the wheels are not really getting any torque
in 1st they are getting torque

rear wheel torque is what moves the car
when motor torque gets multiplied it leads to more rear wheel torque
more rear wheel torque means more force on the tires which makes them able to turn faster

yes it also helps with pulling power as you put it
but also with get up and go

without rear wheel torque our cars wouldn't go anywhere



as far as hp changing between motor and wheels
only when you factor in drivetrain loss

again speaking in ideal situation (ie no drivetrain loss) hp is the same at the wheels and the rear end


a motor that puts out 100lbs/ft at 2000rpms will put out 38.08hp at the same rpm
put that through a 2:1 gear ratio
you now come up with 200lbs/ft at 1000rpms WHEEL rotation (still 2000rpms mtor rotation)
so taking the forumla for hp (tq*rpm)/5252
we come up with (200*1000)/5252 we again come out with 38.08

so torque does go up hp stays the same being that rpms at the wheel have dropped vs engine rpms


and your right I might be misunderstanding you on something
but to me it just sounds like you are saying that torque doesn't make the car go any faster just thta it helps you pull something
when I'm saying torque (at the wheels) does help you go faster being it is a rotational force making the tires turn

pulling a stump is no different then the tires overcomming the wieght of the car

 

the whole point in gearing your car is so that you will always be in a favorable part of yor cars powerband and your shift recovery will fall in it. with a higher RPM powerband, taller gears will keep you in them, which is why an S2000 has 4.56:1 gearing, if you put 4.56 gearing in a car with a peak RPM of 6000 and a 3-speed, you will be slowing yourself down and gear limiting your top speed in the quarter, however if your powerband is up to 8000 on each gear, 5.11 gearing will make you faster. yes, a 4:1 gear will make more torque than a 2:1 gear, however, say motor A, a chevy V8, is make 400 ft. lbs and motor B, tiny turd honda vtec motor is making 160 ft. lbs, the chevy has 3.23 gearing, the honda 4.56, in spite of the honda having higher gearing it still doesn't put down anywhere near the amount of torque the chevy will be putting down, and it won't be putting it down as long though the powerband as the chevy will (torque from 2000-4500 peak is not uncommon for a built V8), that chevy will not only kill the S2000 out of the hole, but with a proper stall will keep sodomizing it through the quarter, which is why a Z06 is over 2 seconds faster in the quarter than an S2000 on average, which calculates to apprx 20 car lengths+ from a dig. I am yet to see any honda make comparable torque to a V8 unless they are making over 700 HP at the wheels, and it's still just a torque spike, nothing constantly usable which is why a 1900 lb drag CRX with more RWHP is slower than a 3000 lb lingenfelter vette with more torque than two of those motors put together. point is, gearing is not going to compensate for lack of muscle.

 

I can't say that gearing is going to be the cure all

but it is part of the package

just like having a ls6 motor by itself doesn't mean much if it is put in a old caddy with saggy susp and 2.5x gears


the s2k isn't the greatest car out of the whole I easily will admit that

one big problem with high wind no low end torque cars

hard as hell to launch since the high rpm shock just overloads the tires and at which point if your not carefull can become a bog once you get grip

start slipping the clutch (like the s2k needs) and you just end up TEARING your clutch up bad

that isn't because of lack of torque
but where the torque is placed vs car design



also what is a ligenfelter vette cost?
how common are they
is it just go to the dealer and buy one thing?
so why bring that into this talk?
come on talk something realistic and around the same cost as what we are talking

not something that cost almost 3-4 times as much
and you say you have yet to see a honda put out anywhere near the torque of a v8
please specify what type of honda vs what type of v8
cause that kinda runs into a little problem when we talk of the honda v8 cause I have no idea how it can't make as much torque as it's own motor

but no talking motor numbers a lot of honda products will not put out the same torque as a v8
not always do they need that much torque though being the cars are generally a little lighter

also honda (like most imports) don't build the cars for low end power instead they build for higher rpm torque and use light cars with some gears to help out
not trying to say it is a solve all and makes it better
but you can get some decent results out of that combo


but that wasn't what the whole conversation was about anyway

never was it honda rules domestics suck or how honda is so much better or anything like that

but rather started off as will a S/C s2k be able to win against stated car

at which point I brought up gearing helping to multiply torque and you said BS to start with


but the whole point for gearing also isn't to just for moving your car into the powerband
but also to help make torque
everything is a package
you just have to build the pieces together

 

Yes although you don't always need rpm.

Yes you are correct here however that does not garauntee that you accelerate faster. See below.

The car is getting torque in 5th but like you said you get more off the line. You dyno in 1:1 so that your acceleration is as linear as pissible. Thats what gets you down the track with low ET's. Just like the linear torque curve is the faster car. Just like campairing a 240hp 4 banger to a 240hp V8. Peek power is about the samw but why is the 4 banger slower. Non linear curve.

Only if that torque multiplies with unit time. If it does not than you do not change the rate of accereration. I can use a truck to open the front door but if I do it really slow I do not change the rate that it opens. Not I am applying a tremendous amount of force but only per large amounts of unit time. Mathmatically as RPM decreses Torque increases. It is in the fundamental theory of gears. I do not have any of my books here but I can go into a little more detail later.

Yes and no. The tires have to overcome the tractive force that the weight of the body places on the tires. Not on the weight itself. It also has to overcome the frictional force applied by the surface. That is a whole other discussion though.

You are right on track and now I think we are getting somewhere. You are absolutly correct and keen on your statements. I should have worded previous posts to aggree with you better.

 

Geez i feel like I'm in engineering school again...

 

If my car only put out 142 ft. lbs at over 5000 rpm, I'd say its a complete lack of torque lol. the fact that it tears up clutches means the clutches are weak junk that are made out of paper or something lol.


cost probably less than that drag race CRX, it's fully streetable, warrantied, has AC and is a full second faster in the 1/4 than that CRX, gets 25 MPG average, and has road racing suspension so it handles even better than a stock Z06.

Built honda vs. built V8, not some turbocharged 400 WHP honda putting down 250 ft. lbs and saying HA it makes more than a bone stock LG4 from 1978. a stock L98 is making more torque than your average turbo civic, and it's also faster by a lot.
that's a myth. You ALWAY want more torque, just cause your car is lighter doesn't mean it's "ok" to not have torque. this is what import people think, and it's why they lose a lot of races to domestics with twice the weight, lower WHP but three times the torque. now if that domestic got down to 2300 lbs (which a fox body CAN do easily) with all that torque, your imports are never gonna stand a chance. and they don't lol.
yet to see them, outof a 4 cylinder anyways. a high RPM, High torque and high HP V8 is a vicious beast that will kick a lot of *** if it's built the same way.

I didn't bring up any BS, the honda will lose, it's a slow powerless import, a supercharger won't even bring it's torque into the 200 ft. lbs range from where it was. there is no BS about gearing bringing you into the powerband, when you are RACING that's all you look for and all you want. it's about staying in your powerband as long as possible in every gear. there is no point in making 700 HP if you can only experience it for 1000 rpms, at least with a domestic V8. if you're an import that's all you live for

 

tRUE O' sO TRUE..TORQUE BABY TORQUE...

 

a lot of the reason the clutch will not last is first your not dumping the clutch at 5000rpms
but slipping it LIKE CRAZY
a lot of clutches can not handle being slipped at that rpm for long
and still though it is able to hold on with a stock L98 even with it's lack of torque vs something with almost 3 times the torque

still though what bearing does the car have against a civic?

see above
and it sounds like a double standard when you compare the LF vette vs a s2k
still though the car is uber expensive and really don't see the point in talking about something that is way out of grasp on most anyone

you do want more torque. never did I say you didn't
just that you don't always need the same amount to do the same thing
as I have been saying it is part of a package

I agree
which is why I can't wait for the domestics to start using DOHC and variable valve timing if not multiple cam profiles like a vtec system
that way you can have a nice streetable idle and once you hit a specific rpm new cam profile opens up and lets you get quite a bit more upper end power


the honda once again is stock form is in l98 range if not lt1 range stock for stock
granted I think this guy in the above post would prolly win
but the s2k would be able to do at least a decent run
prolly not what the above guy would do but not as bad as what everyone thinks IF THE GUY CAN DRIVE
gearing does bring you into the powerband yes
but that is not the only function of gearing
if it was we would all have 1 speed transmissions and be build like a diesel prolly
as far as 700hp for 1000rpms I think you can get away with a little more then that from some of the dyno's I have seen
but a lot of it depends on the car
and as far as me if I actually had the money to build a 700hp car it would last for a little more then 1000rpms
but then again I don't have that money
nor would I build my car to make 700hp being it be a waste of money for me since it doesn't fit my goals
300-400 is about all I want for hp
from there I should be happy
that will leave me with a nice quick spooling turbo and if I did take it to the track at least a good low 12 second run

 

eh screw it I guess I can give it a shot but forgive me if things come out wrong

sorry your right torque is based upon rpms but rather horsepower is
my fault

Quote:

Yes you are correct here however that does not garauntee that you accelerate faster. See below.

will do

Quote:

The car is getting torque in 5th but like you said you get more off the line. You dyno in 1:1 so that your acceleration is as linear as pissible. Thats what gets you down the track with low ET's. Just like the linear torque curve is the faster car. Just like campairing a 240hp 4 banger to a 240hp V8. Peek power is about the samw but why is the 4 banger slower. Non linear curve.

not in the right mind to understand most of this till the last statement right now

Quote:

Only if that torque multiplies with unit time. If it does not than you do not change the rate of accereration. I can use a truck to open the front door but if I do it really slow I do not change the rate that it opens. Not I am applying a tremendous amount of force but only per large amounts of unit time. Mathmatically as RPM decreses Torque increases. It is in the fundamental theory of gears. I do not have any of my books here but I can go into a little more detail later.

hehe once again outclassed and not able to understand this but will give it a shot
sorry if I just took everything you said wrong
but as far as opening the door
if you open it slower are you not using less force to do so?
but see this is where I am having a problem right now
hp vs torque at the moment
sorry been asleep most of the day kinda sick so... well yeah
but please go into detail I give up

Quote:

Yes and no. The tires have to overcome the tractive force that the weight of the body places on the tires. Not on the weight itself. It also has to overcome the frictional force applied by the surface. That is a whole other discussion though.

You are right on track and now I think we are getting somewhere. You are absolutly correct and keen on your statements. I should have worded previous posts to aggree with you better. [/QUOTE]


LOL
screw it
bed calls

told ya I shouldn't have tried

 

I am comparing it to a "pro street" wimport drag race car, not your run of the mill 15 second turbo civic. the drag race CRX weigh in at 1900 lbs if not less, put down 740+ WHP, yet they are slower than a full interior, warrantied TT 427 LS6 Corvette. Torque wins races.

never made a comparison between the TT vette and the S2k, try reading my posts please. I compared it to a drag race civic. want to compare dollar for dollar, an 03 cobra would destroy an S2000 and I destroyed an S2000 from a dig with my IROC to the tune of 2-3 cars out of tune. I was running close to 14 flat with a catback and rebuilt transmission and everything else stock.

m'eh, import guys can keep thinking this and keep being slow.

a pushrod motor will be better. Ford already does this, with their old cobra motor. they needed to supercharge it to give it ***** since it was getting slapped around by LS1s badly. DOHC is not the answer, a motor like a 377 or 358 is, a high RPM, high torque, large displacement pushrod motor with huge mid range torque and top end HP.

not really, putting down 300 HP to the wheels should get a third gen a 13 flat if not high 12s. a supercharged S2000 would run a 13.5 tops.

for racing it is. we are talking racing. the only thing that matters on the car is engine output and to an extent, weight
then build a V8 you won't be disappointed.
but then again I don't have that money
remember, highway queens won't impress anyone and neither is showing off a high HP dyno number like most supras have doesn't mean anything when they are being mopped by bolt ons LS1s and BBCs all day long

 

well since I don't have any times of the car you are talking about no comment

Quote:

never made a comparison between the TT vette and the S2k, try reading my posts please. I compared it to a drag race civic. want to compare dollar for dollar, an 03 cobra would destroy an S2000 and I destroyed an S2000 from a dig with my IROC to the tune of 2-3 cars out of tune. I was running close to 14 flat with a catback and rebuilt transmission and everything else stock.

sorry reread it and you compared a z06 to a s2k
my fault

Quote:

m'eh, import guys can keep thinking this and keep being slow.

don't see how bulding a full package is going to make a car slow
second as far as weight compare a first gen RX7 with a curb weight of 2200lbs vs a stock ls1 equiped camaro
see who wins
that is my point less wieght doesn't need as much
but still build for the full package

Quote:

a pushrod motor will be better. Ford already does this, with their old cobra motor. they needed to supercharge it to give it ***** since it was getting slapped around by LS1s badly. DOHC is not the answer, a motor like a 377 or 358 is, a high RPM, high torque, large displacement pushrod motor with huge mid range torque and top end HP.

DOHC or SOHC generally does give a brouder torque curve as well as less parisitic loss from the valve train.
less moving parts means less friction and weight to move around which would give less of a pumping loss
also with a OHC motor you are able to run some more agressive ramp rates as far as the cam goes without running into valve float
then with DOHC generally flow would be a little better through these motors as well as being able to design a better combustion chamber design which would reduce octane requirements and ipmrove efficiency.
also saying ford needed a s/c to even compete would be like me saying the ls1 needed all those extra cubes to compete with the ford.
if you really wish to do a test as far as which is better rather then comparing two different cars of two different weights two different gearings, displacenemts and such
compare two cars with IDENTICAL setup other then DOHC vs OHV design
other then that you have too many variables so saying ford tried it and it didn't work isn't a good arguement


[quote] not really, putting down 300 HP to the wheels should get a third gen a 13 flat if not high 12s. a supercharged S2000 would run a 13.5 tops.[quote]
I think the s/c s2k should be able to do a better job then 13.5 ONLY if the driver can drive
chances are he can't and prolly runs 14's
what can I say s2k is a pain in the *** to launch

Quote:

for racing it is.

nah not the only thing
read shifty convo and mine and you see that gearing should improve torque output at the wheels as well

Quote:

we are talking racing.

what does that have to do with what was quoted?

Quote:

then build a V8 you won't be disappointed.

yup I would be
doesn't fit my needs
straight line isn't my thing
I want something SMALL compact lightweight
v8 doesn't fit that when put against the rotary

but yes if I was building a drag car or I had my 71 camaro back I would build a v8

Quote:

remember, highway queens won't impress anyone and neither is showing off a high HP dyno number like most supras have doesn't mean anything when they are being mopped by bolt ons LS1s and BBCs all day long

what does that have to do with what was quoted?



and is there any reason you keep trying to argue here about pointless stuff?
no offence here but it seems you have blind loyalty and if that is the case I know no matter what I say you will never believe anything I say
and from how you seem to skirt around some of my post that is the impression I am getting

if you are just trying to get a rise please not right now not feeling the greatest. and your going to do nothing more then **** the mods off.

 

Just tape it...pictures worth a thosand words.

prob eat him, run cirlces round him, enough time left over to get a drink, fill the tank and wait for him on the other end.

 

what are you talking about the "full package"? DOmestics can't handle now?
an LS1 will, they are faster than FDs by quite a bit, and it's really fun to take an FD, put in an LS1, gain no weight, and run 11s on a stock LS1.
well it's obviously not broad enough, the mercury marauder has a DOHC 4.6 with 300+ HP and 300+ ft. lbs, but its still slower than a 260 HP 330 ft. lbs Caprice/Impala SS.
these losses and increased efficiency give marginal gains over a pushrod design and the idea that you can "rev" higher with a DOHC is a myth. there aren't any fast all motor cobras around and the LT5 ZR1 utilizes better technology than the LS6 but doesn't make any more HP.
lol, they've been making 350s since the 60s and mopping up on fords with them since then. Ford put a supercharger on their cobra because they WERE getting slapped around by LT1s and the 96-98 models were getting slapped around by third gens. the 5.0 motor was much better than the 4.6, IMO it still is better.
I can't say I know of any cars that have options like that.
you keep over anaylzing what I am saying. You gear your car to the motor you are running. you don't go throw 4.11s on a car with a stock 305 and expect to be faster, you might get out of the hole quick, but your top end will suffer and you would most likely get slower. you gear your car depending on what application you wish to do. for a tractor pull you want to have the most low end torque to rip stumps out of the ground and so on, top end means little to nothing. same with towing. but for racing simply putting the tallest gears on the vehicle will NOT make you faster.
umm ok...
cool
it seems to me that you haven't done a lot of racing. you keep talking about torque multiplcation advantage of gearing yet you seem to think it irrelevant to match the gears to the kind of engine you are running and the weight of the car. you also don't seem to grasp a car putting out more torque will be faster provided it can utilize that torque every gear. Sorry, I don't have any respect for imports, I am yet to see any remotely fast and I don't care much for video racing.
not trying to get a rise off anything, I am telling you and I doubt any mods will get mad from a tame conversation. you are speculating too much and talking about ifs and if-sos. I am talking about the tried, the true, the failed, and racing. that's what this section of the forums is dedicated to.

 

What you won't catch unless you look at a dyno sheet of two similarily displaced engines, one being OHC and the other OHV is the broad torque curve that the OHV engine will make over the OHC setup. Peak numbers don't tell the whole story; even if the OHC engine made more peak torque, the OHV engine would be producing more torque at every other RPM. It's not really a real known fact, but I've seen my fair share of OHV vs. OHC dynos where it was a fair comparison. I'm sure that is one of the reasons why GM stuck with OHV in their performance cars and I remember reading a few SLP engineers making the reference to the OHV making a broader torque curve and that's why they could make the LS1 into such a pavement pounder.

 

You guys also have to consider that most of these high horsepower cars with small cube motors are making most of their power in the upper rpm band. I myself am planning on stepping into the import world with a TT supra and gonna find out why they make 800+ WHP and only run 10's. I will also question on why does the mercury maurauder run so slow of ET times and trap speed when the older heavier LT1 Impala SS with less horsepower and comparable torque runs faster times. I wonder if anyone has dynoed that marauder.

 

never said that
just implying if I build a car torque is not the only thing I would worry about
weight, gearing, suspension, chassis, and such are what I am going to worry about
one thing by itself can make a faster better handling car
but you get the best results by working with everything

nobody said anything about handling and that domestics can't do it

Quote:

an LS1 will, they are faster than FDs by quite a bit, and it's really fun to take an FD, put in an LS1, gain no weight, and run 11s on a stock LS1.

yup I agree
that kinda comes into my statement of with less weight you do not need as much torque to get the same rate of acel for a 1/4 mile run

Quote:

well it's obviously not broad enough, the mercury marauder has a DOHC 4.6 with 300+ HP and 300+ ft. lbs, but its still slower than a 260 HP 330 ft. lbs Caprice/Impala SS.

whats the weight, gearing, Cd, suspension, and build between the motor differences?

too many variables that I know nothing of

Quote:

these losses and increased efficiency give marginal gains over a pushrod design and the idea that you can "rev" higher with a DOHC is a myth. there aren't any fast all motor cobras around and the LT5 ZR1 utilizes better technology than the LS6 but doesn't make any more HP.

but that doesn't mean it can't be done
a lot of times manufacs make cars on the conservative side
if they didn't we would all end up driving cars like the s2k where they are peaked fairly well from the factory and mods (unless you go forced induction) do very little
and I would think that the gains can be quite good

Quote:

lol, they've been making 350s since the 60s and mopping up on fords with them since then. Ford put a supercharger on their cobra because they WERE getting slapped around by LT1s and the 96-98 models were getting slapped around by third gens. the 5.0 motor was much better than the 4.6, IMO it still is better.

yeah ford kinda has been a joke for a while
and the time they finally start getting things back together since the 80's GM stops production of the f-bod

but still you complain about the s/c on the cobra
why did GM need all those extra cubes
about the farest thing we can look at for the last 15 years or so is the 302 vs the 305
how do they compare?

Quote:

I can't say I know of any cars that have options like that.

lol me either
but it would be nice

Quote:

you keep over anaylzing what I am saying. You gear your car to the motor you are running. you don't go throw 4.11s on a car with a stock 305 and expect to be faster, you might get out of the hole quick, but your top end will suffer and you would most likely get slower. you gear your car depending on what application you wish to do. for a tractor pull you want to have the most low end torque to rip stumps out of the ground and so on, top end means little to nothing. same with towing. but for racing simply putting the tallest gears on the vehicle will NOT make you faster.

goes back to whole package
but I agree 14:1 gears aren't going to be the g reatest

Quote:

umm ok...

hey I like something small and light weight
guess it goes along with my small..... well n/m

Quote:

it seems to me that you haven't done a lot of racing. you keep talking about torque multiplcation advantage of gearing yet you seem to think it irrelevant to match the gears to the kind of engine you are running and the weight of the car. you also don't seem to grasp a car putting out more torque will be faster provided it can utilize that torque every gear. Sorry, I don't have any respect for imports, I am yet to see any remotely fast and I don't care much for video racing.

I know that you need to match
it just seemed as though you kept saying that gears WILL NOT multiply torque at all

and I can understand not having any respect for imports
but don't be nieve about them either.
granted they might not be able to run as fast as a domestic in a max performance situation
but in most cases on street trim they are able to do quite a bit and still be streetable

to me it isn't how much a car can do in max trim
don't really care if my car is able to run a seven second 1/4 if I put this motor in there and work on it
or if my car at a max situation can pull 1.3g's and 80mph on the skidpad
I know those are way out of my money range so I just pick a car that does what I want which are faily modest goals which I think I explained to you and somethin I enjoy just to drive

there are many cars I would love to own just settled on this one for now

Quote:

not trying to get a rise off anything, I am telling you and I doubt any mods will get mad from a tame conversation. you are speculating too much and talking about ifs and if-sos. I am talking about the tried, the true, the failed, and racing. that's what this section of the forums is dedicated to.

eh so maybe no
just at first seemed you where pulling the imports suck cause if I had this car I could smoke x car here


but just out of curiosity what is it that this LF vette runs?
same with the 700hp CRX
not trying to offend anyone but I would think the vette is something special if it is that fast

 

glad to see someone finally showed up
so where have you been man?


but with the OHV vs OHC
what differences where there in head design regarding flow?
cam profiles
bore stroke


I just don't understand how both motors sharing the same design other then the OHC part the OHV would make more power through the rpm range

unless the cam profiles where a little off (which wouldn't shock me)
or something else was different

 

Ah I've been kickin around, just been browsing lately.

It was back in my high school days (more than 2 years ago now) where we had a heavily funded race team which had free access to a dyno and a huge amount of donated parts. Since it was primarily Chevy and Ford boys on the team, we did a lot of experimenting with the 4.6L modular Mustang engine. I remember one test we did was with a LR4 4.8L Vortec motor from a pickup. We were trying to put together a late model technology small displacement motor that could run with the big boys. We ran the 4.6L totally stock and I just looked up the cam specs and they are: Camshaft Lift: 502”/ 531” Duration at .050: 242”/252” and in the 4.8L we tossed in a 98-00 LS1 cam which is 202/210 duration and .496" on both sides. I know the 4.6L has a bit more duration but that was as close as we could get to be even. I remember the OHC made more peak torque and horsepower but the OHV 4.8L made a very broad torque curve, it basically made more power throughout the RPM range compared to the 4.6L. I dont know any specifics on the intake and head flow numbers, but I'd bet the 4.6L flows a lot more CFM through. The intake volume being less on the 4.8L may have contributed slightly to the torque advantage, but still the OHV had a much much broader torque curve. It wasn't peaky at all like the OHC's.

The OHC motor definitely made more power, even being displacement challenged. The real place where the OHV motor shined was the fact that it's numbers weren't as peaked as the OHC's #'s. For the street or drag racing I'd take the OHV because the broader torque is much more useful (I believe the top fuel dragsters and funny cars are all still OHV) but if it were road racing or some sort of endurance racing with corners, the OHC motor would take the cake since there's less stress on the valvetrain while you are sitting in the higher RPM's at such a sustained amount of time and the higher peaky numbers would do you good.

 

would the 242/252 cam be a little more of a higher rpm cam as is?

also head design can have a good effect as far as torque vs rpm range

more efficient head design generally can produce a more efficient torque curve as well as many other variables


I would think though if you get rid of ALL variables other then ohv vs ohc the ohc would produce better torque numers through the range

though prolly going to be good luck taking care of that

 

Well this drifted off topic.

Anyway, did your friend have his s2000 dyno tuned? if not you should take care of him. If he's bumped up the boost and has had it tuned, then he will win. Assuming he can drive. I have seen those cars put down 320-340 RWHP before w/ vortech blowers. Do they have a lot of torque, hell no. But the car is over 1000 pounds lighter. They don't need all that much.

Please, let us know how you do.

 

obviously lol, put you build your car around the motor. at least I do. kinda like how I try to build the motor around a cam only, it only makes sense.


but, you have to consider this, the rotary in that car can only get high 13s to low 14s out of that car stock, torque takes off 2 seconds.

Weights are the same, about a deuce, gearing is also close, 3.08 or 3.23, Cd is irrelevant in the quarter unless you are trapping over 110 MPH, the amount of drag put on the car under those speeds is minimal even on a brick car like an 88 Monte Carlo. suspension is a solid rear, and general cop car like ride for both. motor difference is a slightly detuned 4.6L DOHC Cobra motor vs. a slightly detuned 5.7L OHV Camaro motor.

I still say the ability to rev has nothing to do with valvetrain configuration. a well balanced, strong, light weight rotating mass, solid valvetrain and small stroke/large bore will get you revs. DOHC valvetrains respond better to forced induction though, this is no mystery, its because of the efficiency.

I don't complain about the supercharger, I simply said it's what it took for ford to simply keep up. the 302 is NOT the same motor as a 305. the 305 is a small bore big stroke, the 302 is a large bore small stroke. Ford had a 5.4 DOHC Cobra R motor that was weaker than the LS6 5.7.

lol, I never said that sorry if it came out that way. I was trying to get across that 200 x 4 is still less than 400 x 3 (tranny gear 1:1)
lol, when I am afraid of an import I'll let you know.
lol, no I was saying my car here could smoke x import there lol!
it ran an 8.89 (got a video of it), I've heard they got it down to an 8.2 with drag suspension, but as I said it's set up for road racing and is a supercar in the truest sense other than price (less than a 911 Turbo). the CRX is 740 WHP, ran a 9.7, isn't streetable, and has full drag suspension and is stripped quite a bit. I am just comparing the fastest of imports with some of the fastest of streetable domestics. there is a 6.98 sec street driven camaro in a township near Detroit. Has several thousands of dollars in it to make it super fast and keep it streetable lol.

 

Quote:

Anyway, did your friend have his s2000 dyno tuned? if not you should take care of him. If he's bumped up the boost and has had it tuned, then he will win. Assuming he can drive. I have seen those cars put down 320-340 RWHP before w/ vortech blowers. Do they have a lot of torque, hell no. But the car is over 1000 pounds lighter. They don't need all that much.

NO, no dyno tuning, and NO he cannot drive. I talked to him recently and he said it's really easy to kill the thing while accelerating from a stop --- no torque is right

As part of the install though he put in an after market clutch, if that does anything to the thing's performance.

And dont worry, I'll let yall know WHEN i beat him...