SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ever wonder what an S2000 sounds like in a street race against a modded S60R????<p>it sounds like a guy with a VTEC motor wailing away...but going backwards....<p><IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"><p>in seconds, you can't even hear it anymore... hahahah<p>this isn't a kill story...it is a hypothetical question....<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by 23109VC at 5:33 PM 4-16-2006</i>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,877 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (23109VC)

I heard ya.. <p>Motor trend reports S2000 a few years ago doing 0-60 in 4.9. I highly doubt it. <p>Had a run-in with one a while back, they petered out after 3rd gear. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>you know those are hand-build engines? maybe the guy who build it forgot a crank shaft. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (stevectsai)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>stevectsai</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I heard ya.. <p>Motor trend reports S2000 a few years ago doing 0-60 in 4.9. I highly doubt it. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>If you're willing to seriously dump the clutch, you can probably get into the 5's but with a whopping 150-160ft-lbs of torque......buh bye any other way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
I've owned both. S2000s previous and currently R. I actually belong in an S2000 club as well. They may not be super fast in a straight line (and I've been dying to give it a go with one) but they will absolutely kill in the corners. <p>They are fun to drive and can't beat that top down 9000rpm experience:). It was my closest experience to owning a bike.<p>Some of the newer S2000 guys have been able to get into the high 13s on the track, but like it is already mentioned the clutch was thoroughly abused. <p>Just hope you don't run into one S/C'ed or turbo'ed, they are monsters on the highway <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0">.<p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (23109VC)

Most people have no clue how to drive an S2K. It has absolutely no power in lower RPMs and most people fear the screaming sound it makes when its in the power range. If you can't hear yourself think because the guy next to you is revving his engine out of control at the stoplight next to you, then he might take off like a slingshot. Otherwise....toodles!<p>The RX8 needs to be driven the same way, but the strange part about the RX8 is that it's eerily subdued at 8K RPMs...which makes it more driveable (at least to me)!<p>-Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Sue Esponte)

guys I have beaten the crap out of like 3 s2000 these were 3rd gear pulls when the R is spooled up all the way its over with before it even starts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (23109VC)

I have a 2004 S60R and a 2005 S2000 and you can not really compare the 2 cars. The S60R is an all weather 4 door sedan, albeit a very quick sedan. The S2000 is a small, light and very quick sports car. Please keep in mind it weighs under 2,900 lbs. The engine may be short on torque but it still has 240hp coming from only 2.2 liters without a turbo or supercharger.<p>It would be a very close contest between a stock S60R and a S2000 in a straight line but once the road begins to twist the S60R is now out of its element. Lets not forget the turning circle and tire rub experienced in the S60R. The steering feel on the s2000 is much better. Also if the is a better 6sp manual transmission in terms of feel and precision on the planet, I would like to hear about it. <p>When the road is wet or snowy there is virually nothing that can touch the R but on warm sunny day and the roads are dry the S2000 is my choice of rides. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (jim_S60R)

The power to weight ratio on these cars is about the same.<p>That said, the R suffers from heat issues in the summer because it's a turbo, the dreaded AWD bog, and it may not even make 300hp.<p>The S2K suffers from no torque in any weather...and that's about it.<p>The difference between these 2 cars in a straight line on a cool Autumn day will probably come down to driver competency. If the driver in the S2K has a clue, however, and the 2 cars line up during a 'hot summer night' in Alabama, the view in the R's rear view mirror might not be as nice as you'd hope.<p>-Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Sue Esponte)

I suspect the R has an advantage in <I>average</I> horsepower (or average power-to-weight ratio). You are only at peak-power rpm for an instant. In a race, all the time spent at non-peak-horsepower rpms count, too.<p>In other words, a torquey 300 hp engine beats a torque-less 300 hp engine any day. <p>Area under the curve and all that.<p>NASCAR engine builders have made a science of this. I suspect pretty much every track gets it's own custom torque curve to maximize "area under the curve" (average horsepower) -- from mid-corner to end of the straight.<p>Perhaps the real experts on this topic are kart racers. There are many, many different "pipes" to select from, some with broad-but-lowish torque ranges, some with high-but-peaky torque ranges. Make the wrong choice and you'll be lapped more than once.<p>My buddy uses data acquision on his kart to plot an rpm histogram on his laptop at the track. He uses it to help with pipe and gearing selection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Dyno)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Dyno</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>My buddy uses data acquision on his kart to plot an rpm histogram on his laptop at the track. He uses it to help with pipe and gearing selection.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>And they say karting is the affordable form of motorsports? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
my car isn't 300hp.... <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"> I can't say what I"m making right now..but I had 5 gallons of 100 octane in the tank, it was 70 degrees out...and I'd swear he was driving in reverse.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: (23109VC)

Wasn't this a "hypothetical" situation per your initial post?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Dyno)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Dyno</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You are only at peak-power rpm for an instant. In a race, all the time spent at non-peak-horsepower rpms count, too.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>No argument there but why does that give the R an advantage?<p>The S2K revs <b>very</b> quickly. In comparison, it makes the R feel like you're pedaling through molasses. The lighter flywheel, quick revving engine, gear ratios, etc. all make it much easier to keep the S2K up around its peak....although with a 200rpm window between redline and peak hp, there's no denying that it will spend more time below its peak hp than the R. Nevertheless, it only weighs about 2800lbs, so it takes a whole lot less to keep it going.<p>And, what about the fact that you've still got to spool the R up to 5500rpm before it will make its 300 horses, all of which are needed to overcome the effect of the bog as you propel its more portly 3600lb butt up to speed?<p>While I agree with you, I think it's almost too close to call. The result is highly dependent upon the driver, the weather, and altitude. In the Summer (90+ degree) heat, there's no way we're seeing anywhere near 300hp. Then again, take the test to the mountains and the S2K's naturally aspirated engine will start to show its weakness against the turbo.<p>-Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Sue Esponte)

Well, Eric, without the data in front of us, I guess we're just two philosophers arguing about how many teeth a horse has.<p><I>If</I> we had the data, we could plot power-to-weight ratio at several rpms across the useable range. Higher wins.<p>I was thinking that the R's mid-range torque might give it an advantage in the lower part of a gear even though the results might be similar near redline. This is typical when comparing a turbo engine to a high specific output naturally aspirated engine.<p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Dyno)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Dyno</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I was thinking that the R's mid-range torque might give it an advantage in the lower part of a gear even though the results might be similar near redline. This is typical when comparing a turbo engine to a high specific output naturally aspirated engine.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>From one philosopher to another, I guess my point is simply that I think you're oversimplifying the conclusion a bit. While power to weight ratios are important in determining acceleration ability, so, too, are gear ratios, ambient temps, drivetrain power loss, altitude, etc. The 300hp and 237hp numbers are all at the crank. A lot happens between the engine and the tires.<p>In '05 a 330xi made 225hp but it accelerated almost as quickly as an R, and an '06 255hp variant will easily keep pace with the R despite its lacking 45hp at the crank in comparison with the R. My point is simply that there's more to acceleration than power to weight ratios.<p>-Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
all of my race situations are hypotheticals.<p>street racing is illegal and I would never do it. <p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (23109VC)

You guys <b>R</b> WankerZ!!!<p><br>Street Racing ROCKS<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v398/nextel410years/buttrock.gif" BORDER="0"> <p><IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v398/nextel410years/dane.jpg" BORDER="0"> <B></B>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (jim_S60R)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>jim_S60R</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have a 2004 S60R and a 2005 S2000 and you can not really compare the 2 cars. The S60R is an all weather 4 door sedan, albeit a very quick sedan. The S2000 is a small, light and very quick sports car. Please keep in mind it weighs under 2,900 lbs. The engine may be short on torque but it still has 240hp coming from only 2.2 liters without a turbo or supercharger.<p>It would be a very close contest between a stock S60R and a S2000 in a straight line but once the road begins to twist the S60R is now out of its element. Lets not forget the turning circle and tire rub experienced in the S60R. The steering feel on the s2000 is much better. Also if the is a better 6sp manual transmission in terms of feel and precision on the planet, I would like to hear about it. <p>When the road is wet or snowy there is virually nothing that can touch the R but on warm sunny day and the roads are dry the S2000 is my choice of rides. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well said. I'll take 1000 less pounds, rear wheel drive, and way more feel (steering and everything else) any day. If I could just figure out how to pack the family in... <p>These threads bragging about 0-60 times and "hypothetical" contests really make R owners sound the way everyone thinks BMW owners are, and the way that WRX/Evo owners really are. Is the 0-60 time really why you bought an R? OK it's fast, but I mean come on. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (Dashdog)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Dashdog</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Well said. I'll take 1000 less pounds, rear wheel drive, and way more feel (steering and everything else) any day. If I could just figure out how to pack the family in... <p>These threads bragging about 0-60 times and "hypothetical" contests really make R owners sound the way everyone thinks BMW owners are, and the way that WRX/Evo owners really are. Is the 0-60 time really why you bought an R? OK it's fast, but I mean come on. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well said.<br>Everyone knows why we drive Rs - it's for the AWESOME turning radius! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: R vs. S2000 (bschurr)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>bschurr</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Well said.<br>Everyone knows why we drive Rs - it's for the AWESOME turning radius! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>I thought it was for the whole "bond with your service department" luxury experience of being an R owner.<p>It seems that some people need to make themselves feel better by justifying their purchase against what others have. So sad. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/frown.gif" BORDER="0">
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top