I had an epiphany today while picking up the wife in midtown.
What was the justification for making the s2000 motor with the powerband of a 1000RWHP single turbo Supra with 15% of the power and .15% of the torque? It’s like the engineers had a brainstorm and purposely tried to make a motor with the power of a smart car off VTEC.
I don’t get it. :ponder
I’m thinking if they had given the extra effort of adding 2 more slugs to that motor they’d have an AWESOME powerplant.
Just going STRICTLY off of math.
240/2L=120hp/liter
4cyl=2L=.5L per cyl
.5L*6 cyls=3.0L
3.0L*120hp/L=360hp :wow
Me thinky they should have done that :nod
Now that I think about it it would basically be an S50B32 :rofl
Except created a decade later.
Sincerely,
BMW Fanboi.
Werd.
If only it was that simple. Even so, you are using the dreaded peak HP #.
didnt that make 320hp with a larger 3.2l?
Yeah, so? lol S54 is 3.2 as well and makes 333bhp
Dammit, someone else knows BMWs!Peak hp/liter goes to the S2k, but thats when we bring up area under the curve. ;D
what about torque :mwahaha
what do you mean yeah so?
jclark insinuated that bmw had a motor on par with the s2000 relative to its displacement 10 years before its time. yes they are great motors but this just isnt true. even the most powerful s54 doesnt make the same power/liter and torque/liter as the s2000 motor, and definately not 10 years before its time. i wish honda put a 3.0l inline in it. looking at the layout of the engine bay it looks like it was meant for one.
sincerely honda fan boi lol
$(%*#($(@
LOL @ pissing contest I started. ;D
The original argument, peak HP/liter, goes to the S2000 no question. It’s just math.
The discussion will now turn to peak hp vs. area under the curve. Let’s watch.
It’s amazing how this pissing contest (I also noticed it was started by the infamous JClark) completely relates to this thread.
Congrats on the HP/L. I wonder what platform has CI/TQ or some other pointless comaprison.
But, peak HP marketing #s is rather pointless to me.
according to hp/l, honda engines are just as good as ferrari engines. yeah, i said it.
nah im just kidding, my friend always makes that argument about D16’s and shit, then I point out that he has under 100lb/ft and he stops talking :stfu lol. my car: 250lbft 260hp and the tq is all over the place, i love it :banana
Area under the curve FTW.
But, for that you NEED displacement or at least forced induction which can make up for it (and even that doesnt give you the curve you would like most of the time). There is simply no way to put down the torque numbers with a NA 2.0 that black magic isn’t available yet.
The simple fact that the F20c can put out 210/L peak is note worthy if not impressive to the smoke and donut type people. Honestly it doesnt matter much anyway because they seem to hold their own around the track and never drop down far enough in the RPM band to back off too far from that peak number.
nah im just kidding, my friend always makes that argument about D16’s and shit, then I point out that he has under 100lb/ft and he stops talking
Turbo d’s typically produce a bit more torque than a turbo B of the same power level.
oh no i totally know what you mean when you boost it, but N/A w/o spray, a D16 is no K20.
if your sample area of comparison is what is actually used around the track or racing on the street, then the area under the curve is actually good. you might also forget that even though the s2k might lack a bit on the low end with the amount of rpm it spins you can gear it down and multiply that torque(i think it should have come 15-20% shorter than factory specs).
the f20c is a great motor for its size top knotch, but when you start comparing it to cars with 1.5x larger motors the total numbes will never add up.
To each his own.
