Originally posted by Integrity
The S2K being RWD was directed at Fast-Ford, since he was talking about how bad FWD handles. Sorry about the mix up.
I didn't say they couldn't compete rather well. But if you look at the Mustang GT and the S2K, I feel they are much more comparable than the Cobra and S2K comparison. The GT still has more horsepower AND Torque, but the lighter, high reving, no torque having S2K will still compete if not beat out a stock GT on a road course. Blame it on the GT's suspension if you want, but it just goes to prove my point that torque DOES NOT win races.
I already agreed with you about factory cars.........please read what I said above. Sure, if you put a V8 in an "ok" handling package that does not put the power on the ground all that well, sure you can take an S2000 and have a reasonable comparason.......just not on the 1/4 mile.
I explained the basics of late model sports car racing also.....you can not make the S2000 powerplant competitive in that arena. V8's don't race 4cyls.
Here is a question, if you take the Steeda Q400 and remove the supercharger so you have a bone stock motor, what is the reason that it will run the same road course as the stock GT in about 2.5 secs faster......and roast the S2000? It hasn't lost much weight either.........it just is able to hold the road better. It is because the torque is being delivered......which is the ticket in racing.
I'm not trying to be a dick or say the S2000 isn't a cool car. I'm just saying that when you look at serious racing with prepared cars, torque is the ticket........not with factory cars that have various compramises. The S2K compramises power, the Mustang compramises handling. Racing is all about taking comperable chasis and racing comperable powerplants. Stock car racing is the best example because the chasis are all the same and what makes one better from the other is power and of course the team being good.