civic vs minivan
01-10-2004, 05:52 PM
#91
Push to shock!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fast-Ford
GT Mustangs compete in a number of GT1 and GT2 classes rather well. If you take it stock, the back end has 1 inch of lateral travel.....which is very driveable, but you need to have the feel for it and get used to it to be effective. I didn't see a road course time for it but I imagine it would be 2 secs slower than the Cobra.....or on par with the S2k......not because it doesn't have more torque or power, but because poor anti-roll bars and weak control arms/bushings come as factory equipment. If in your example it would be ok to put better anti roll bars in the GT it would shave off time and allow it to put the power to the road better......and faster than the S2K. It already is faster in the 1/4 mile because it has more power and torque. You can also add the cobra's independant rear suspension to the GT. This is like I mentioned earlier about "street cars" there is a lot of varation in factory equipment. Put that Honda engine in the GT and race.......then the torque suddenly becomes an issue......or find a way to put the Mustang engine in the S2k and then the torque issue suddenly becomes a factor.....bacause you are running with equal bases and can have a serious comparason............just like Nascar.........
Now about Nascar, or late model stock car racing in general it is the best example of competition you can get. All chasis start out the same (a tube frame) to which you add a STOCK (as in production) rear end, differential and gears. (Ford stock car teams use the same 9.9 inch rear end you can buy from Ford for a Mustang. Then you must use a PRODUCTION block, heads and components. Ford Racing makes the 351 sportsman block, and heads which Nascar or whatever late model series approves. Chevy teams use the 350 powerplant. Teams can only have a maximum of 358 cubic inches. Daytonia and Talledega have air restrictor plates, so the teams need to find other ways to gain power. Sterling Marlin for example was dominant in the mid 1990's for using an X-Pipe from Dr Gas (the same one you can buy for late model V8 cars) to give him and edge.
Anyway, I'm not going to go through everything but they must use factory production parts. Machining techniques, piston and rod combinations are up to the teams. Much the same as if you built a hot rod engine, start with the sportsman block and heads, then chose your top combination. All those parts are available for your Mustang or hot rod.....see what I'm saying when I say that big racing series really do impact the street? And while the bodies and chasis of nascars and late model stock car series are prefabricated, the heart of the car is built from production parts. They are high performance parts yes, but not every car company offers this type of extreme diversity.
So back to the point, once you have equal restrictions on building an engine, put it in the same weight car as your competitors........it truely becoms a competition of massive scale between manufacturers. Make sense? What I'm saying, is that when you make all things equal such as with nascar) you can not compete without stump pulling torque because of the low end requirements. Street driving is similiar to this where low rpm is often used. BUT the big difference on the street is what you have to work with from the factory. At some point in the upgrade process you will be runing with somewhat equal bases (I would lighten the Mustang and cure the rear handling and you would add a turbo and maybe gears to the S2K)......once the two chasis were fixed to handle and weight was as good as it could get, it becomes an engine challenge........to which more CI's and torque always prevail. For the same reason, when you have equal bases like in nascar, 4 cyls don't race 8 cyls no matter how high they rev.
HOWEVER, put a Ford 4 cyl against a Honda 4 cyl and see how uncompetitive Ford is in that arena.
GT Mustangs compete in a number of GT1 and GT2 classes rather well. If you take it stock, the back end has 1 inch of lateral travel.....which is very driveable, but you need to have the feel for it and get used to it to be effective. I didn't see a road course time for it but I imagine it would be 2 secs slower than the Cobra.....or on par with the S2k......not because it doesn't have more torque or power, but because poor anti-roll bars and weak control arms/bushings come as factory equipment. If in your example it would be ok to put better anti roll bars in the GT it would shave off time and allow it to put the power to the road better......and faster than the S2K. It already is faster in the 1/4 mile because it has more power and torque. You can also add the cobra's independant rear suspension to the GT. This is like I mentioned earlier about "street cars" there is a lot of varation in factory equipment. Put that Honda engine in the GT and race.......then the torque suddenly becomes an issue......or find a way to put the Mustang engine in the S2k and then the torque issue suddenly becomes a factor.....bacause you are running with equal bases and can have a serious comparason............just like Nascar.........
Now about Nascar, or late model stock car racing in general it is the best example of competition you can get. All chasis start out the same (a tube frame) to which you add a STOCK (as in production) rear end, differential and gears. (Ford stock car teams use the same 9.9 inch rear end you can buy from Ford for a Mustang. Then you must use a PRODUCTION block, heads and components. Ford Racing makes the 351 sportsman block, and heads which Nascar or whatever late model series approves. Chevy teams use the 350 powerplant. Teams can only have a maximum of 358 cubic inches. Daytonia and Talledega have air restrictor plates, so the teams need to find other ways to gain power. Sterling Marlin for example was dominant in the mid 1990's for using an X-Pipe from Dr Gas (the same one you can buy for late model V8 cars) to give him and edge.
Anyway, I'm not going to go through everything but they must use factory production parts. Machining techniques, piston and rod combinations are up to the teams. Much the same as if you built a hot rod engine, start with the sportsman block and heads, then chose your top combination. All those parts are available for your Mustang or hot rod.....see what I'm saying when I say that big racing series really do impact the street? And while the bodies and chasis of nascars and late model stock car series are prefabricated, the heart of the car is built from production parts. They are high performance parts yes, but not every car company offers this type of extreme diversity.
So back to the point, once you have equal restrictions on building an engine, put it in the same weight car as your competitors........it truely becoms a competition of massive scale between manufacturers. Make sense? What I'm saying, is that when you make all things equal such as with nascar) you can not compete without stump pulling torque because of the low end requirements. Street driving is similiar to this where low rpm is often used. BUT the big difference on the street is what you have to work with from the factory. At some point in the upgrade process you will be runing with somewhat equal bases (I would lighten the Mustang and cure the rear handling and you would add a turbo and maybe gears to the S2K)......once the two chasis were fixed to handle and weight was as good as it could get, it becomes an engine challenge........to which more CI's and torque always prevail. For the same reason, when you have equal bases like in nascar, 4 cyls don't race 8 cyls no matter how high they rev.
HOWEVER, put a Ford 4 cyl against a Honda 4 cyl and see how uncompetitive Ford is in that arena.
Torque is important no doubt. Mass is important too, no doubt. These two factors govern basic physics of turning (centripetal) and straightline acceleration. A lighter car requires less torque to accelerate than a heavier car. However, in the first approximation a lighter car (given that both cars have the same tire friction coefficient) does not have an advantage in turning (lateral tire force is proportional to mass, as is centripetal force necessary to maintain a turn).
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is CG height and body roll coupled with suspension deflection. A heavier car rolls more for a given CG height and suspension stiffness because of the larger moment associated with its inertia and lateral force, which usually results in a deformation of the tire patch. Another thing is torsional rigidity. Smaller cars usually have similar torsional rigidities as larger cars, and as a result twist less as they turn resulting in less suspension deformation.
I think we all agree that torque is the dominant factor in a drag race, handling means squat. A road race, though, I don't think torque is the sole factor that wins races. Torque can make up for handling problems, but a smaller, nimbler car with enough torque (not necessarily more) can still win. So the question is, who's willing to take their S2000's engine to newer and greater heights (or boost levels)?
01-10-2004, 11:17 PM
#92
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: mckinney texas
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the current mustang gt best itself at a 14.0 in the quarter while the s2000's can run 13.9's so it's not faster in the querter but down low it is faster but on a course the cars wouldn't compare with each other
01-10-2004, 11:48 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a stock 03 GT vs a stock s2000
the s2000 would absolutely slaughter a mustang GT
that fact in itself is impressive because the s2000 is a 4 cylinder 2.0 Liter.
imo that is the best argument to be made.
the mustang has over twice the engine displacement and twice the torque.
but on a course it doesnt pan out with torque deciding the winner.
i bet an 03 GT with suspension mods would still have trouble versus a stock s2000 on the same course.
cobra should not have been brought up in this discussion, because it has even more power overall.
and the s2000 isnt a supercar, its what low 30's like a 350Z and such. the NSX is a supercar. watch getaway in stockholm 3 and then bring the supercars to the table.
~boom
the s2000 would absolutely slaughter a mustang GT
that fact in itself is impressive because the s2000 is a 4 cylinder 2.0 Liter.
imo that is the best argument to be made.
the mustang has over twice the engine displacement and twice the torque.
but on a course it doesnt pan out with torque deciding the winner.
i bet an 03 GT with suspension mods would still have trouble versus a stock s2000 on the same course.
cobra should not have been brought up in this discussion, because it has even more power overall.
and the s2000 isnt a supercar, its what low 30's like a 350Z and such. the NSX is a supercar. watch getaway in stockholm 3 and then bring the supercars to the table.
~boom
01-11-2004, 10:28 AM
#94
Loves Nascar, NHRA & SCCA
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
01-11-2004, 03:59 PM
#95
Some have it, some don't
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: RavensTown, Maryland
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fast-Ford
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 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.
Originally posted by Fast-Ford
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.
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.
Originally posted by Fast-Ford
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.
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.
01-11-2004, 04:31 PM
#96
Loves Nascar, NHRA & SCCA
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Integrity
Yes, even on the quarter mile. Lack of torque can still be made up for by other things. Drivetrain is an example.
Ok.
I won't lie, I don't even know what a Q400 is. But it sounds to me like you want to only compare VERY high powered cars (like the Cobra) and not the GTs. However, your other arguement is that with ALL else being equal, more torque will win out (Nascar). Well my arguement is, with ALL else being equal, the car with less weight will win out. OR the car with more horsepower OR the car with etc...
Yes, even on the quarter mile. Lack of torque can still be made up for by other things. Drivetrain is an example.
Ok.
I won't lie, I don't even know what a Q400 is. But it sounds to me like you want to only compare VERY high powered cars (like the Cobra) and not the GTs. However, your other arguement is that with ALL else being equal, more torque will win out (Nascar). Well my arguement is, with ALL else being equal, the car with less weight will win out. OR the car with more horsepower OR the car with etc...
In a nutshell, the Q400 is a Mustang GT with suspension upgrades, engine bolt-ons, and a body kit, riding on 18 inch tires and a big brake kit.
It is like a built up GT you can have special ordered by the dealer in conjunction with steeda.
My point was this and I don't want to confuse things: take the suspension mods ONLY for the Q400 and put the GT on a road course......it WILL beat an S2000 and many other cars. I'm not talking about superchargers or anything else, but just a few basic handling pieces. The reason Mustangs don't come "total road race ready" is because people use them to drag race with. If you want to customize the car for either application, you can remove the cheap factory handling pieces for aftermarket ones. ANYWAY, the reason the GT would beat the S2000 is because of the torque numbers once the power is on the ground.
01-11-2004, 05:13 PM
#97
Loves Nascar, NHRA & SCCA
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kestrel
Your argument about modifying Mustangs so they can handle as well as S2000's only tells us that any car can be modified to help its shortcomings...in this case the Mustang's handling characteristics and the S2000's relative lack of power. The extent of modifications depends on money, time, interest, etc. So it's like comparing apples to oranges, if the S2000 were to win then you could say the Mustang's handling needs to be improved, but if the S2000 loses you could say that torque is superior. Really, you haven't proved one way or the other whether torque wins races.
Torque is important no doubt. Mass is important too, no doubt. These two factors govern basic physics of turning (centripetal) and straightline acceleration. A lighter car requires less torque to accelerate than a heavier car. However, in the first approximation a lighter car (given that both cars have the same tire friction coefficient) does not have an advantage in turning (lateral tire force is proportional to mass, as is centripetal force necessary to maintain a turn).
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is CG height and body roll coupled with suspension deflection. A heavier car rolls more for a given CG height and suspension stiffness because of the larger moment associated with its inertia and lateral force, which usually results in a deformation of the tire patch. Another thing is torsional rigidity. Smaller cars usually have similar torsional rigidities as larger cars, and as a result twist less as they turn resulting in less suspension deformation.
I think we all agree that torque is the dominant factor in a drag race, handling means squat. A road race, though, I don't think torque is the sole factor that wins races. Torque can make up for handling problems, but a smaller, nimbler car with enough torque (not necessarily more) can still win. So the question is, who's willing to take their S2000's engine to newer and greater heights (or boost levels)?
Your argument about modifying Mustangs so they can handle as well as S2000's only tells us that any car can be modified to help its shortcomings...in this case the Mustang's handling characteristics and the S2000's relative lack of power. The extent of modifications depends on money, time, interest, etc. So it's like comparing apples to oranges, if the S2000 were to win then you could say the Mustang's handling needs to be improved, but if the S2000 loses you could say that torque is superior. Really, you haven't proved one way or the other whether torque wins races.
Torque is important no doubt. Mass is important too, no doubt. These two factors govern basic physics of turning (centripetal) and straightline acceleration. A lighter car requires less torque to accelerate than a heavier car. However, in the first approximation a lighter car (given that both cars have the same tire friction coefficient) does not have an advantage in turning (lateral tire force is proportional to mass, as is centripetal force necessary to maintain a turn).
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is CG height and body roll coupled with suspension deflection. A heavier car rolls more for a given CG height and suspension stiffness because of the larger moment associated with its inertia and lateral force, which usually results in a deformation of the tire patch. Another thing is torsional rigidity. Smaller cars usually have similar torsional rigidities as larger cars, and as a result twist less as they turn resulting in less suspension deformation.
I think we all agree that torque is the dominant factor in a drag race, handling means squat. A road race, though, I don't think torque is the sole factor that wins races. Torque can make up for handling problems, but a smaller, nimbler car with enough torque (not necessarily more) can still win. So the question is, who's willing to take their S2000's engine to newer and greater heights (or boost levels)?
A racing series isn't just some free for all with every car being allowed to compete. there are weight restrictions, power restrictions and classes for a reason. I sure did explain how torque is superior when I explained Nascar setups:
When the chasis are equally prepared it becomes an engine race, then with horsepower or CI restrictions it becomes a torque race.
Lets try this to take the spin off domestic focus:
Take two Honda race teams runing civics at a short track. Both teams meet the NA restrictions and weight restrictions (face it, in a racing series you won't see a cement truck race a civic so weight isn't as far off as people think) If one team builds a better engine because of their combination that can put out more torque, they will get off the corner faster and be more dominant.
Also with short track racing, how else can you explain a Ford Fairlane or Chevy Nova being able to go faster than a Civic or CRX? When you strip the cars down for racing in strict classes (4 cyl, 6cyl, and V8) more torque and power makes more speed....period. The few extra pounds from the heavier engine and chasis makes marginal difference.
This same scenerio is applicable on a road course, because you need that forward bite off the corner. 4 cyls don't race 8 cyls because serious racing series take a lot of these other factors out of the equation, extra weight, poor factory suspension etc.
The whole modifying street cars issue is why I didn't want to go to far into that (S2000 vs Mustang VS Camaro etc) and why I mentioned Nascar or short track racing. When you have a series with restrictions and equal chasis, it becomes a race to build the best engine with big torque. You simply can not make less torque and win. Then when all cars are on par with torque, the team with the car that sticks to the track the best, and has good luck will win.
01-11-2004, 08:29 PM
#98
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: mckinney texas
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then s2000 slaughters gt's in road courses and is dead even in the quarter mile. it runs better then 2 sec over the gt and that steeda may keep up with the s2000 maybe even im not whole one the car but 2.5 sec over the gt isn't alout the s200 is prolly running near there.
Did u see where jeff gordon and juan pablo montoya switched cars? granted the f1 car is more for handling any day and weighs less but the stock car has over twice the torque of the 1 car and taht f1 car was running 25 sec a lap faster then the wiston cup carthere is a replacment for torque it's called revs and the relationship ebtween revs and torque is horsepower so horsepower is a good predivter of whose going tow in when factored in with weight and transmision
Did u see where jeff gordon and juan pablo montoya switched cars? granted the f1 car is more for handling any day and weighs less but the stock car has over twice the torque of the 1 car and taht f1 car was running 25 sec a lap faster then the wiston cup carthere is a replacment for torque it's called revs and the relationship ebtween revs and torque is horsepower so horsepower is a good predivter of whose going tow in when factored in with weight and transmision
01-12-2004, 09:25 AM
#99
Some have it, some don't
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: RavensTown, Maryland
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast-Ford... the only thing you've been able to prove is that with ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, more torque will win out. Thats literally a no brainer since EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL. Get it through your head that Torque DOES NOT win races, not even in Nascar. The differences between the stock cars is so insignificant the determining factor in winning is the driver. End of story.
01-12-2004, 12:07 PM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get it through your head that Torque DOES NOT win races
p.s. i handed a new 350z its ass up in laural thursday night, it wastn preety.