I was going to stay out of this handling arguement (since you all have valid opposing points)..... but how could I after you said this?
That has got to be the most ignorant statement I've seen you post yet.
Japs wrote the book on handling???
WTF?!?!
Honda didn't even really make a car until the 1960's (they were a motorcycle company before that). Do you think they handled well? No. Not even close to sporty. And the Vette had been around for around 7 years at that point. In 1964 Ford designed and produced the GT40. The next few years after that it crushed all foreign competition (read: european, since japan didn't make anything worth crap) at Le Mans.
How about the other major japanese auto companies?
Toyota- nothing even close to a sports car until the 2000GT, which wasn't even in the same galaxy as the GT40.
Nissan/Datsun- first real sports car, the Skyline 2000 GT-R, didn't come out until 1966, and was playing catch up to european and american autos.

I have to ask.... what the **** are you smoking, and why would you think or say anything so abysmally stupid?

 

I agree that all things being equal, the car with most torque will win. You are absolutely correct, and that is usually the case in sanctioned racing because there are strict rules on everything. But the point I'm trying to make is that if there is a disparity in handling, that a lower torque car could potentially beat a higher torque competitor.

I know that I'm kind of repeating what you're saying, so maybe in the end, for a street car (or any other car for that matter) loads of torque does not necessarily equal a great car. A lot of other things play into it.

 

I figured we could meet up there since its in between us and we both know where it is. We can race where ever you'd like. (So long as its safe, and there's no chance of us hurting anyone)

What time?

So anyway, to cap everything off.... The next time one of you dumb-estic mullet heads says "Torque wins races," I can correct you and say "Only in Nascar." :naughty: :thumbup:

 

well if they were playing catch up, then i guess they did a pretty good job of it huh
especially since an S2000 can hold its own at least to an extent in straight line against an ls1 or GT
AND ITS A FOUR CYLINDER

~boom

 

OK I WANT ALL YOU OTHER GUYS TO READ THIS WHO HAVE BEEN ARGUEING WITH ME. Apparently this guy actually has read a rule book for a sanctioned race series instead of a copy of Import Tuner, I am impressed!!!!!

For anyone else who is still thinking that torque and power don't win races answer this question: Why don't 4 cyls and 8 cyls compete in sanctioned racing series? I think a visit to your local short track would show you excatly how disadvantaged you are when you are underpowered.

I keep saying this: YES ON THE STREET WEIGHT AND REVS AND SO FORTH MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE FACTORY CHASIS ARE FAR FROM IDEAL........ESPECIALLY ON MUSTANGS.

 

Read the two stories on this page:

http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/


The number 52 Mustang Daytona win in the Grand Sport Two series (by almost a full lap.......can't tell me power and torque doesn't matter on the high banks)..........here is the series webpage. PLEASE NOTE THE 2002 championship was won by a MUSTANG vs BMW's 350Z's etc.
http://www.grandamerican.com/news/news497.html


Here is the Targa Competition page:
Please read the rules carefully for Touring class and Targa class as in the touring it specificaly states that competition isn't about how POWERFUL the car is but precision driving. The targa class is all about POWER and TORQUE...........notice the Mustang finished 2nd EVEN WITH AN ILL DRIVER AND A BAD TANK OF GAS. This is as close to the streeet as it gets.....and should scar you if have no clue about how domestics handle....especially the Mustang.

http://www.targanewfoundland.com/targaentry.htm

 

Based on my experiences on the circuit, cars like the s2000 do really, really well. It was out performing cars with larger displacements and more torque. Driver skill could have been a factor, but there were numerous hybrid Civics doing very well. So, i'd say that with equal driver skill an s2000 would be faster on the track than a Mustang GT/Camaro SS. However....those z06's are another story.

I remember R&T testing several cars and the s2000 was ahead of the Boxster S and others. Could be wrong, i'll dig up the R&T and check.

 

you do realize that is from over a year ago right?

what is the current news on a team that "After narrowly missing the Grand Sport II championship last season..."

all im sayin is that it is obviously a column biased toward ford's

btw champ, what is wrong with magazines like superstreet, SCC and "import tuner" ? :bandito:

 

Yeah. R&T did a test of several cars (with Le Mans & IMSA master Steve Millen doing the driving) at Thunderhill including the Camaro SS, Boxster S, Z06, NSX, S2000, and several more expensive european sports cars.
But the S2000 was ever so slightly behind the Boxster S..... and get this one.... over a full second behind a no option 2001 Camaro SS. So I'd say your theory about the Camaro is more than a little off (unless the track is REALLY twisty and has no straights to speak of).
But you are definitely correct about it beating a GT.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with being ideal, it's just there is a lot of differences out there. When you consider the huge range of cars out there, you find a lot of different combinations of handling and power, and these different variations may or may not be competitive with each other.

The one thing about most sanctioned races (having participated in two college design versions of it myself ) is that there is an "optimum" design that gets repeated a lot, so therefore a lot less variety. However, one of the series I participated in had a intake restrictor and displacement rules, so suddenly power is a lot more similar, and handling becomes important. The other series was open class, so suddenly torque to weight ratio becomes a huge factor, more so than handling.

I'm not disagreeing with you Fast-Ford...a lot of series have the open class structure, and in that case torque does win out. Other series have limits on displacement and intake size, and suddenly other things become important. It really depends on the situation.

I said it once and I'll say it again. Torque is important, but a car with lots of torque is not necessarily a great car.