2008 Scirocco

[TBR]

Yes they do, hell our Outback does and it has a 165hp. And, the keyword is comparatively speaking, the S2000's competitors are quicker in the real world and those are the cars it should be compared to, not 140hp econo boxes.

[MrH]

The 350z isn't, while the Z4 is. And, I said in the real world IIRC, which generally excludes 6000 rpm clutch drops

If you want to match the S2000's features (leather seats, 6-CD changer, etc), the Z is significantly more expensive (about $4,000 more).

And this is what I recall you saying about its competition.

"it sure isn't as fast as its competition"

[Raghavan]

Yes they do, hell our Outback does and it has a 165hp. And, the keyword is comparatively speaking, the S2000's competitors are quicker in the real world and those are the cars it should be compared to, not 140hp econo boxes.

Umm... You're acting like the S2000 doesn't have enough power to merge into traffic and that you'll die because you don't have extra torque. I'm saying that it has more than enough 'juice' for it to merge effortlessly. You never use the full power of a car while merging you know.

[TBR]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

[TBR]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

[MrH]

Have you ever merged or pulled onto a busy highway or passed someone on a 2 lane country road? You want all the power you can get in those situations, if you don't have enough you can spend a lot of time waiting.

Yes I have.

Now my question to you.  Have you ever pushed a car to its absolute acceleration limits?  Do you have any idea how unncessary it is in most everyday cars?  Hell, my car is by no means fast, but I don't think I have ever come into a situation where I've had to hit redline in every gear to avoid something.

If the acceleration of an S2000 isn't enough for you to pull onto a road, then there's no way in hell you should be turning in front of that car.  And if you're trying to, you're a terrible driver.  Miss a gear?  Loose traction for a second?  And all of a sudden this guy almost hits your ass?

You sir, suck at driving decisions.

You, sir, suck at holding a civilized debate. That last sentence was completely unnecessary and you have absolutely no basis to make it.

When pulling onto a highway or passing you are right, .9 seconds shouldn't determine whether or not you can make it, but it is nice to have that cushion. However, when merging it is quite different, you don't get to choose how big the gap is or even where it is, you have to take what you can get and sometimes that extra juice is absolutely necessary.

The last sentence was to emphasis just how truly ridiculous your argument has been so far, and I'd say it proved its point very well.

And nice to have that cushion?  Are you hitting redline at every possible moment then, just so you can have that "cushion"?  I doubt it.

And if that extra power was absolutely necessary, shouldn't there be some sort of federal regulation, because you're implying without it, we simply couldn't merge.  Do we just drive off the side of the high way then, because we're too slow?

The majority of cars on the road get by just fine without having that extra power.  I would hardly it absolutely necessary.

[MrH]

The power gain is linear, but it is still gutless (comparatively speaking) at lower rpms, just like a turbo car. Generally turbos will come on full force between 2000 and 3000 rpm, with the S2000 you have to wait until 5000 rpm to really start gaining power.

If the power gain is linear, then you don't have to wait until 5000 RPM to really start gaining power.  You're gaining power the entire time you're accelerating.  Perhaps even, dare I say, in a linear fashion?!  :o

You just contradicted yourself in one post.  Hell, it was even just 2 sentences.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, you don't get the sudden rush you do with a turbo engine, but S2000's engine definitely picks up its pace when the cams switch (which is actually at 6000 now that I think about it).

Again, look at a dyno sheet, and you'll see the change in the torque curve to be pretty minor.

[Raghavan]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

Hmm... Maybe because the Outback weighs so much more than the S2000 and has lot less power. They aren't comparable.

[Raghavan]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.  

[TBR]

I would say it is necessary when the competition has it. In some situations you will need more torque than the S2000 has, now you can get by without it but you will likely either have to drive where you are not supposed to (the shoulder) or disrupt the flow of traffic.

[TBR]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.

Yes you do, how many times do I have to say that! When you merge into dense traffic you often have to push a car as hard as you can!  

[TBR]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

Hmm... Maybe because the Outback weighs so much more than the S2000 and has lot less power. They aren't comparable.

But it has more torque, and at a much lower rpm.

[MrH]

Yes they do, hell our Outback does and it has a 165hp. And, the keyword is comparatively speaking, the S2000's competitors are quicker in the real world and those are the cars it should be compared to, not 140hp econo boxes.

Too bad that's in direct contradiction with your starting argument, where you said

" Yeah, they can get 120hp/liter out of an I4, but not without a super high power peak, making the engine impractical for day to day use."

You said the S2000's engine was impractical for daily use.  Now you're changing your argument and saying basically, "well, it's a smidge slower than it's much more expensive competition, therefore inadaquete for me."  

Give me a break.

[MrH]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

You just said you shouldn't be comparing the S2000's acceleration with 140 hp econoboxes, and now you're comparing it to your 165 hp, but heavier, automatic outback.

This thread reeks of hypocrisy.

[TBR]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

[Raghavan]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.

Yes you do, how many times do I have to say that! When you merge into dense traffic you often have to push a car as hard as you can!

An econobox maybe, but no way a sports car.

[TBR]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

You just said you shouldn't be comparing the S2000's acceleration with 140 hp econoboxes, and now you're comparing it to your 165 hp, but heavier, automatic outback.

This thread reeks of hypocrisy.

Who said anything about an automatic? It is a stick. And, we aren't talking about power here, we are talking about torque and the Outback has 20 lb ft more at a much lower rpm.  

[Raghavan]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

How? The S2000 has a very flat torque curve.

[TBR]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.

Yes you do, how many times do I have to say that! When you merge into dense traffic you often have to push a car as hard as you can!

An econobox maybe, but no way a sports car.

When the sports car only has 140lb ft of torque you very well might have to.

[TBR]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

How? The S2000 has a very flat torque curve.

Engines with flat power curves don't peak at over 8000 rpm genius.

[MrH]

I would say it is necessary when the competition has it. In some situations you will need more torque than the S2000 has, now you can get by without it but you will likely either have to drive where you are not supposed to (the shoulder) or disrupt the flow of traffic.

I've never had to do either, and I drive a much slower Protege5.

And it's necessary because the competition has it?!

Is iDrive necessary in the new IS350, because the 3-series has it?

Is SH-AWD a necessity in the 5-series because the RL has it?

That's the worst argument you've thrown out in the this thread so far.

[Raghavan]

I would say it is necessary when the competition has it. In some situations you will need more torque than the S2000 has, now you can get by without it but you will likely either have to drive where you are not supposed to (the shoulder) or disrupt the flow of traffic.

OMFG. That was one of the stupidest statements i have ever heard. The S2000 is a SPORTS CAR. It has more than enough power and torque. 'Drive on the shoulder or disrupt the flow of traffic.' Bullshit. Have you ever seen any car, even an econobox drive on the freaking shoulder??? Please, don't tell me that when even econoboxes don't drive on the shoulder, a guy in a freakin S2000 will have to?

[MrH]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

So you basically just argued for pages over something you're saying isn't true anymore.  I'll take this as an admit to defeat.

[Raghavan]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.

Yes you do, how many times do I have to say that! When you merge into dense traffic you often have to push a car as hard as you can!

An econobox maybe, but no way a sports car.

When the sports car only has 140lb ft of torque you very well might have to.

It's 159, smarty, and besides, it has over 100 lb ft at 1000 rpm. That's more than enough for merging!

[Raghavan]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

So you basically just argued for pages over something you're saying isn't true anymore.  I'll take this as an admit to defeat.

Yeah, first it was 'it's too impractical to drive on the street', and now it's 'it's a little bit less impractical than the new VW engine'.
TBR, you've lost.

[MrH]

Oh yeah, and even with my very limited city driving experience I have had to slam the Outback's gas pedal to the floor to merge numerous times.

You just said you shouldn't be comparing the S2000's acceleration with 140 hp econoboxes, and now you're comparing it to your 165 hp, but heavier, automatic outback.

This thread reeks of hypocrisy.

Who said anything about an automatic? It is a stick. And, we aren't talking about power here, we are talking about torque and the Outback has 20 lb ft more at a much lower rpm.

"We aren't talking about power here"
"has 20 lb ft more at a much lower RPM"

Power is just torque at a speed.  So we are talking about power.

And you think the 20 lb ft or torque more than makes up for the much lighter weight of the S2000, and the much shorter gears?  Obviously it doesn't, as an S2000 is light years faster than an Outback.

[MrH]

It does have the power to merge under most conditions, but it can't do so effortlessly, 140 lb ft of torque isn't enough to accelerate quickly in an effortless fashion.

It can do so effortlessly. You don't use all 140 lb/ft of torque while merging anyway.

Yes you do, how many times do I have to say that! When you merge into dense traffic you often have to push a car as hard as you can!

An econobox maybe, but no way a sports car.

When the sports car only has 140lb ft of torque you very well might have to.

Torque means nothing if you're making equivilant power, are geared shorter, and have a higher redline.  All of which the S2000 has.

[TBR]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

So you basically just argued for pages over something you're saying isn't true anymore.  I'll take this as an admit to defeat.

I don't know why you would do that, I am explaining the point I was trying to originally make (one that someone would have to be foolish (or Rag) to disagree with).  

[MrH]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

How? The S2000 has a very flat torque curve.

Engines with flat power curves don't peak at over 8000 rpm genius.

You couldn't be anymore wrong.

Rag said it had a flat torque curve, which it does.  You somehow twisted that into him saying it has a flat power curve.  Two completely different things.

Engines with a perfectly flat torque curve sure as hell will make the most power at higher RPM's.

[Raghavan]

I should have said it is more impractical than the twinpulse will be. Basically, what I am saying is that you can't compare Honda getting 120 hp/liter out of the S2000s engine to VW getting 120 hp/liter out of the twinpulse simply because the twinpulse is a more rounded engine.

So you basically just argued for pages over something you're saying isn't true anymore.  I'll take this as an admit to defeat.

I don't know why you would do that, I am explaining the point I was trying to originally make (one that someone would have to be foolish (or Rag) to disagree with).

So you're saying that i'm foolish even though you're wrong about the S2000? Hypocrite.