From another time someone pointed me to that article on a Cobalt site...


Another post...

It is a 01 Cobra which I came to that conclusion from looking at different models.

Glad we got that cleared up

It was the orange tail lights that gave it away that and the fact it is without a S/C.

That's not the case. The engine in the Lotus is the same engine in the Celics GT-S (the VVTL-i 2ZZ-GE). http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elis...ne/toyota.html
The 10-hp increase is from a recalibrated ECM.

It's the Celica GT VVT-i 1ZZ-FE engine (without Lift) that has lower compression.

Yep, besides the obvious blower whine, the amber in the taillights is a dead giveaway that it's a 99/01 Cobra. That is unique to the 99/01 Cobras and it is VERY, VERY rare that someone installs them on on any other Mustang. It's basically $250 to have a square of amber in your taillight

I just spoke with the guy that ownes the Cobra. lol We were at a stop light next to each other (he was not in the Cobra though) which while we were there I hear someone say "hey". He asked me if I was the guy who raced him yesterday and a few months back which I told him "yeah". I must say inspite of owning a Cobra he is an alright person and that is cool to me. The whole time we talked all that came out of his mouth were complements to my car. He noticed that I had done some work to my car which he was right I added the H/E. He was genuine with his complements and interest that ment alot to me. He told me that he was installing lowering springs on his Cobra to which I told him that it would help with the take off. I noticed that when we raced the last time his front end lifted off the ground substantially when the the gas was applied. I hope that statement was true since he seems to think of me as an enthusiast. Anyway the guys alright with me i just thought I would tell everyone that he is "alright".

Well, actually you want the front to lift up and transfer weight to the rear wheels on a RWD car, but I'm glad he's cool. There are certainly plenty of not cool Mustang and Tib owners out there already.

Damn, blainestang went all out

SCREW MUSTANGS! TIBS CAN BEAT FERRARIS!!!1!!!1

Might want to throw in some, "J/K'' white text or something next time.

Hey Blainestang,

Thanks for posting! I find it funny that we both used almost the same example even though I hadn't seen your posts again. Thanks for clarifying how Bruce is incorrect, I didn't have the time to critique that earlier today.

If you can launch at a high RPM, no, a short first gear will not help with drag racing. Secondly I never said suspension wasn't important for auto-x, don't know where you got that from. All I was pointing out was that the S2000 certainly wasn't designed for autocross, and all these ridiculous posts were made about weight when I had already factored it in....

As for the other things you've been arguing with me about, I tried to quickly explain it, but you guys still didn't understand and persisted the argument....

Blainestang has done a great job of clearing it up, and I will do my best to help. This explanation (http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html) is incorrect. You call me a noob and act like I don't understand these concepts, but unfortunately a few people still aren't getting it. Just because you looked at the most frequently internet queried explanation on the difference between horsepower and torque doesn't mean you understand this concept. Also, what if that resource is wrong? Then your understanding is wrong. As far as this discussion goes, I have done my research and have the physics and engineering background for it as well. I'm not saying I am the ultimate authority on this, but I can certainly hold my own in this discussion and insinuating that I am the noob here is ignorant.... Ok, back to horsepower.

First, Maximum acceleration occurs at peak horsepower. Why? Because of Work. Horsepower is a measure of that rate at which work is being performed. Torque is a measure of the instantaneous force being applied to the road. You achieve horsepower when you multiply that force (torque) by how many times it is pushing (i.e. RPM). For an extremely basic example, if you want to push a box up a hill, it is better to give it several slightly softer pushes than one really hard push. - that is work. Assuming a nonvariable amount of work, how quickly you push it up the hill is power. In the case of a car, you want to perform work on the road as quickly as possible. Therefore, horsepower is more important than torque. Sure, having low end is going to help you in a race, but not as much as having high horsepower.

Second, gearing matters (I've never argued this). Gearing is important for torque multiplication and staying in a powerband. However, the main reason the S2000 is so quick despite it's lack of torque is because of it's high horsepower (derived from the high redline). It revs so high that it can stay in a gear longer, and therefore maintain the increased gear multiplication vs. the next gear.

Third, Weight matters. I've stated this from the beginning as well. That's why I compared the power to weight ratio of a mustang and an S2000. The S2000 doesn't have a better torque to weight ratio, but it's still faster. Gearing and suspension help, but the primary reason it's faster is because of horsepower.

If you want to compare which 2 cars are faster, a great and easy way to do it is to graph wheel horsepower (gear multiplied, final drive ratio multiplied, and weight divided) against speed. Wheel horsepower vs. speed is not only intuitively accurate (as the example below explains), but also mathematically accurate. Here are some resources:

A basic written explanation of all this: http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html
And here is a good mathematical explanation: http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/horsepower
And if you want an intuitive explanation, here is one as well:

From looking at an S2000 dyno, you can see that torque is around 110 w-ft-lbs at 3300 RPM. It is about 125 w-ft-lbs at 8000 RPM - only about 13.6% higher. Go test drive an S2K, put it in first, get your speed constant at 3300 RPM and mash the gas. Now go to 8000 RPM, and keep your speed constant, and then mash the gas. I guarantee you that your butt dyno is not going to tell you that you are pulling 13.6% more. You'd probably say about twice as hard. And that is because horsepower is about 185 whp at 8000 vs ~100 at 3300. Maximum acceleration occurs at peak horsepower and not peak torque.

And with that, sorry guys for completely hijacking your cobra thread! I am completely

It was painfully obvious that he was kidding with the excessive use of "!"

noob lol. jk

Thanks for clearing that up I wasn't 100% sure what they had done to it. Thats why I said slightly tuned...lol

Look I beleive the whole idea of this entire discussion was to say that Tq is just as important as Hp. To say that one is more important that the other is completely ludicrous and unfounded. To get HP you need to have tq because Hp is a measurement of Tq. As I said before the S2k is tuned from the factory to make up for its lack of TQ in otherways hence why it works well the way is now.....well that and the fact it's very light.

Some people are just hard headed and that clouds their ability to see the truth

LOL

i mean I'm not a huge fan of beating a dead horse, but when you say something is "ludicrous and unfounded", well I just have to come back in here and set it straight.

Horsepower is more important than torque. Horsepower is not a measurement of torque, it is a measurement of energy dissipated over time. Sure, horsepower and torque are related, but that doesn't mean they are of equal value. Horsepower and engine revolutions are related too - and I don't think a lot of people on here would say that rev limit is as important as horsepower.

Would you say that wheel+tire size is as important as torque? Well, diameter is proportional to torque. torque = force * distance. So if things that are proportional are equal (which is basically your position), then wheel size would be just as important torque and horsepower.

However, you actually explained the correct answer yourself in your post. The S2000 is able to make up for it's lack of torque in other ways. Well, that is RPM. It's trying to maintain a high horsepower despite having low torque everywhere throughout its power band.

Now I'm not saying torque isn't important. Peak torque is usually a good reflection of how wide your power band is (since it usually occurs much before maximum engine speed). But, horsepower band (as evidenced from several recent posts) is more important. Now if you still have questions or want to continue this discussion, you need to provide facts and evidence to support your claims. To make an assertion but not back it up with the necessary supporting evidence is unconvincing.

so...horsepower is NOT a measure of torque over time?? Man, that means that whole

HP = (TQ x RPM) / 5250 is completely wrong...

You say it's a measurement of "energy" over time. Well isn't the energy in question, torque? Torque is a rotational energy is it not?

Horsepower is a measure of the rate at which torque is being applied. That is not the same as saying horsepower is a measure of torque.

That's like saying torque is a measure of distance. Distance is a component in the torque equation. But torque is a measure of rotational force, not distance.

I'm not sure why you are arguing semantics. I presume that you understand what I was saying, but I don't get why you decided to argue about I worded that sentence.

Because I was bored.

Me too.

Sad.

Because you are wrong, that's why. End of discussion.

Dude, are you for real? The only things you've contributed to this thread are statements where you perpetuate your denial and insults.

Oh yeah, and you did provide one link to another thread. Did you even read that thread? Hammerhead has the exact same approach about horsepower. He also brings up the CVT argument. He also puts a dyno into commercially available automotive software which tells him to shift his car so that it maintains greatest wheel horsepower to the ground.

So even half of your own linked thread disagrees with you! I've given you verbal, mathematical, and real-life explanations to help you understand horsepower. You don't refute anything, all you do is this:

I can give you all the facts but until you try and look at them analytically, you will be lost in this debate.