Spanked a GT

[SilverS2K422]

I raced a 99-03 gt mustang and Beat him pretty bad with my stock 02 s2k. anyone else beating V8s easily?

[Java Junky]

Hmmm-m-m-m-m . . . . well . . . 'z'long'z I already got incredulous out n' all dusted off . . .
Sil, perhaps an explanation of your use'a the word "race" might be in order.
Be well,
Java

[gomarlins3]

Only at an autoX or track day.

[s2jiggy]

This may come as a shock, and correct me if I am wrong, but those things were only rated at 250 hp, yes they have some torque, but are also pretty heavy on the scales....with that said: be careful on the streets

[gomarlins3]

From Cars.com:
2003 Ford Mustang GT (premium)

V-8 Engine displacement 281 cu.in. Engine horsepower 260-hp @ 5,250 rpm Engine torque 302 lbs.-ft. @ 4,000 rpm

Curb weight 3,317 lbs.


2002 Honda S2000:
Engine displacement 122 cu.in. Engine horsepower 240-hp @ 8,300 rpm Engine torque 153 lbs.-ft. @ 7,500 rpm
Curb weight 2,810 lbs.




An S should be faster due to the lower weight (500 lbs) even with 20 less HP.

[Java Junky]

Go, Mustangs only got 281 cid?????
N' 260 HP?????
Who eunuched my ponies?
Geez Louise! . . . could I be . . . . . like . . . . . wrong?
Nah. Maybe "mistaken".
Hmmmmm-m-m-m-m-m . . . .
Thanks Go.
Be well,
Java

[Java Junky]

'Z'much'z I can figure with the use'a this contraption, the V6 Mustangs (What's with buyin' a Mustang with a V6? Izzatt like wearin' paddin' in the shoulders'a yer suit 'r what?) run 210 ft.lbs.'a torque with 240 horse (Obviously a popular number). The V8s run 320 ft.lbs.'a torque with 300 horse.
N' Go, as always, is right on the money. Engine size has been castrated down to a 4.6, 281 cubes, with 4 per, n' they obviously ain't too proud'a their child'z porcine weight for I couldn't find it anywhere on the site.
N' while this has been a lesson for ol' Java, lemme leave ya with this partin' thought:
The 'Stangs (Be they V6, 'r, V8 can get hard-launched until the cows come home.
How much'a that do you think Stewie'z (Already much-discussed) less-than-muscular rear'z gonna put up with?
(Wrong! Hmmph! I'll show 'em who's wrong! I'm the master'a wrong! I'm the wrong master!)
Be well.
Java

[DJJSR]

A pretty good rule of thumb is that losing 100 lbs is about the same as gaining 10 horsepower. If the cars were similar, the Mustang would have to create about 290 horses, because of the 500 lb excess baggage.

[jagg]

25 years from now, well see stewies with lopped off halfshafts, and a Ford posi-lock diff under it, and
(for those who crave madness) a regular
4.6L ford shoehorned in the nose. I don't think there's enough girth to throw the 32v dohc version in there.

BUT...It still wouldn't be as fun to drive as "Stewie Lite"

jagg

[s2000isu]

There is more to it then just weight and hp. Not that im big into the idea of swapping an 8 into the lil guy but if I were to do it I wouldnt use the 4.6 from the gt itd have to be the 32v. The lightning motor would be bad too. I think my first choice would be something from the ls family ls1 ls2 ls7

[Java Junky]

'Godda meetoo Jagg.
For all my love'a the ponies, I guess . . . if I wanted one I'd have one, wouldn't I?
What sold me on Stewie was the updatin' of the true, more-concerned-with-efficiency-than-sheer-power sportscar.
Would I enjoy another hunnert 'r so horses under it's bonnet? *@&# yeah!
But, if it's gonna cost me anything in the way'a more-weight/less response: uh-uh. No @*#&in' way!
Be well.
Java

[controller]

oh, but if I did have the touch of madness to put a v8 in stewie, it'd be this one:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html

muhahahaha!!!! 590 horses at 9500 rpm!

[s2000isu]

I give that motor two thumbs down. Look at the tq it produces why even have a v8? I am sure it costs a small fortune all for a motor that makes 500 some hp and about as much tq as your run of the mill off the lot mustang.

[controller]

590 hp out of 4 liters at 9500 rpm, 147.5 hp per liter. 240 hp out of 2 liters at 8500 rpm, 120 hp per liter. Isn't that following the same model? It'd be following in the same design language that built the s2000, not a Ford Mustang. Mustangs are in a lower price point than the s2000, so I'd argue if I wanted one, I would have bought one.

[DJJSR]

Ya gotta respect any V8 than can spin at 9500 without grenading!! Obviously a short stroke. I'm sure that's a pretty high tech motor, but that injection looks like the old Hilborn stuff from 40 years ago. (looks can be deceiving)

[s2000isu]

"Mustangs are in a lower price point than the s2000, so I'd argue if I wanted one, I would have bought one."
I have no idea what this statement has to do with anything? I dont think I ever suggested buying a mustang? I simply said one of these cheapo mustangs that you chose not to get has almost as much tq as that motor which I would imagine costs as much as an entire mustang. So if I were to put a v8 I would not consider that motor.

I also dont know why 9500 rpms is so impressive. My buddy built a 383 stroker that he revved to 8 grand. He didnt have huge money in it made alot more tq then that and a little less hp. Plus there arent really any benefits of revving to 9500 if its a very peaky motor like our cars have.

[controller]

But that's just it. Our cars have a peaky motor. So I'd be inclined to replace it with another one. The reason I mentioned the cost of the car is because you mentioned money with the motor. Yes, I'm sure the Mugen V8 would cost a small fortune.

It only weighs 288 pounds too, so it would help maintain chassis dynamics.

I'm sure you could build a chevy powerplant that could make better numbers for the weight, but then the price tag would go up just as high. Well, maybe less considering the USD to YEN ratio these days.

[Java Junky]

Maybe I'm jus' missin' somethin' here, but I see that ol' awe of high redline creepin' in again.
If I were comparin' mills with concern for punch-for-the-pound, I wouldn't care if it made 590 at 4500, 'r, '9000, as long as it did it reliably.
The power'z whut'z get'z'er done.
Redline'z like a category for Jeopardy.
Be well.
Java

[controller]

There should be an awe of a high redline, but it needs to be complimented with a flat torque curve across the band. Since hp is a function of torque, power from an engine is really derived from the area under the torque curve. The smoother and higher the curve, the more usable RPM range there is for generating power.

Why is the high redline important? The higher the redline with a wider torque curve means less gear shifting. If torque were the _only_ factor in the equation, we'd all be racing low revving deisels.

However, the reason I hold an awe for the higher revving engines is the art and engineering in making that much reciprocating mass move at such high rates of speed without "grenading" as DJ put it. Yes, there are cheaper ways of making power, but there's no envelope to push. That's how I see Stewie, envelope pushed in a production car.

To each their own as well, I've defined my opinion, and it's just that, an opinion. Not here to make or lose friends over it.

[Java Junky]

Amen to your last line Con.
'Love a good argument, but not at the cost'a rufflin' feathers. (Ain't no harm in gettin' 'em fluffed up a bit though, eh?)
Be well.
Java

[controller]

Are you implying that I'm fluffy?

[Java Junky]

Nah, warm n' cuddly n' full'a all kind'z'a good, reliable info maybe, but fluffy? Nah.

[s2000isu]

"flat torque curve across the band. Since hp is a function of torque, power from an engine is really derived from the area under the torque curve. The smoother and higher the curve, the more usable RPM range there is for generating power"

Thats is my point if it has a flat curve then 9500 is an awesome thing but if its peaky like our motors 9500 is just another thing for kids to brag about online. I dont have a dyno chart infront of me so I cant say for sure if its as peaky as I think but im guessing its just like our motor who knows.

[DJJSR]

You need to consider the purpose of the motor. A road-racer typically is a high rpm mill in a light car. A good example is a Formula 1 motor. Small displacement, short stroke and runs between 10,000 and 18,000 rpms.

On the other hand, a typical drag motor, with a much longer stroke, usually operates between 5000 and 8000 rpm and creates best torque and horsepower in that range.

Swap an F1 motor into a dragster, or a 500 cube big block into an F1 car and neither would be very successful. (but I think it would be very entertaining).

Anyone that follows pro stock bike racing gets to see an ideal side by side comparison of 2 different schools of thought. The short stroke Japanese bike motors run high rpms and are geared accordingly. The V-twins with their longer stroke create more torque but nowhere near the rpms, and their also geared accordingly. Both set-ups seem to get the job done.

I admire both types of motors for their designs and how they can create that much power and stay together (usually).

[Java Junky]

@*#&in' great!
I can die in @*#&in' peace now 'cause I can tell whoever'z in charge'a wherever it is 'at I wind up that I've had big bird explain the theory'a @*#&in' relativity to me.

[s2000isu]

youve really been wound up lately java haha