2

11/4/2007 9:35:58 PM

Quote :

"Hey Duke, what's all the downplay on Torque for. It's what gets you off the line am I not correct?! No matter what you say, it's not overrated."

I think he is maintaining that there is a difference between sportscars and dragcars.

11/4/2007 10:21:07 PM

Quote :

"Hey Duke, what's all the downplay on Torque for. It's what gets you off the line am I not correct?! No matter what you say, it's not overrated."

that's why i said:

i will concede that torque has some impact in drag racing, but power is still the big dog]



most of the time you can even come hard off the line by revving it hard and working the clutch properly

but something like an S2000 is pretty tough to turn quick E.T.s in, for that reason. Sportbikes are, too (plus they wheelie, which just adds to challenge). They'll DO it--but it's not nearly as easy as in, say, a Z28 Camaro. You sure as shit wouldn't pick an S2000 to use as a bracket racer.

Around a circuit or down a curvy road, though, torque is all but meaningless. Don't confuse this with having an exceptionally peaky powerband--having a dyno queen that only makes big power for a 1000rpm sliver on the tach is worthless pretty much anywhere but a dyno. However, tons of high-revving, high-horsepower, low-torque engines make power over as wide or wider of an RPM swath than a big pushrod V8--it's just at a few thousand RPM higher. That's ok--you just have to keep the engine wound tight, and it'll go like hell.

In addition, horsepower--in and of itself--has nothing to do with breaking drivetrain components (and therefore with sizing drivetrain components). That's the fault solely of torque. Therefore, you can get away with running lots of power without having to run beefier--and HEAVIER (and with greater rotational inertia) components. In a proper, lightweight sports car (or a sportbike), this is a pretty nice deal from an engineering standpoint. (the exception to this is stuff like axle shafts, which are after the final drive gearing which multiplies the torque back up).

Also, and here we're probably splitting hairs for most of us--but a high-power, low-torque engine allows for finer adjustment in throttle application, which comes in handy on a circuit or backroad.


On a primarily street driven car, most people want a good dose of torque, simply because it makes things easier and allows to be lazier and drive the car in a less aggressive manner to still get it do move around with some degree of authority. I'll admit that having some grunt was nice when I had my 330ci...but on a real sports car, I really don't give a shit about it. Bring on the top end horsepower.

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : hard to make both torque and big power...kinda have to optimize for one or the other]

11/4/2007 10:30:29 PM

How much does an EVO weigh? I bet it's actually close to a C5. That said, unfortunately, the C5 is just way too freaking big, and no I don't mean on the inside. The e36 M3 is cool and all, but I'm starting to get bored, and I imagine it's actually heavier than either.

I (as usual) agree with all that you're saying, but one of the hardest cars to modulate throttle on (for me anyway) was a 996 gt3, and I find it rather easy to play with the z06. Either way, I would love to spend more time in both on track. I could stretch for the Corvette (but don't like the car overall, and hate the image), and really want to, but couldn't get closer than dream about -the gt3.
Ahmet

11/5/2007 2:10:24 AM

Another formidable vehicle:


On track wrecks I've witnessed:
4 BMW M cars (1 I was in), fallowed by 3 C5s, 1 Evo, and 1 C6 z06. Why I share? No reason at all...
Ahmet

11/5/2007 2:14:09 AM

yeah, i really like the C6. I like the C5, but the body (particularly the ass end) doesn't quite do it for me (and the interior sorta sucks, but i could deal). I can't afford (I mean, I could...but...) a C6, though.

and yeah, the Evo is about the same as a C5 in terms of weight. It's way bigger than I like, too. I bought it because it was the most killer thing I could think of within my price range that possessed a useable rear seat.



Ultimately, I'm kinda like you, though...even from the list of things I could reasonably afford and practically (by our standards) own, I don't know how I'll ever settle on one car and be happy with it for the long haul.

Evo (with bolt ons)

S2000 (likely with boost)

Miata (with lots of boost and built to death as a track mule from bumper to bumper)

Elise (possibly with boost)

C5 (with bolt ons and maybe some motor work, prob some susp work)

Super Seven (or comparable type kit car, preferably motorcycle engined, as that would give me wood, and it's a lot of power for relatively cheap and very little weight)

or maybe an MR2 of some sort

and some sort of 911 could very well follow me home one of these days

oh, and the 135i is an up and coming unknown quantity. I could really get on board, except it's so goddamned heavy.

or who knows what else


i like M3s a lot, but they're too much buck for the bang, in my opinion (particularly on the used market. I mean, the prices on E30 and E36 M3s are completely absurd.)

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 AM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 2:33 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 2:34 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

11/5/2007 2:30:37 AM

I am -><- this close to pulling the trigger on a C5 (base ) before next month's track events start. I am about $6k short of doing the same with a 996. It sucks, because the M3 is a good car, I just want something different. How do you justify the 911 though, it's more money, comes with less tire and much less power.
/pointless rant.
Ahmet

11/5/2007 1:14:36 PM

^

I'll give you 5 for your M

Consider it the scratch and dent special

11/5/2007 6:39:26 PM

doesnt matter, slownigs rustbucket can beat em all

11/5/2007 9:23:53 PM