New Article on the 04...

[crankshaft]

Just discovered this, just a couple of weeks old !

http://www.mtdemocrat.com/articles/2004/07/30/road_beat/road_beat01.prt

Crankshaft

[Anonymous]

"0-60 in 6.78secs"??? boll*ck$  s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

[Tem]

"0-60 in 6.78secs"??? boll*ck$  s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

Yeah, that does seem a bit slow  s;) s;)  I think my best stock time for 0-62.5mph (=100kmh) was 6.48s  s8) s8)

[Anonymous]

come on tem, our little 140hp car isnt capable of a 0-60 like that. even EVO tested it and they got 7.5 (as have a lot of other roadtesters).

how did you time your 0-60?

[Anonymous]

I take it that this article is American!?! If so could this speedy in 0-60 time be down to the different gearbox? Oh, and a bit of optimism on the part of the guy with the stop watch   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[MRMike]

Well know fact the raodster is quicker to 60 than stated.  A standard car will easily get to 60 in under 7 seconds for what it's worth. My best is a 6.2.  Martin (Raven) borrwed my gtech and has done 60 in 6.6 I believe, and he's a crap driver.  Only joking mate!   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

There are a few NA in USA that have gone below 6.  And 140 bhp in a light car equates to a decent PWR.  Mid engine, RWD all the right ingredients for a great acclerative car. Few cars will beat an MR2 to 60 feet.

All a bit useless info, but good to know all the same!

[Anonymous]

an S2000 will take 6 seconds to reach 60mph with 240bhp under the bonnet. im sticking at 7-7.5secs for the '2 depending on launch.

as far as those g-techs go, IMO i dont beleive they are that accurate. there are too many variables that have to be taken into consideration

[MRMike]

100% accurate no. Accurate definitely yes. People who have taken it to a drag strip have said that generally it's only a tength out at most, if at all.

Anyway tried to look what else it said about the 04 in the article and the link appears broken

[Anonymous]

Martin (Raven) borrwed my gtech and has done 60 in 6.6 I believe, and he's a crap driver.  Only joking mate!   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

Haha. You're brave saying that when I still have your G-tech.   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Gotta agree with Tom on the G-techs. They aren't 100% but not much is. Though they are light years ahead of a mate with a stopwatch!!

[Anonymous]

mike, so what are you doing so differently to acheive 1.3secs faster than EVO to 60??

[MRMike]

No idea. I know my car better than Evo journalists, maybe I know where traction v wheelspin points are better.  Maybe I'm not as fat.  Maybe they tested at a different altitude. Maybe they tested in the wet. Maybe I'm a better driver.  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  All of the above?

It's pub talk at the end of the day. All I know is that the car will go under 7 seconds should I want it to! and the claim of 6.7 is not rediculous   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[Anonymous]

All I know is that the car will go under 7 seconds should I want it to! and the claim of 6.7 is not rediculous   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

the only way to ACCURATELY time the 0-60 is to take the reading from the wheels. i know it is only pub talk, but there seems to be a LOT of variation of the 0-60 time (toyota quote 8.0secs, you quote 6.2 -nearly 2 seconds)

[Bongo]

Peak Lb ft / weight

S2000: .121
MR2: .128

The S2000 Peak torque is also achieved at higher RPMS, whereas out torque curve is quite flat.


(edit: maybe that's meaningless   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  )

[Anonymous]

what are you torquing about bongo   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

a TDi golf will have more Lb ft / weight than the '2, but the 0-60 time wont be anywhere as near

[Bongo]

but that's because of the limited power band surely?


We have more torque per kilo than an s2000 and a flat torque curve.

The Stook's torque curve won't be as flat due to the cam change (ie a lot less bottom end?).

maybe i should shut up now before i say more stupid wrong stuff   s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

bottom end grunt isnt essential for racing, an F1 car has around 900bhp but only around 200lbs/ft of torque, this is because the engine revs VERY high which is what you want in a racing car

[Anonymous]

Empty fuel tank, heavy/light passenger, proper launch control, wind conditions, degree of road decline/incline, how cold it is, how wet it it, How high above sea level. etc etc.  

Toyota defo undervalue it, I'm happy because it means i get insurance! I trust EVO, they do the tests themselves, presumably constant with other tests they run.

[Anonymous]

Toyota defo undervalue it, I'm happy because it means i get insurance! I trust EVO, they do the tests themselves, presumably constant with other tests they run.

im only too happy that toyota do that too mate, i think they get that figure by a calculation, cant be sure though. but if toyota had've gone with EVO's time we would probly be looking at ins group 14/15 for our '2 and i wouldnt be here writing this now as i wouldnt be able to afford the insurance!

[dreambackup]

up shifts are molasses slow taking at least a second, maybe more

s:?: :?: s:?:    s:?: :?: s:?:    s:?: :?: s:?:

[aaronjb]

up shifts are molasses slow taking at least a second, maybe more

s:?: :?: s:?:    s:?: :?: s:?:    s:?: :?: s:?:

I'd hazard a guess that the tester had never driven an SMT before (that seems to be what he reviewed), and as people have pointed out before now, you do have to rather 'learn' how to get the best out of it, otherwise it's upshifts are a tad on the tardy side..

Not that I've ever driven the SMT (although if anyone wants to lend me their keys   s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:  )

The review is a tad inaccurate in other areas, though:

On the negative side, although clutchless, it still must be shifted as opposed to some European models which offer a full automatic mode.

They did? News to most of us, I think!

It downshifts wonderfully smooth, but it is not necessary to do so as you can leave it in sixth until stopped and the clutch will disengage the engine at the appropriate time

So, you don't downshift for corners, then?  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Ok ok, I'll stop now!  s:) s:)

[Anonymous]

Hold on hold on...what's all this about comparing sprint times between an S2000 and an MR2...

Total, absolute, dream on!

An S2000 will eat an MR2 Roadster in a straight line. The corners are another matter.

And yes...I did own an S2000 from new so I speak from experience.

[Anonymous]

An S2000 will eat an MR2 Roadster in a straight line. The corners are another matter.

hold on, hold on, when did we say it wouldn't?

[Anonymous]

Hold on hold on...what's all this about comparing sprint times between an S2000 and an MR2...

Total, absolute, dream on!

An S2000 will eat an MR2 Roadster in a straight line. The corners are another matter.

And yes...I did own an S2000 from new so I speak from experience.

no, they were saying that MR2 is not that slow... and 0-60 timing is very kind to MR2 due to flat torque curve and light weight... however when you start going above that, low hp engine shows and you will continue going much slower than S2000 operating at its peak torque range...

Another thing is - MR2 being light weight and not very torquey, you will not feel you are accelerating as fast as you might be...

[Anonymous]

An S2000 will eat an MR2 Roadster in a straight line. The corners are another matter.

hold on, hold on, when did we say it wouldn't?

A good S2000 will hit 0-60 well under 6.0 seconds (like 0.5 seconds under).

Making lb/ft comparisons is meaningless as a performance comparison - the cars are in different straight line performance leagues.

Sorry if I got the wrong message - but it seems a shame not to highlight this great little cars strength - the twisty bits!

[Anonymous]

A good S2000 will hit 0-60 well under 6.0 seconds (like 0.5 seconds under).

A good '2 will hit 60 under 5seconds.....Oh wait that's just mine.  s:wink: :wink: s:wink: