> a 5.0L coyote could make 600 horsepower if it had the same

>what is torque
>what are powerbands
>what is diminishing returns

If S2000 engines are so great why don't supertankers use several hundred instead of gigantic 2 stroke diesels?

The F20 would only make 150hp if it had the same redline as a coyote, and also doesn't last 300,000 miles like the coyote does. Also, despite being a 2L 4 banger, it gets the same gas mileage as a 5L V8.

>>16039113
It's a shitpost thread, please to not use common sense in your replies.


If the S2000 had an ecoboost it wouldn't be a piece of shit.

>a 2.0L S200 engine would have 460hp if it had the same specific output as a Koenigsegg

>Japanese """"engineers""""

see how stupid this thread is now?

>>16039102
Then why doesn't an s2000 make any power

File: 1438157976533.jpg (174KB, 496x691px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 496x691px

>>16039165
kek

>>16039161
>na vs forced induction

>>16039172
>he hasn't driven a supercharged car
>he thinks there isn't turbo and supercharged is the same

Enjoy your shitty acceleration and also fuck you turdbo fags with your lag

>>16039189
At high rpms belt slack and parasitic loss take their toll on the engine, you could be losing 10-15% of your horsepower just spinning a blower at redline

>>16039124
I've seen F20Cs last 300,000 miles

>>16039200
>%10-%15
>being a huge difference
kek, still getting the right amount of boost needed on the corners. Enjoy your lag.

>>16039189
the s2000 is na and koenigsegg cars are turbocharged; why are you talking about supercharging?

>>16039189
> a S2000 can't suck in as much air as my engine with a fucking blower shoving in air
> what a piece of shit japanese car!!!

you're retarded man, you can make 300hp reliably on a F20 with a super or turbo, probably more

>>16039244
Yet you can't afford a koenenignog or even own a S2000

>>16039120
because we're talking about cars dumbass

> durr lets make a heavy car so it NEEDS this much torque and horsepower

> american """"""engineers""""""

File: nigger.jpg (777KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1600x1200px

>>16039250
>hondafags ever considering forced induction
>"BUT FAMPAI, IT AIN'T A REAL HONDA UNLESS IT'S N/A, YOU'RE KILLING THAT NATURAL SOUND BRAH"

>>16039264
>Lets make an engine that has no torque or power below 6000rpm
>Japanese """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""engineers""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>>16039236
I've seen anecdotal evidence, too.

>>16039241
I don't forced induction but the physics is superchargers at high rpm will atop you from making true power.
If you're losing 30 horsepower before drivetrain losses and accessories just to drive a belt then you're losing a noticeable amount of power

>>16039244
some of the earlier koenigseggs are supercharged

>>16039279
> how do i downshift to keep the car in the powerband??
> I only learned on american V8s with automatics so i dunno how

>>16039302
>forgeting about gear ratios

A true bench racer indeed

>>16039307
Gear ratios for what? The argument is about superchargers. Do whatever you want to the gears you're still losing an absurd amount of power with a supercharger at high rpm

>>16039314
>power to the crank

God you Americans are pretty stupid.

>>16039323
>bhp>whp

I want this shit to die too

>>16039305
h-ha I like keeping my engine revved really high and have a small as band to make power

File: 1412614611080.gif (2MB, 200x293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x293px

>>16039341
>he needs a straight course to make power

>>16039341
> I buy things that are comfortable and easy to drive fast, so that when an S2k or miata is keeping up with me on the track or touge he's obviously a better driver than I am

>>16039279
> no torque or power
The engine couldn't spin if that were true tho

>>16039323
Congratulations for not following the argument eurofriend

>>16039305
What is fuel efficiency?

>>16039382
>300hp to the crank miata with a low gear ratios gets smoked by a stock Corolla out of all things

>>16039398
Once again, not talking about gear ratios, just parasitic losses from superchargers

Non Americans really are this stupid

>>16039394
How is it relevant? You don't buy a mustang or s2k for fuel efficiency, you buy a fucking civic

>>16039410
Assuming you are that anon saying that there is a 10-15% loss of power, there really isn't a big difference. I don't see no reason to get butt flustered about it when you're still making more power than N/A.
Btw single scroll turbos are not as efficient as twin scroll and roots style chargers are not as efficient as centrifugal style chargers.
There's a lot of factors when it comes to power

>>16039410
>hurr I just bolt a turbo on and I get efficient power
>muh stock internals can handle it

>>16039448
Hell, even a crappy gearbox and diff can make you lose power.

>>16039302
I'd DO do forced induction and who gives a shit if you lose 15% of your power when you're now making 60% more, without lag....

Its estimated that a top fuel supercharger takes 900hp to spin.
Pretty sure those guys are making "true power". And they don't give a shit about parasitic loss...

>>16039805
My bad, didn't know you drove top fuel to work everyday

>>16039920
>I fill my car with 87 octane

Savage

>>16039977
I like it dirty

File: $_27.jpg (210KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x768px

>>16039986
oooh baby I like it raw

>>16039994
>hey car have some cheese wiz

>>16039977
I always run 87 but I'm at sea level so it doesn't really matter.

>>16039278
>2016
>turboing a car where the stock MAP sensor can't even sense positive pressure

fucking kek

File: yesfuckyes.jpg (14KB, 292x315px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 292x315px

>Coyote S2000 with cement bags in the back of the car to retain same weight distribution

>>16039284
You said coyotes can last 300k, and F20s can as well. Same level of evidence there bud

File: ford gt lemans.jpg (92KB, 876x535px)

92KB, 876x535px

>>16040149
I guess the GT350's 5.2L Voodoo is the closest thing we'll get, but I want to see Ford go full retard and make an S2000-tier v8.

>>16039102
You're right. Honda should look at making a revived S2000 with a small. 120bhp/L V8.

But they won't, because of the gizmo-mchybrid NSX.

>>16039302
>omg you're going to lose 30 HP running a belt
>still hit 592 HP on the dyno

It must suck to drive your squirrel powered car.
I probably lose more hp in parasitic loss than you make at peak rpm's.

>>16039302
I don't engines but the physics is crankshafts at high rpm will atop you from making true power.
If you're losing 30 horsepower before drivetrain losses and accessories just to spin some metal then you're losing a noticeable amount of power