FACT: ALL things being equal, 4wd on a dry track is slower than 2wd (except dirt)
Ah, but were all things equal when Audi campaigned its AWD Quattro racecars in SCCA and IMSA competition? Not really. Before they were banned, the sanctioning bodies imposed even tougher inlet restrictions on them than they started out with. On top of that, they penalized them with additional ballast in an effort to even out the field.
As I recall, a similar scenario played out in the Australians Nations Cup, with the old R32 Skyline GTR (which too was eventually banned). Do you really think Lamborghini adopted AWD for both its Murcielago and Gallardo so that customers could take their cars to the slopes? Next thing you know, you'll be saying the Mitsubishi Evo's performance on the TopGear track had nothing to do with its AWD.
I dont wanna get off topic but if you really want my thoughts about the f1 and s2000, i'll play.
first lets take a look at the figures:
Horsepower/Liter
113 SLR , 626hp , 5.5 8cyl , NA
110.9 BMW M3 , 333hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA
109 S2000 , 240hp , 2.2 4cyl ,NA
106 Carrera GT,605hp, 5.7 10cyl,NA
102 MclarenF1 , 627hp, 6.1 12cyl,NA
97.0 TVR T350 , 350hp , 3.6 6cyl , NA
92.8 Porsche 997 , 355hp , 3.8 6cyl , NA
91.2 Acura NSX , 290hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA
67.8 Corvette C6 , 400hp , 6.0 8cyl , NA
60.2 Dodge SRT10 , 500hp , 8.3 10cyl , NA
Right off the bat, a smaller engine of identical design will have slightly higher hp/l ratios just because of physics. gravity, friction and other stuff- im not a scientist, just google it.
Aha, excellent! Now you're trying to use your head. Or at least, your fingers. Big problems with larger engines are indeed friction (larger bearing surfaces) and reciprocating mass (try shadowboxing with a 2-lb dumbell; then try again with a 5-lb weight and see if there's any difference; when we're talking about 6000 rpm crankshaft rotation, the reciprocating weight involved, the mechanical stresses on the cranshaft, bearing journals, rods, wrist pistons...it's a whole different ballgame if you're looking at puny R/C car engines compared to motorcycle engines compared to 3.2-liter straight-6's compared to
8.3-liter engines). There's also the matter of flame path management in engines with larger diamter bores, and trying to maintain a high compression ratio as you would on a much smaller engine. If you get a car with a very short stroke, well, you can reduce these mechanical losses. That's largely why Formula One engines can rev to 18K+ rpm, via ~41mm strokes. Compare that with 84mm for the S2000. 101mm for the Viper.
Point being: Simple physics should tell you that, all else being equal, a much larger engine should
not have the same specific output as a smaller engine. To assume otherwise is like saying since a car has twice as much horsepower, its top speed should be twice as much. This sort of simple, linear algebraic expectation of how things
should work flies in the very face of reality.
Now the hp/l figures for the F1 and S2k are very close. And considering there is a 8 cylinder and 4 liter difference- you have to admit the F1 is still very impressive despite hondas best efforts. But the F1 is ancient (what is it going on 15 years now?), designed in a day where drafting boards were more common in design studios than computers.
To put it mildly. The McLaren F1's engine is a monumentally more impressive engine than the S2000, despite its lower specific output. Are you familiar with the Honda connection on the McLaren F1? Gordon Murray asked Honda to build him a phenomenal engine for his cost-almost-no-object supercar. (Honda at the time was doing McLaren's Formula One partner.) He had a target of 100 hp/l hp out of the engine. At first, it would be be a 3.5-liter engine. Enough, he reckoned, considering the lightweight build process his car would undergo. And Honda was genuinely interested. But then, Jaguar and Bugatti released supercars with considerably more than 350 hp. So he raised his displacement requirement to 5.3 liters. Honda was no longer interested. Even Honda, one of the prime engine builders in arguably the most advanced motor sport in the world, saw the monumental challenge of wringing out 100 hp/l from a large naturally aspirated engine, and got cold feet. Which makes it all the more amazing what BMW managed to do with its V12. 2.0-liters @ 120 hp/l? That's mere child's play compared with trying to extract only a little bit less from a much larger engine. The estimated price tag of $200K for a BMW S70/2 should put that into perspective.
Oh, and for the '04 model year, the S2000 is actually
down on specific output. Ever wondered why?
In that case, the Carrera GT has the same amount of cylinders as the viper, yet has LESS displacement and MORE horsepower. So I guess technology might be the replacement for displacement.
If that were true, then Porsche's primary sports car, the 911, would still be a 2.0-liter engine. Every succeeding generation, the Porsche flat-6 gets larger. Why's that?
And why do you suppose they went with a large N/A engine in the Carrera GT, when they could have gotten that much power out a smaller engine? Because *peak power* is only
part of what makes a good engine good. And the available technology disparity between the S2000 and the McLaren F1 won't work here: The Porsche V10 is much newer than the S2000. Yet it doesn't put out as much hp/l. Does this make it less impressive? By your standard, it most certainly seems that way. Simple fact is, Porsche doesn't
need to match or exceed Honda's 120 hp/l figure because it's *already got so much power and torque already*.
Of course you might argue that it cost 3 times as much and i'd agree that its an unfair comparison.
Well, at least you're honest in admitting that you like to make unfair comparisons.
But the 2005 BMW M5 isnt. Its roughly the same price with the same number of cylinders. But with an astonishing
hp/l of 101.4 NA
That is simply awesome and in my opinion the most impressive of any car for the $
The M5 can be that cheap (relatively speaking) because it's already built on an existing, mass-produced unibody platform largely assembled by robots. If it were handbuilt from the ground up the way the Viper is (and in such limited quantities), it wouldn't be nearly as cheap, now would it?
The old M5 V8 cost $30K each. The Viper's V10 is nowhere near that.
Speaking of the M5, remember when it first came out? It had a 3.5-liter I-6. It gradually grew until the E39 came out. 4.9-liter V8. Now it's got a V10 that's 43% larger than the first M5. And now word has it that the next M3 will get a V8. Remember when the M3 had a 3.0-liter I6? Remember when the M3 had a 2.3-liter I4? Hmmm...notice the trend.
