The torque/efficiency of the SAG is awesome. They way it falls off with RPM tells me there is low hanging fruit with tuning/bolt-ons -- which means there is a lot of untapped power potential for those that live/die by HP. I'm staying tuned (pun intended).

 

I 100% want one for STR! Maybe after a few years when they drop into a price range I can personally afford.

 

Wow it gets that high? My 2012 Mazda2 gets about that as long as I keep it below 75 on the highway.

 

Ok. Is 155 HP out of 2 liters a low specific output, or is it not?
<br />
<br />The answer: it's a low specific output. Does it result in a substandard or disappointing car? No, it's fantastic and a great value. There are definitely quicker cars for the money (Mustang, WRX) but they're very different.
<br />
<br />It was mostly a joke harking back to pre-release low horsepower complaints. Oi.

 

Well, this is Miata.net after all.

...o wait.

 

Who cares? When you get high specific output from an engine, torque suffers. You own an S2000, so you should be uniquely aware of this. S2000s are absolutely awful to drive in town because they make absolutely no appreciable power under 5500rpm. If you want a car to be decent to drive, you tune the cam profiles, intake/exhaust, etc. for a broad powerband.

Going off on you a bit because I see this argument parroted by M.netters and it drives me up the ******* wall. Specific output is the worst possible way to judge an engine. By your metrics, all LSx motors are awful too, right?

 

<p>I do own an S2000, and it's very happy toodling around town at 2500 rpm. Because AP2.</p><p>And I think you're taking this all much too seriously.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Fact: 155 hp out of 2.0 liters in a sports car in 2015 is low specific output.</p><p>Fact: the above fact does not detract from how fantastic the car, as a whole, is, and does result in a very flexible, sweet little powerplant that is not particularly stressed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Edit: Ed's opinion: If this car had the S2000's engine, it would be much, much more fun.</p>

 

<p>Opinions are like ********, everyone has em and they all stink&nbsp;<img alt="Eggplant" src="http://oi59.tinypic.com/2up7dy9.jpg" style="height:25px; width:25px" title="Eggplant" /><img alt="Thefinger" src="https://www.miataturbo.net/images/smilies/thefinger.gif" style="height:21px; width:37px" title="Thefinger" /><img alt="Deal With It" src="https://www.miataturbo.net/images/smilies/dealwithit[1].gif" style="height:35px; width:35px" title="Deal With It" /></p>

 

Specific output only matters if there are arbitrary rules that limit your displacement, either government smog regulations or race classing. Barring those, power/engine weight or power/physical volume are much more interesting.

OTOH, it would be interesting to see an S2000 dyno chart overlaid with an ND one...

--Ian

 

And i see this argument parroted by Miata owners across the entire internet. Especially NA/NB owners.

Show me ONE rpm, just ONE where the NA/NB makes more power than an S2000. Do it.

S2000s are better to drive in traffic than an NB. It's all perception. It feels bad down low because it feels so good up top, not because it's actually bad.

Source: I actually drove an AP1 back to back with my NB1 yesterday. Buddy has a 2002, and was curious about this stupid NB1 i built. The AP1 is stronger everywhere. Fact of life. F20/F22 > BP, not even mad.

 

<p></p><p>Specific output is typically pretty closely correlated to power/engine weight and power/physical dimensions when comparing against similar tech engines (like I-4, DOHC 16V engine). 2.0 liters in that configuration using similar materials&nbsp;will usually result in a similar weight and physical size.</p><p>However, it's that power/physical size that really makes the LSx engines so fantastic. Specific output isn't jaw dropping, but it's such a relatively small package. The LS7 puts out 500hp in a package smaller than 4.0L OHC v8's.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm not saying specific output it important. It's simply one measurable statistic&nbsp;that's a fact. And it was fun to troll but now it's not fun anymore </p>

 

*raises hand*
Show me the weights of both. And the gearing of both. I'm not talking about just final drive, but the actual mph in each gear. then compare all those things.
There are some things that take more to conclude than just two dyno plot overlays.
Until then, your opinion sucks just as much as everyone elses

PS: I am 100% convinced you always disagree with everyone for the hell of it, because you like it. But ILU still
dont forget torque, and overall curves. that's where the LS straight up embarrasses the competition

 

I'm not sure what you're wanting. His car weighs more, is geared longer (accounting for top speed in each gear), and STILL pulls harder out of the veetaks than mine. And my car is SUBSTANTIALLY faster than a stock NB. There's four people on these forums that have ridden in it, two that have driven it, and can vouch.

Are you really defending a stock NA/NB against an S2000? There's nothing to defend here. I still bought yet another Miata instead of an S2000, because i prefer it. But the argument across the internet that an S2000 sucks dick to drive in traffic is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. Especially when perpetuated by dudes with tons of NA/NB experience.

You can run it all through a gearing calculator if you want. I might do it later.


Here this might help.

2002 S2000 info: Turn Zero Technical Resources :: Gear Calculator


My 2000 NB1: MFactory® Competition Products - Gear Calculator

Figure 2750lbs for the AP1, ~2200 for the NB1.

 

do it.
until you do, I'm sticking to my personal opinion derived from recollection of many samples of driving both.

where are the quarter mile times and dyno plots showing your car significantly faster?

or are we basing these "facts" on you driving like a lunatic on a public road with others that have smaller *****?

 

Hey....

 

Even if we assume that my car is as fast as a stock 2000 SE, the point is apparently being made that an S2000 is worse to drive in traffic than a stock NB. This isn't about my car. This is about Miata owners complaining about how gutless an S2000 is and how it's the funniest thing i see on the internet on a weekly basis. My car might only run a high 15s just like stock. Or slower. Doesn't matter. It's still more gutless/worse to drive around town than an AP1. So was the last n/a NB1 i had that hadn't been magically made slower with weight reduction, gearing, and bolt ons. It was stock, so probably faster than my car.

 

I don't care about your assumptions.

let's get started:

per gewgle

05 s2k curbs 2,835 lbs
miles in each gear
36.9 mph
56.5 mph
78 mph
99.5 mph

dyno




03 miata 6 speed curbs 2,387
miles in each gear
32.1
53.2
73.4
96.1

dyno


What me and sav are talking about is oomph when accelerating to let's say 3 or 4 grand around town.
WEight matters, gearing matters, lowend torque matters. All those things is what factors in here, not just the overall dyno numbers

*EDIT: and I'm even using a really low looking Dynojet plot for a NB. Normally these see 110-118
as you can see it's UNCORRECTED vs the 1.03 CF for the AP2

 

Ayyyy baby lemme get dem AP2 gear ratios. I didn't do that **** so i dunno how to calculate things backwards from that.


But if you care to do the maths, i haven't done this in awhile. But i'll bet you once you mess with the gearing torque multiplication and all that ****, then apply weight to get your true thrust per gear per pound, the S2000 is going to come out ahead at 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000rpms.

I know all those things matter. I'm still telling you that the S2000 has more oomph. I'll do the math if i really have to, but it should be pretty painfully obvious at this point already.

 

keep in mind the ratios aren't useful without wheel size adn all that. that's why I posted mph cause that's what really shows the difference

AP2
6-Speed Transmissions Gear Ratios:
Primary Gear Reduction - 1.208
1st gear - 3.133
2nd gear - 2.045 --- Est speed @ 8000rpm ~ 52mph
3rd gear - 1.481
4th gear - 1.161
5th gear - 0.942
6th gear - 0.763
Reverse - 2.800
Final Drive Ratio - 4.100

vs

1st 3.760
2nd 2.269
3rd 1.645
4th 1.257
5th 1.000
6th .843

again, from gewgle so if any info is off post correct

 

K gimme a bit. Doing spreadsheet things. We can assume stock vs stock for the purpose of this sexercise.