low end torque is great for many things, but rarely considered sporty or fun
does save on the transmission
To some extent I disagree... Low end torque means you have available power anywhere in the rev range, and that IS beneficial.
Example 1:
I used to ride a Suzuki SV650S. It was a V-twin 650cc sportbike. It put out about 65 hp peak. My buddy had a Honda CBR600RR. That bike put out over 100 hp. They both peaked at about 45 Nm of torque. The difference? The Suzuki put out its peak hp at 9K RPM and torque at 7.5K RPM, and had a flatter torque profile in general. The Honda put out its peak HP at 13.5K RPM and peak torque at 11K RPM, with little torque at low RPM but obviously tried to rip your arms out of their sockets at high RPM.
I rode both bikes. The Suzuki if you were cruising at 4K RPM, and you hit the throttle, responded immediately. The Honda at 4K RPM? Twist the throttle and wait, and wait, and wait. The CBR600RR would be a much more "sporty" or "fun" bike on a racetrack or during spirited riding in the twisties. The Suzuki, despite much lower HP, was a lot more sporty around town, and was certainly fun enough on a racetrack or in the twisties.
Example 2:The Honda S2000 was pretty fun and sporty. Putting out 240 hp in a pretty small 4-cyl engine [for the time] was pretty solid performance. But the knock on the car, by most people who ever drove it, was that you had to be into the peak throttle and peak rev ranges for it to be sporty and fun. At reasonable RPM, around town, the engine is weak. It doesn't come alive until you get into it.
As an owner said:
Second, an S2000 is all about that engine. Back to the previous owner’s comment. A first generation S2000 below 6200 rpm, the approximate point of VTEC engagement, is a dullard. It has no discernible torque. It feels like a Civic… not an SI, mind you, but a base Civic. And that may be too generous. But get it up on-cam and everything changes. It screams to life. It sounds dramatic, especially with the air-box cover removed (yes, purists, I know that hurts my intake air temperatures, but it sounds much better and that’s what I care about!) An S2000 without this engine would still be significantly different than a Miata for the reasons mentioned above. But add that engine and the difference grows exponentially. There are just so few cars that let you rev freely to 9000 rpm. That’s one reason I’d take a first generation S2000 over a second. I’ll trade mid-range torque any day of the week for that stratospheric redline. Other cars that can do this – an LFA, a GT3, a 458 – cost orders of magnitude more. So, for us mere mortals, an S2000 is the only realistic way to experience the thrill of an engine that JUST. KEEPS. REVVING. Now that does take a conscious adjustment in driving style. Every time I get in this car, I have to remind myself to hold a gear longer than I imagine possible (once the engine’s warmed to operating temperature, of course!). It’s just so ingrained to shift by 6000. But stay with it and the engine rewards you with power and a scream unlike any other. The engine makes the car in an S2000.
Obviously this owner is a fan. But even he admits that if you're not winding the hell out of that engine, it's a "dullard".
Problem is that you can't and don't drive like that every day. Sure, maybe it's fun when you're really ripping it around on a track (this poster clearly has track experience), but how often are you going to be driving it on the street in a manner that doesn't attract the unwanted attention of the authorities?
Example 3:I've never driven a Tesla. Personally I don't really consider them "sporty", but I know that nearly everybody who owns a Model 3 just gushes about the acceleration. Anyone that tries to criticize a Tesla gets the "yeah bro but have you ever driven one?" response from the fanboy owners.
What does Tesla (and most other EVs) have? Instant torque, available all across the rev range. Put your foot in it and it goes.
