All micro-analysis aside, ever wonder what the difference is between a V8 in a mustang and a 4cyl like an s2000 that put out the same 250+-hp?

The concept of torque is easily recognizable here. I don't have exact numbers but that 4.6 liter V8 in the mustang puts out about roughly 300 or so ft pds of torque at say 3000 rpm. Whereas, the s2000 puts out maybe 200 or so and way out at a much higher rpm at that. Now, take both cars and drop automatic transmissions in them. Normally these cars would have a 0-60 within perhaps .05 secs of one another. The mustang's 0-60 time may slow by a couple of tenths +-. The s2000 0-60 time will slow by at least a second. Meaning the mustang will REALLY blow away the s2000 this time leaving more than just a .05 sec difference. The s2000 will eventually catch up to the stang and perhaps meet or match on top speed, but doesn't produce enough torque/grunt to pull it up to the high end of the pwer band quickly enough when it starts from the lowly idle of 500-1000 rpm.

Now put those same two cars on a steep hill and run them to 60 again. The mustang will pull away even more. Now add some weight/passengers to the cars and the s2000 will be reduced to lawn tractor speed while the mustang keeps clicking off reasonably good times. This is the real world difference between and application of torque and horsepower.

Not sure? Just take a look at any of the motor trend specs on something with a big v8 like a mustang, z28 or vette. You don't see much diff in 0-60 between auto and stick. On the old eclipse turbo, small v-6's, or even the old 300zx, the lack of torque shows greatly when you slap an automatic on one of them. The end up do 8 second 0-60's at best because they don't have any low end hard pulling power.