Rep Power: 0

great kill put him in his place

 
Rep Power: 0

how do you put vids on the computer from a digital camera i want to put one up?

 
Rep Power: 401

no idea. i had a hi8 camcorder for that race.

 
Rep Power: 0

Wow, got pretty upset huh? You contradict yourself in this post though. You said any car's redline gets cut by 1/3 gets impeded, but you said it's ignorance to say an S2000 has no pre-6000rpm power. So, all cars but the S2000? Uneducated? Perhaps you need some education. Look at this:

http://www.aempower.com/pdf/dyno/24-...%20Numbers.pdf

2004 S2000:

80whp@3500rpm
95whp@4000rpm
112whp@5000rpm
145whp@6000rpm

And this is the new S2000 with a lower redline and supposedly more horsepower at a lower rpm. So, imagine an older model. And for comparison a 2005 Mustang GT puts out 265whp at 6000rpm, and at 4000rpm (1/3 rpm loss) 200hp. So, like I said before: "Gotta wind em up."

 
Rep Power: 268

Metallica, thank you for posting that. I've been talking to s2000 all day about this in the z28 thread and he continued to say that I was incorrect about high revs. S2000, there is the proof, I'm not the only one saying it.

 
Rep Power: 0

ive been talking for the past 2 days and looks at the video hes racing a pontiac gtp in the video the gtp is not that far behind him. and thats alot slower than my car

 
Rep Power: 401

you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. you apparently don't understand this concept of cutting a car's redline in 3rd, regardless of what "HP numbers" you're getting. do you also realize that the S2000 makes a large amount of it's torque by 3000rpm, and from 6000-9000rpm the torque curve remains almost completely flat? so to throw out hp numbers and say here you go, is simply well, wrong.

now let me throw some numbers out there for you.

cut an S2000's redline by 1/3 and it does 0-60 in about 11 seconds.
mustang, same experiement. 0-60 in about 10 seconds.
porsche boxster, same experiment. 0-60 in 11 seconds.
350Z, same experiment, 0-60 in 10 seconds.
BMW Z3, same experiment, 0-60 in 12 seconds.

after car and driver posted an article about how slow the S2000 was if you shifted before 6000rpm, i believe it was motor trend that ran this experiment, and found that just about any car that gets its redline cut in 1/3 is severely impeded.

so in other words, the clock could give a **** what hp the S2000 is putting out at what rpm. the bottom line is, with it's measly 153lb/ft of torque it can still run a 13.7, and as for your "gotta wind em up" argument. well that experiment and theory has been laid to rest too.


edit: i should clarify these were street starts done with no launch.

 
Rep Power: 401

number 1 that race was to about 70-75mph, number 2, that was a MODDED gtp. he had a pulley upgrade, and was running about 14 flat at the track with his mods. but if you'd read my earlier post, you would have known he was modded and running more boost than a stock gtp.

 
Rep Power: 401

i dont know how many more different ways i can explain this concept to you people before you get it. the tests have been done, the theories disproved, and the S2000, though making the majority of it's HP above 6000rpm, still has plenty of torque for a small engine down low, and the gearing to back it up.

if you REALLY want me to get technical and explain this further I will. if you want to understand a car's acceleration at a given speed, rpm, and gear, you have to take it's lb/ft output at that gear, multiply it by it's current gear ratio, multiply it by it's final drive ratio, then multiply it by it's overall tire circumference divided by it's diameter.

but i doubt any of you even know what that number gives you in terms of measuring it's lb/ft of force output to gearing ratio. i'm not some little flyboy ricer who doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

 
Rep Power: 0

i dont like reading that much i just like to look at pictures but im done arguing if ive ever seen you on the street ide beat you consistently

 
Rep Power: 401

whats next? "my dad can beat up your dad?"


grow up.

 
Rep Power: 0

i dont know my dads in a wheelchair maybe moms

 
Rep Power: 401

one other thing i've never understood about the whole "gotta wind em up" argument.

does it really matter? who goes "oh im going to race my S2k today and shift only at pre-6000rpm against cars using their full redline".

the bottom line is this. The S2000 can run 13.6-13.7 with the best drivers.

Just like an LS1 camaro can run a 13.1 stock with the best drivers.

Just like a mustang Gt can run 13.7 with the best drivers.

so what is kinda of argument is that? Oh, well you may have run a 13.7 in your S2000, but if you shifted before 6000rpm you'd be slow.

 
Rep Power: 0

That was a nice kill man. That guy definitely got what he deserved acting like an A-hole. As far as these other two guys talking crap, nevermind them they're just being jerks too. The S2000 is a bad *** car with a lot of potential. I know I would love to have one over any pontiac.

 
Rep Power: 268

haha, thiscrackentam, you deserve a s2000, you'd have no idea what to do with a v8. Argue what you wish, just stating the facts.

 
Rep Power: 0

^ could u elaborate on what ur arguing with s2000 about T/A? im kinda lost as to what ur talking about.

 
Rep Power: 0

Yeah I would know what to do with a V8. Depending on make and model, I might be liable to trade or sell it and buy an import because thats what I like better.


You're just stating the facts and so am I.

 
Rep Power: 268

ricergribbs, you read the threads about the civic beating the z28, and you'll see our conversation. ThisCracker, I'm not goin to argue about which is better Honda or Pontiac, if you don't like it I could care less, you all just need to chill out, and actually talk with facts instead of trying to slam one another. That's how the term "ricer" came about, they do nothing but talk trash with no support.

 
Rep Power: 0

HAHA , S2000man and I will race, my civic vs his S2000, but he has to shift at 6k. I may be able to win that race . Then does that make my car faster than a S2000??? WTF this is the stupidest arguement I have ever heard.
As far I the GTO beating the S2000:
Strait from the pages of car and driver:
GTO- 0-60=5.3 1/4=14 top speed=158
S2000- 0-60=5.5 1/4=14 top speed=150
I don't think that they get much closer than this and you would beat him consistently??? My money is on S2000 because of you arrogance, because it is a honda vs a Pontiac, and because it is S2000 and I know he can drive I just viewed it with my own eyes

 
Rep Power: 0

I assume by your username that you're driving a TransAm? A 95 TransAm correct? What are you doing in a civic forum? Do you not have any other place to post? Gees where do you guys come from? The problem with you domestic owners is you think you're gods gift to racing and you guys are always the first ones to talk crap in a discussion anyways so I dont wanna hear "oh you guys need to chill out". I always keep an open mind about cars and appreciate them for what they are for the most part which is why I know that going fast in a straight line isnt all there is the having a bad a$$ car. Why dont you quit being a di*k and go drive yourself into a tree dude.

 
Rep Power: 268

Man, I tell you what, I love it. You have nothing else better to say than to flame. Why don't you go take your little econbox car and go race a tiburon so you feel better. I happen to like all cars, I never said said an s2000 sucked, i merely started on here because some kid in his little civic thought he whooped a corvette and another a z28. Go buy yourself a gigantic wing, and learn to have an intelligent conversation. And this is prolly my favorite "go drive yourself into a tree dude", I just might because of my car's inferior handling in the twisties, lol, get real man.

 
Rep Power: 401

enough with the flaming. i'm not going to tolerate any more of that crap.

bgoetz, the top speed of a stock S2000 is an indicated 163mph. top speed modified with stock gearing is 170mph.

T/A considering you have not responded to my last 2 posts discussing the topic, i assume you are understanding what it is I'm saying.

 
Rep Power: 268

Yeah s2000, i got ya. I just hate to know all people do is flame on this forum without actually discussing the facts. I believe the comment about me driving into a tree takes the cake.

 
Rep Power: 0

I am just quoting car and drivers top speeds

 
Rep Power: 401

and T/A you're the one who instigated the flaming you received with this post right here. if this is the kind of argument you're going to start since you had nothing to actually response to my post proving my point, then don't post at all.

 
Rep Power: 401

magazines are more like "guidelines" than rules.

 
Rep Power: 0

are you sure that you are not looking at braking 70-0 they have that at 163 feet

 
Rep Power: 0

My bad I thought you were looking at car and driver too and saying that I quoted them wrong. All I was doing was making a comparission from the same source

 
Rep Power: 401

no, i'm talking not only from personal experience, but also those speeds confirmed by owners on www.s2ki.com.

at 163mph or so, the S2000's power/drag limit is reached, and the car pretty much won't go any faster. get a few more HP out of it though, and 6th gear will redline at 170mph.

(i think i actually have a video of a stock S2000 making it to 170mph when he finishes going down a hill)

 
Rep Power: 0

I understand you saying all cars will be impeded by shifting at lower rpm. I'm not disputing that. My point is, as in my original post: "S2000s make little power below 6000rpm. How am I wrong? Does the dyno not prove that the S2K produces little whp below 6Krpm? Oh, and 125ft-lbs@3000rpm is NOT my idea of "large amounts of torque." My "gotta wind em up" argument has been laid to rest as a FACT. FACT: S2000 produces little power below 6000rpm. To get the most power you need to rev them high. The dyno proves it. I DID NOT just throw out hp numbers. Look at the dyno buddy. That's my point. There you go.