Rep Power: 304

it all depends on the turbo. different size turbos flow different cfm. obviously a larger turbo would flow a higher cfm therfore creating more power at the same pressure. so you cant really say that just 21psi would do 12's because a large 16g @ 21 psi would be a low 14 to high 13 sec car. now put 21 psi on a 18g and you would be in the mid-low 13s and a 20g would put you in to the mid to low 12's at the same boost pressure. you have to remember too that when you running that mush boost supporting mods really count. for instance you can see about a 50-60whp increase with a good set of cams with a mild port job easily with a large turbo such as the 20g. also intercoolers play a huge role because with the larger flow of air and pressure comes heat. smaller intercoolers get heat soak fast and that can drastically reduce power.

 
Rep Power: 0

[QUOTE=S2000man01]no. stock boost is around 13-14psi. on that they run low 15's. 16psi will get them into high 14's at best.

QUOTE]


I dont think this is true, a friend of mine had a 98 gst who ran mid/high 14's on stock turbo/boost and nothing but intake, and exhaust.


but anyway I have talked to other eclipse owners who have claimed to run 12s and 11s running 20 something psi...

 
Rep Power: 304

[QUOTE=thiscrackerntam]if you read my post you would know that the time and power is all relative to the turbo sizing. 20 psi on a 16g is not the same as 20 psi on a 20g. so your statement is irrelevant

 
Rep Power: 400

a 98 GST won't do better than low 15's stock. i/e didn't take your friend into mid/high 14's. he did some "freebie" mods to up his boost and free up some decent horsepower to get there. he probably "forgot" to mention that. a stock GSX can do very high 14's to low 15's. the GST (not AWD like the GSX) is low 15's at best.

as family car stated 20psi on one turbo is far different than 20psi on another.

 
Rep Power: 304

i will chime in a little here regarding the gst-gsx times. if you were to give both cars the same mods being in the higher hp range the gst will win given the added weight and drivetrain loss with the AWD. that is if you can get traction. that is a big IF though because as we all know traction is be a big deal in any launch.

 

14b is fine for what I’m running right now at irwindale. It's made for quick spool! Alot quicker then a 16g and way quicker then a 20g. The 1/8 mile obviously is a short run that's why I go there till I get my turbo upgrade which is put on hold now that I’m doing a awd conversion. Now the s2000 isn't impressive, No torque and the reason it is a descent car is because it's so light. I'm not putting it down it would beat mine but not by much. Drivers at Irwindale were running 9.5+ Well I do live in whittier so anyone near me wants to run just email me. I'm at Irwindale once every two months or so. By the way a 16g is good for 350hp so a DSM running on 16psi 16g will beat an s2000. They pull well into the 7000rpm where mine dies at arond 6500. No I do not own a honda hence the reason I don't create post. I am also on dsm tuners, dsm talk, Mitsubishi forums and Mitsubishi-forums. You don't need to own the car to post in the forums. We are all just car guys and I like to see what's going on with the competition.

 

Very true from what I have a read a gst should be pretty even with a gsx in the 1/4 mile. I have never reaced a stock gsx only modded ones so i really have to way to compare. Always remember when talking about racing and times and who beats what, there is always driver error or lack of driving skills. Perfect example a civic si with all the bolt ons and exhaust took a EVO at the track a few months ago. I knew the si driver and he told me what he had done and it wasn't much. He was just as shocked as everyone else was.

 
Rep Power: 400

do you think the finish line gives a crap about torque? no. if you get spanked by a "no torque" S2000 in the 1/4 mile running high 13's stock, sorry, but there's no torque fairy who's gonna give you a cookie.

the S2000 can do high 13's just like a mustang GT. yet a GT has TWICE the torque.

S2000 "no torque" comments are uneducated, ignorant, and just plain stupid. go look up gearing and its effect before making another stupid comment.

lol yeah that's the secret. it just doesn't weigh a lot.

that's like saying I can "hang" with a C6 Z06. who knew my car was so fast! (do you realize that when you lose by more than a second in the 1/4 mile, your loss is measured in buslengths?)

horrible drivers. nuff said.

not necessarily. depends on what mods they have. sure if they are making 350whp then yeah they'll be faster. but just cuz they slap a 16g on there doesn't mean they are making that power.

so am i.

absolutely. you dont have to own a civic to be here.

you're right. but dont make uneducated generalizations about cars you seem to have very little knowledge of. i happen to love the 2g eclipse, hence the reason I owned one at one point, so I do know a LOT about them. i dont mean to be so harsh, so honestly, listen to what i'm saying. i'm trying to be realistic.

 

I am am speaking from my own experience, I'm not here to convince you just responding to the post. If you don't believe me it really don't bother me. You run the same times as a gt? Well does that say your motor is so strong for a
4 banger or is the gt very weak for a v8. I pick the 2nd. We can sit here and compare what if all day. If the dsm had this if it had that...... The point is I'm not to into hondas, just what they are putting out. You like s2000 that's on you but how are you going to say I seem uneducated. Your car is fast due to the weight is not uneducated! Torque has alot to do with 1/8 mile times where I run maybe not so much in 1/4. Well I'm done discussing this issue about what beats what and who beats who. Any other discussion i'm open for. This is a close to stock run.

 
Rep Power: 330

^^^ so the f20/22 is not a strong 4 cylinder engine? hmmm...

 
Rep Power: 400

you say it's the 2nd? really, other than the lotus elise, name another 4 banger n/a that can break 13's stock. oh that's right. you can't.

i guess all this really started because you said the S2000 "isn't that great". so I'm trying to clarify why it isn't that great? so far, every point you've made about it not being "that great" i've refuted. if it takes a completely different turbo and a bunch of mods just for a GST to keep up with a properly driven S2k, and you think the S2k "isn't that great" then what do you think of your own car?

There is no roadster out there that performs with the bang for the buck that the S2000 offers. If you say "the S2000 isn't that great" then you're comparing it to cars that aren't even in its class. You're also obviously not the kind of person who knows what a roadster is all about. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I digress.

If your opinion about the S2000 is an educated one, and you feel it's not that great, then so be it. Maybe it's not the car for you. But to say it's not that great and then make such grossly uneducated statements is just ignorant, for lack of a better term.
yeah it is. the car is fast due to a hell of a lot more than just weight. unfortunately, the S2000 makes more "torque" than you think. it multiplies the torque with gearing.

by the way, for comparison, here's what a stock S2000 can run in the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile. (it gives the 1/8 mile time and trap speed in the slip) also, BOTH lanes are bone stock S2000's.

in a mere 1/8 mile a properly driven S2000 will be .6-.7 seconds ahead of you, and going 10mph faster. and yet you say it's "pretty close" with you and a stock S2000? you're racing crappy drivers then.

 

Listen kid your comparing a 2-3 year old car to a eight year old car. I should hope you can beat it. I got 98000 miles on my car and your bragging over a second? I wanted a car I can fix up myself. Yes I could of spent 25000+ for a s200 but why? Your right it's not a car for me. Look at your 60 foot time vs my time. I weight about 3142 lbs Spyder 210 hp vs 2835 lbs 240hp I weigh 307 pounds more then your car and 30hp under yours also, and your bragging about beating me by less then a second? One more thing to look at is yes your reaction time is better then mine no one is perfect all the time but think about our numbers with the exact same driver. Doesn't say much for your car, the other car I was racing was a evo.

 
Rep Power: 400

I'm probably older than you.
haha wait, so now it has to be compared to something that's NOT your car, just because that would otherwise hurt your argument? i love it when people just make up the rules as they go.
once again, you're the one who commented that my car wasn't that great, so I said what does that say about the car you're driving? by the way, a second is an eternity in a straight line race.
obviously.
ok? so what? S2k's can hit about 1.9-2.0 60' times. consider what these 2 ran even on the 60' times they had.
in the 1/8 mile, .6-.7 is an eternity, and obviously means MORE than a full second difference at the end of the 1/4 mile, which also is an eternity. a loss like that would be measured in buslengths. the entire reason this is even being brought up is because you claimed an S2000 would beat you but "not by much". obviously, it's more than just "not by much".
what does reaction time have to do with it? they're not bracket racing, so your reaction time doesn't mean crap. i take my time at the track, and dont necessarily try to cut a perfect light. why? cuz it doesn't matter since we're not bracket racing.
once again, compared to what? your car? lol. i just showed you it'd be a buslength *** whupping.
it's a pretty decent time for an EVO.

 

1.I'm probably older than you.
Most likely no.
2.haha wait, so now it has to be compared to something that's NOT your car, just because that would otherwise hurt your argument? i love it when people just make up the rules as they go.
What does this mean? I am comparing my car to yours!
3.once again, you're the one who commented that my car wasn't that great, so I said what does that say about the car you're driving? by the way, a second is an eternity in a straight line race.
A second matters but it's not a eternity..
4.in the 1/8 mile, .6-.7 is an eternity, and obviously means MORE than a full second difference at the end of the 1/4 mile, which also is an eternity. a loss like that would be measured in buslengths. the entire reason this is even being brought up is because you claimed an S2000 would beat you but "not by much". obviously, it's more than just "not by much".
Here it is again, Your bragging about beating a older car, heavier car, and less horsepower car by one second is something to brag about?
5.once again, compared to what? your car? lol. i just showed you it'd be a buslength *** whupping.
You proved nothing. I don't think it would be no bus length sorry to say, maybe a mini bus.
6.it's a pretty decent time for an EVO.
I guess it beat you by a half a bus lenth then huh, and me by a bus and a half. Funny didn't seem like no bus and a half to me.

 
Rep Power: 400

well now mr. casual, since you want to talk, then let's figure it out.

you say two busses could not fit between you, hey? well then.

when he crossed the finish line, you were still .9 seconds behind him. so how much distance was between you and him? well, in the last .9 seconds your car would have averaged between 65-70mph. so roughly 67mph over your last .9 seconds of track. at 67mph your car is moving 98 feet per second. that means that when he crossed the finish line you still had (98*.9) 88 feet to go. there was 88 feet between you and him.

how long is a bus you say? your average school bus is 39-40 feet long. well lookie there, you had more than enough room to fit 2 buses between you and him. ouch.


oh, and no, the S2000 and EVO wouldn't have had even a bus length between them. the S2000 finished .2 seconds behind the EVO going an average of roughly 79mph. that's 115 feet per second. that means there was (115*.2) 23 feet between the EVO and the S2000. nope, sorry only about half a bus length there.

 
Rep Power: 400

well i guess since you're 2 years older I'm a "kid".
wait so first you complain that I'm comparing a car that's 8 years older to a newer car, but now YOU are the one comparing and it's ok? lol
in racing? yes it is.
hey you wanted to make the comparison, just like you stated above that you wanted to compare your car to mine. and when I do, then suddenly I'm bragging? lol. and no, I would never "brag" about beating an eclipse like yours. it's not an accomplishment, and not even worth the gas. but since you want to compare....
actually, as I just showed you with the math above, it'd be 1.5 bus lengths between a stock S2000 and your car, and that's just in the 1/8 mile. imagine if it was a full 1/4 mile.

 
Rep Power: 476

i have been reading this thread ever since you guys have been going back and forth and mr casual, you are digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole

 
Rep Power: 400

well i can't say anything more. if he doesn't get it after all of this, then he won't ever get it.

 

Nice math but your still wrong. If you keep trying to use formulas you might trick some people into thinking you know what your talking about. One second is only about a car length not a bus. There is always someone putting in there two cents to get on the side of a moderator. I'm just waiting for s2000 to say well I'm done this thread is closed as so many mods do and as he has done before, gives them a sense of power I guess.

 

Face facts. You can bearly beat a eclipse plain and simple. I still stay true to the fact that a s2000 is nothing to brag about.

 
Rep Power: 0

i hate to jump into flame wars but a S2000 is superior to a Eclipse in ALL..i repeat..ALL aspects. Done deal.

 
Rep Power: 320

Wow.... where are you from again? Mars? because EVERY track I have been to, a second in the 1/4 mile is called murder. Because everybody knows that when are traveling around 100 MPH at the end of a quarter mile, you only go maybe 10 feet in 1 second.

Now I'll see if I can help with this math thing a tiny bit okay, obviously your a little slow in the math area. But you can easily figure out how many feet you travel in a second at 100 MPH. To do this we simply switch units, it like going from inches to feet, that kind of stuff. To make life simple, we'll go to a different website, go here http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_all.htm

Now, on there are 2 scroll boxes, go to the one on the left and click once on miles/hour and then in the right click the one that says foot/second. Now there is a box just on top of that, you can enter in 100, then hit a button that says convert, you will get a conversion from 100 MPH into feet per second. We can use 100 because that is about where most cars in this range are going to finish, no it is not exact, but it can give a rough idea. I don't really want to try and explain those kind of acceleration equation to you. Any way should get an answer that is around 146.6 feet/second. Now this means that at 100 MPH you are traveling about 150 feet per a second. So if someone beats you buy a second at 100 MPH, that means they are about 150 feet in front of you. Normal buses are about 60 feet long, so that's about 2.5 busses. Now obviously this is not exact, but I can guarantee you that unless you are racing a Panda, there are bus lengths between 1 second in the quarter mile.

 
Rep Power: 320

Here is a screen shot incase you couldn't figure out the website.

 
Rep Power: 320

Here's a close up of the results, sicne they are kind of small above.

 
Rep Power: 400

LMFAO tell me you are not this stupid. if you finish a full second behind someone, and you're averaging 67mph over that last second you are moving, HOLY CRAP you really think you're only going to cover 16 feet in a SECOND when you're going 67mph!!!!! BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. that's the dumbest f*cking thing I've ever heard. I need not waste any more time on you. Everyone here knows just how "smart" you are now.

 
Rep Power: 400

lol that's like saying a Z06 C6 can barely beat an S2000. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest man alive. Face facts, an S2000 can stomp your little eclipse into the ground. Without the need for a turbo.

 
Rep Power: 0

compare it the other way around for him.....so if a stock s2k can beat you by a second (actually in the hands of a good driver, more then a second) and you consider that "bearly" beating you, then lets find a car that you can "bearly" beat....hmmm, say a 96 Buick LeSabre which runs the 1/4 in a blistering 16.1 seconds. Watch out for those LeSabres man!

 
Rep Power: 400

that means he can barely beat an auto EX civic.

 
Rep Power: 330

that line is so sig worthy.......

 
Rep Power: 400

i know it is. haha, did you know that in order to cover only 1 car length in 1 single second, you'd have to be going only about 10mph. i guess his eclipse really is as slow as we thought it was.