Re: a masterpiece of engineering. american cars suck

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by Honda rulez, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. hondas are good cars for what they are made for->grocery getters as sean herre says,the dude that talks about the nissan maxima,maximas are badass cars,a maxima would stop an accord and their in the same class,this car is by no means fast

    "nuff said"
  2. hes right,im not big on mustangs but at least i could go R!CE killing in one....
  3. #53 SeansVette, Sep 19, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    More ignorant statements with no factual base. The Camaro SS does quite well on a curvy track. It is a PONY car, which by clasification is MEANT to be strong in a straight line. This is why it has a live rear axle. It is not "crappy" or "cheap." Having a live rear axle is better for acceleration, which serves the purpose of the car. That is why they use them. It's stupid to say AMERICAN cars don't handle well by only using a Pony car as a reference.

    The funny thing is you're judging cars that you know very little about. Example: You saying the Cobras "use cheaper materials and rear suspension is crappy live axle."

    Here are the specs on the Cobra suspension right from Ford's website

    FRONT: Modified MacPherson strut system with gas-charged Bilstein™ monotube dampeners and separate 600 lb/in (500 lb/in on convertible) spring on lower arm, 29mm tubular stabilizer bar

    REAR: Multi-link independent system, cast iron upper control arm, aluminum lower control arm, fixed toe-control tie rod, aluminum spindle, gas-charged Bilstein™ monotube shock absorber, 600 lb/in (470 lb/in on convertible) coil spring, 26mm tubular stabilizer bar

    Obviously you were wrong about the Cobra having a live axle. Before you STEREOTYPE and ASSUME, perhaps you should educate yourself.
  4. #54 Honda rulez, Sep 19, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Hey, i've never said the Cobras use live axle, i said mustang GT uses it.
    Live axle is cheap to use, sure it is better for acceleration, but bad for cornering. If u want good handliing with live axle, u ahve to sacrifice ride comfort, and this is exactly wut the SS is lacking of. But then, u can argue that this car is not meant for ride comfort, and it really depends on ur needs.

    And I never said Mustang Cobra uses live axle, I said Mustan GT uses live axle. I'm not that stupid to post facts that are not correct! And yes, the Cobra R is a great track car, but again, due to its hard suspension tuning, U'll have a tough time getting from point A to point B ( ur home to a nearby restaurant). And the Cobra R is too expensive for wut it offers, i would rather buy a Z06 then a Cobra R.

    Anotehr thing, remember our arguements of which engines are better and which ones are no good? Well, I'll post the results of the "International Engine Awards." The judges are editors from 40 different car magazines from around the world (motortrend, caranddriver, autocar, CARS......). Here's the link:
  5. Allow me to clarify a couple of things. You said the "Camaro SS and Mustang Cobra" not GT. Yes, the GT does have a live rear axle. Again, pony cars are meant to be focused on acceleration.

    Also, don't mix up the Cobra R for the standard SVT Cobra. The 2000 Cobra R is a totally different animal, with a N/A 5.4 Liter engine. The 2003 SVT Cobra has the suspension set-up I showed you, plus a blown 4.6 that's rated to 390 horsepower (underrated I might add). It runs 12s in stock form and has a base price of only $35,000.

  6. I must apologize for my poor English grammar and stuff like that. May be my wording confused u before. I said those American cars use crappy live axle, and I think this sentence made u think I said Cobra uses live axle. But wut I really meant was, GT and camaro use live axle. I agree that the GT is for striaght line only, but let me ask u something, do u go street racing everyday, or do u always floor the gas when the lights turn green?
    The answer for both questions is probably "no." For me, I want a car that has great performance, great handling, great driving fun (steering feedback...), and great ride comfort, and most Honda sports cars are pretty good at all these. But of course, some people don't care about ride comfort, and straight line performance is wut matters the most.

    Both the SVT Cobra and Cobra R are track-ready car, they aren't meant for cruising in the city, ur body will suffer a lot of pain if u sit too long in one of these cars. The main reason behind this is becuz the suspension is very very hard, why? For good handling. I can bet u that if the suspension is softer, they won't have this kind of handling.

  7. It is true that there is usually a trade off between ride-comfort and handling. But you can also have a nice mix of both. My Corvette, for example, is surpisingly comfortable for how well it handles. But I read one of the reviews for the Lancer Evo VIII, which is soon to be in the US. The author said the handling was superb but the ride was very bumpy. My Saleen Mustang (a tuned Mustang GT) came with very stiff Racecraft suspension. It also handled exceptionally well but had a somewhat bumpy ride. But all things considered the car was still very enjoyable.

    I will explain again about the Mustang GT and the Camaro. Although they both have a live rear axle, they do handle quite well. Just because they don't handle as well as the S2000 doesn't mean they handle poorly. The S2000 is designed with a totally different purpose than American pony cars.

    By the way, your English is fine. It's much better than my Japanese.
  8. R:

    I'll have to say this is one of the worst engines i have ever seen. No, i am not a muscle car fanatic, nor am i crazy rycer, but i look at hard facts of cars. Look at the facts stated below.

    Power 186.4 kw / 250.0 bhp @ 8300 rpm
    Torque 207.4 nm / 153.0 ft lbs @ 7500 rpm

    GASP** 250 HP (peak) AT 8300 RPM!?!?!
    GASP GASP** 153 ft lbs @ 7500 rpm?

    That's just rediculous. How long are you going to stay at 8300 rpm to use 250 hp? Thats terrible engineering.

    Look at one of the best engines in town.

    Ford Rs Coswort 95

    280.4 kw / 376.0 bhp @ 6250 rpm
    Torque 299.6 nm / 221.0 ft lbs @ 3500 rpm

    more torque and more hp at lower rpms.

    now you want to see engine size?

    s2000: 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
    cosworth: 1999 cc / 121.9 cu in

  9. yea, that's why I like the Corvette so much, it's really good for its price! The Lancer Evo VIII is too biased for racing, unlike teh IMpreza WRX Sti, which has great handling but also smooth ride. S2000 is like a F-1 street car, so it really depends on ur personal taste.
  10. #60 Honda rulez, Sep 22, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  11. r:
    i stand proven wrong, good work.
  12. #62 Guibo, Sep 23, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    LOL, that's from one source. Here's another source saying the S2000's engine is beaten out by its sibling with lower hp/l:

    "So how does this new 2L I-4 beat the Honda S2000's 2L mill, the one about which we practically peed ourselves last year? Flexibility.

    Although the new i-VTEC engine's horsepower peak still settles into what is nosebleed altitude for everyday engines — 7,400 rpm, to be exact — most Ward's testers found the Type-S mill to be much more accommodating throughout the rev range. You won't ever mistake its 142 lb.-ft. (193 Nm) of torque as being held hostage from a muscle car, but the peak comes at a more docile 6,000 rpm rather than 7,500 rpm, where the S2000 delivers its peak 153 lb.-ft. (207 Nm).

    Moreover, the Acura's Type S 4-cyl.'s solid doses of around-town torque are combined with the ability to rev sweetly to the redline but with markedly less eardrum assault than the fun-but-frenzied S2000 engine.

    The Acura Type-S 4-cyl. doesn't have to be continually flailed to redline to produce satisfaction. The result is more perceived refinement and a welcome measure of sound abatement. Although they're two totally different engines, one tester said the Type-S engine is not unlike the S2000's with a blanket thrown over it. We love the S2000 powerplant — but it needs a blanket thrown over it. That's the refinement that Acura brings to the party."
  13. Yep, i agree, but it's more like a personal taste. Some people like teh sudden pushback feel when the rpm passes 6000rpm, while some like to have flatter torque curve.

    But all I'm trying to say is, Honda's engines aren't suck, becuz people keep dissing them. So, u helped me by saying the Type S has a great engine. Thank you.
  14. That's stupid, though! Why can't you just put a turbo in the car instead dramatically decreasing the stroke to get high HP per liter? Not only would the car get more HP per liter, but it would do it without giving the car too much high end torque.
  15. Look at the 1/4 mile and 0-100 times though. That's sad for a sports roadster. Hell, even a stock 5.0 Mustang would give this car a hard time.
    That's a good one!
  17. That's hilarious.
  18. Do u see turbo in a F1 car these days? No. Why? It's imply becuz it has turbo lag, no matter how little that lag is, there's lag, it's there, it's a fact.
  19. Well lag can be fixed to a point where you cant even feel it
  20. True, but u hardly gain a lot of power if u don't wanna any lag.
  21. What the hell happened to the format of this page?
  22. I remember someone saying no Honda can beat a Camaro, Mustang, etc etc.

    EVER HEARD of the say...NSX?!?
    Next time look it up, chump.
  23. Wonderful, but what happened to the page format. Its like 10 km long.
  24. "Honda and BMW are the 2 best brand's in reliability, hp per liter and confort."
    This is a statement from Hondalover.

    I think that you're full of sh*^!!!!

    How can you possib;y sday this when you have Bently, Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini and so on!!!!! THese cars are much better in both comfort and reliability.
  25. There's always going to be lag no matter what, All I said is that you can reduce to a point where you cant feel it

Share This Page