Re: Garbage

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

  1. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Advan</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Buzzbomber,
    Allow me to address some of the things you said.

    "why in the hell is it a POS because it cannot run with a car that costs 10X as much?"
    Really??? A Mustang Cobra costs $300,000??? Wow! I was under the impression that they started at about $29,000 and the S2000 starts at $30,000. Thank you for correcting me.

    "oh, and FYI: IRS does not give a car a 2.00g on the skidpad. in the RACE world, the realtime Acura Integras and Civic HB's blow away the BMW's"
    I never said IRS gives a car 2.00g on the skidpad, and I never said the Cobra does 2.00g. IRS is not the only suspension/handling package that SVT adds to the Mustangs. I've read many road tests on this car and they're always amazed how well it handles. I would be shocked if the S2000 could "blow it away" as you put it.

    "not made to handle that kind of stress? yeah i guess a 9000 redline is pretty bad. its not a two stroke engine, not a rotary engine either. the reason they are so reliable is because they CAN handle such stress."
    Yes the engine AS IS can handle lots of driver abuse and will last a long time. I've never denied Honda's ability to make reliable cars. BUT, there's no way a little 2 liter engine could handle the same power output that a 350 big block can. My point was directed to people who tout how reliable their Hondas are when they're building them for Race. I'm sorry, but a tiny 4 banger with NOS or a big ass turbo kit is NOT reliable.

    "im a rice driver and i dont give a damned about 1/4 mile times. what is so special about sticking a big V8 in something to make it fast. yeah a chevy 454 will make a car fast. of course, its like 7.3 litres of engine to work with too."
    No Honda Drivers give a damn about 1/4 mile times because Hondas are slow. It's unbelievable to me how you people say going "fast" isn't important for what's supposed to be a "fast" car! Everyone on this board has raced from light to light, on the freeway, or on the drag strip. How many of you have actually raced cars going around corners in a residential neighborhood doing about 60? If Hondas were pumping out 300HP and 300lbs of torque, you Ricers would be all over us and that's about all you would talk about. Sit in my Corvette, stomp on the gas, and THEN tell me having a powerful engine is not important.

    Now, I am reasonable. Admittedly for a Honda the S2000 is not bad at all. For 30K you get a well built car that has respectable (but not great) performance. I just know that America still builds more bang for the buck.

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    After all those blabbering bullshit there sean, lemme tell you one thing. It's not like we f**king race our car on the street everyday so does it matter about you and your 1/4 mile bullshit. There's also a video on sale on ebay about street racing. A civic hatch back (modified) creamed a ferrari. Are you trying to tell me your american muscle bullcrap can do that. Sean maybe you are a patriot but accept the fact Japan and Europe are pioneers in car engineering not America. You brag about american car 1/4 times but when you compare American modifieds and Japanese modifieds, the jap cars would smoke the american cars in terms of top speed, handling, etc. And for ppl that think every jap car owner ($*)#( it, it's BS. Ricing is just a phenomenon in America. You don't see r}ced up skylines and supras in japan.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    HAHA i am laughing at you not with you....
    are you a complete illiterate? my god open your eyes. Dollar for dollar you can't modify a Civic to beat a Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, etc. That is a fact. Look at some race stats boy you are just completely wrong. Throw a $3500 Supercharger on a Camaro or Mustang and Throw a $3500 turbo on the Civic, That might bring the Civic to the performance of the Camaro or mustang stock, but it is gonna cost you another $10,000 on top of the Turbo to match what a Camaro or Mustang can do with just a Supercharger. How much do you figure it will cost you to make a 10 second Civic? That is the reason why there are a WHOLE lot more 10 second Domestics than imports, likewise the 9,8,7,and 6 second plateau... You are just WRONG!!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Garbage

    Man look at this car its so ugly no style HONDA tries to hard they will never be like any german car my dads porsche 911 carrera can kill this car.
     
  3. Notice that the 911 costs more than twice as much as the S2000. Also notice than the Boxster, which still costs far more than this car and is ACTUALLY IN THE SAME CATAGORY gets absolutely killed by it.
     
  4. #4 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from funkadelicpyro</i>
    <b>If there's one thing that you'll admit, you'll admit that the aftermarket is much broader for Japanese cars than for American cars.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Ha! Are you serious? Do you have any idea how long American cars have been hot-rodded? Way back in the day when Japan was still pulling itself out of the war (with PLENTY of US aid, I might add).
    Besides, most of the aftermarket mods you're talking about don't address the fact that the S2000 doesn't have infinitely variable valve timing. Without increasing displacement, they do almost nothing to increase torque (you know, that twisting force that ultimately get put to the ground?). The mods you're talking about just increase the high end by moving peak power/torque up the rev range. While this may be fine for track or oval racing where the engine is screaming at WOT for more than half of its life*, it's not particulary usable for an everyday car.

    [*Remember, while Formula One engines are technically amazing pieces of engineering, emulating them in real-life cars does not guarantee better peformance, particularly if the car doesn't weigh ANYWHERE near as little as an F1 car. Yes, that includes the S2000. F1 engines are also totally torn down and rebuilt after each race. They're built with the goal of producing maximum hp, operating at WOT for 60-90% of the time, and that's usually only for the duration of the race; keep an F1 race going beyond 2-2.5 hours and you'll see half the field detonating. They weren't designed with 5-yr/50K mile warranties in mind. Idling in 100-degree traffic? Ha!]

    Back to the point, if you don't believe me, see what MT wrote about that particular Comptech supercharged S2000:
    "According to the company, power is up by 100 hp, but the S2000's not-so-street-friendly 6000-9000-rpm powerband is now even more manic.... All in all, the Comptech S2000's hardware is an improvement, but in some aspects they take an already edgy car just too far over the edge.
    WHAT'S HOT:
    Awesome, fade-free Brembo brakes
    Great-looking wheel/tire combo
    Potent canyon-carver

    WHAT'S NOT
    Jekyll-and-Hyde handling
    No bottom-end torque
    Skinny-people-only seats"

    Not exactly a glowing review of the S2000's added "firepower".

    For you guys so keen on hp/l, here's some reading for your perusal:
    http://members.tripod.com/~juan_espero/lowpro.html
    http://modernmusclecars.net/articles/hpperlit.html

    The author of that second article can be found in the Technical Forum on the main boards. Go ahead, ask him a question.
     
  5. I'm having trouble posting. I'm not sure if my last post posted or not. At anyrate I'm gonna try again.
    I've raced a lot of cars (autocross and dragging mostly). And I don't like drag racing, so I have a bias to the more nimble cars. Now I'm not going to fight the import vs domestic battle, I think it's ridiculous. Technology is shared between all the nations. If Ford wanted to make a 240 hp 2 liter 4 cyl they could. If Honda wanted to make a 400 hp 5 liter v8 they could. The target audience of Honda is people who want i4 engines. I think this is due to the engine being lighter and being more efficient than the v8's. However, a v8 can be just as light as a i4 by using more expensive, lighter materials and such. American manufacturers are all about power. Stick a v8 in it, and design the rest around that. it will weigh more, but they can compensate for that. (The camaro ss, or the saleen mustang are good examples of heavy engines but good handling). At any rate, Honda knows they'll get more power out of a v8, that's why their f5000 karts have them and the NSX is about to have one (as well as the CL, rumor has it). Ford knows they'll get better fuel economy out of a i4, and thats why the economy cars have them. So back to where I was, the s2000 was given an amazing i4 because thats what Honda buyers want.
    Anyway, if you're talking about racing only, you don't want a Mustang, you don't want an s2000. You want a kart. A kart will have better handling and will be lighter than a car, by far. Ironically, the most popular consumer kart has a 120hp Ford 1600cc i4 engine in it. While Mugen (a separate company that builds engines from mostly Honda parts, or modifies the engines Honda has to create the engines in the Karts the Honda teams use) makes a much more powerful 1600cc i4 (190hp) than the Ford, but at a much higher price. Since these kart are made to be driven hard into the ground, and it's not a well paying sport, most people go for the Ford. That and the Formula Ford circuit is huge.
    If you want a car for the street, you do want a Honda. But a Honda Accord, Civic, or Odyssey. It is illegal to race on the street, so why put a race car on the street?
    Then you get into the showroom stock circuits, and autocross events. These events let people race normal cars on the track (or a parking lot coned out like a track, or an airport, or something.) Now people who can't afford a car and a kart would want to get a everyday car that would allow them to do this. In the showroom stock c (probably the most popular) the Dodge Neon is the most popular car. Then comes the Civic SI, and Protege's and stuff. Now, in my opinion you'd obviously want a Civic for it's proven reliability over the Neon. Autocrossing though is a different story. The Miata has proven a great autocrossing car. So has the S2000. The Mustang has not. Some mustangs with special handling packages, and the saleen mustang, have worked, but have not been popular, and have pulled in the same times I get with my Civic HX (Yes, the 115hp 45mpg one). I blame this on the driver, not the car though. I've driven the Saleen Mustang, and to any intermediate driver, it is amazing and can easily pull better times than the s2000. However, my S2000 I bought because it was quite a peice of art (in my mind). And the engine amazed me as well. After racing it several times, and becoming accustomed to the fact it needed to be kept over 6500 rpm (where the second valve in every cylinder opens) to have any power, I realized that it's superior to the Saleen, Boxster S, Camaro SS, and I would say closely compares to the 911 or 996 (not the turbo obviously). I'm gonna end here cause I just realized how long I've made this post.
    What it comes down to is what you'll be using the car for and what your comfortable with. I'm very comfortable with the s2000, but many people aren't. My friend has a subaru impreza wrx, I can get pretty comfortable with that too <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> I can't get comfortable with a Camaro. Even the Z06 I have a hard time with (although it's a absolutely perfect car for what I do). I doubt even 1/8th the people that get s2000's are going to race them. I also doubt 1/1000th the people who get mustangs race them. I doubt 1/1000th of the people who get porsche's race them. Then again, there is the picking up chicks factor to think of, but I won't get into that.
     
  6. The hp limit in Japan isn't really important. Companies list cars' power at the limit even if they make significantly more.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. now you little boys are all talking about some other topic ..

    first it was: s2000 vs. 911

    now
    the mustang?
     
  8. yeah, cheaper in that it is made that way.

    so, theoretically if you have a car with 300 lb-ft. of torque and say 1 horsepower, then it would outrun a car with 200 lb-ft. and 200 hp? no no no. torque is not the most important thing in the world. and it all depends on how it is used as well. gearing, etc.

    you want to know why a cobra is cheaper than an S2000? because it is a piece of crap. everyone knows it, even ford. if you know anyone who sells fords, they will tell you (unless they are all proud and stuff).

    the point about hp/litre is absolute PROOF that hondas are beautifully engineered automobiles. you think that 60 hp/litre in a cobra is good? how inefficient. perhaps honda is just trying to move up in the world market. rumor says that the new NSX of 2004 will have a V8 in it. two S2000 engines merged together. thats over 450 hp, all out of a 4.0 litre engine.

    retort, please. hehe
     
  9. #9 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from buzzbomber</i>
    <b>so, theoretically if you have a car with 300 lb-ft. of torque and say 1 horsepower, then it would outrun a car with 200 lb-ft. and 200 hp? no no no.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Exactly what road-going car has 300 lb-ft of torque and only 1 horsepower? Let's stay in the real world. Please.
    LOL, even your theoretical engine may be better than the S2000's. It WISHES it made 200 lb/ft. That kind of engine may be better, particularly [this is the important part, son; listen up] if it delivers much of that torque at as low as 3000-3500 rpm (instead of dumping it all on at only 6000-7900) and spreads it evenly throughout much of the rev range.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from buzzbomber</i>
    <b>the point about hp/litre is absolute PROOF that hondas are beautifully engineered automobiles. you think that 60 hp/litre in a cobra is good? how inefficient.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Go to www.roadandtrack.com and click on the special Tech department they have this month. If you can't find it [and there's sufficient evidence which says you might very well not], it says:
    "We compute Bhp/liter directly; 1.0 liter, of course, being 1000 cc. These days, 100 bhp/liter is superlative. The target used to be 1 bhp/cu. in. (equivalent to a still respectable 61.0 bhp/liter)."
    WTF? R&T says 61 bhp is "still respectable"? BTW, the Cobra makes 69 hp/l (didn't we already go over this?).

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from buzzbomber</i>
    <b>rumor says that the new NSX of 2004 will have a V8 in it. two S2000 engines merged together. thats over 450 hp, all out of a 4.0 litre engine.

    retort, please. hehe</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    You're proving our point for us!:
    Why does Honda need to increase the number of cylinders AND displacement to get 450 hp? Why not just employ some more of their engineering excellence (and technology) on their current
    3.2L V6 and have it produce 450 hp? That's 140 hp/l. Surely, with the experience they have with the S2000 (and the fact that the NSX will be some 3 years NEWER), they can bump up the hp/l by another 20 hp/l, right? And it's a helluva lot cheaper than re-tooling their production facilities to make streetcar-based V8's, isn't it? Why couldn't they just stick with the current engine and simply increase torque and/or hp?

    Here's another one for you, by way of Chris V on the other forum:
    Why doesn't Honda's automobile engines make the same hp/l as their motorcycles? After all, it's the same company (Honda) employing similar technologies in their respective divisions (cars and motorcycles). For example, the old '00 CBR600F4 (also an inline-4 like the S2000) makes 94.8 horses @ 12,500 rpm. That's 158 hp/l, roughly 32% BETTER than the S2000's 120 hp/l. Why can't the S2000 rev to 12,000 rpm like its motorcyle sibling? And the motorcycle engine even has two strikes against it:
    1) no variable valve timing
    2) no fuel injection (it breathes through carbs!)
    Yet it still produces far more hp/l than the S2000. Wouldn't you want this technologically superior engine in your S2000 instead of what it came with? Why or why not?
     
  10. What reply? You again avoided a direct question. It's a question that's totally relevant. Just as relevant as R/C car engines that produce 470+ hp/l. It's regarding physics, laws of friction, and the like. But obviously, you can't seem to grasp it. Figured it out yet? Why can't Honda's S2000 produce as much hp/l as it relatively low-tech motorcyle engine sibling?

    Yeah, the S2000 is pretty quick. But how long does the clutch last?
    MT:
    "It only took the S2000 5.8 seconds to reach 60 mph, and it did the quarter mile in 14.2 at 98.1. This compares favorably to 6.3 seconds 0-60 and 14.8 seconds at 91.4 mph for the BMW, and 6.0 seconds 0-60 and 14.5 at 94.6 for the Porsche. The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds."

    BTW, 100 hp/l has always been superlative. And 60 hp/l is still respectable. That's what the word "still" means, as in, not referring to the '70s only. Got it?

    Why does Honda feel its NSX must have a larger displacement V8? Whatever happened to the application of superior technology?
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from buzzbomber</i>
    <b>never said the CBR600 F4 was a two stroke.

    again, if you have a problem with the S2000, go to the mustang cobra forum. i am tired of talking into a wall. i could tell you that two plus two is four and still you would argue. they are completely different cars. this car, has a beautifully engineered 4 cylinder. there is proof of this.

    where is the proof of engineering in a mustang?

    why did ford get the slogans "found on road dead", "fix or repair daily", or "fu(ked on race day"?

    where did you read that the application of technology leads to a heavier, more expensive car?

    why does ford not go make 2.0 litre engines that produce high hp numbers?

    since when does weight make a huge difference in top speed (reg. the MB)?

    look, if all that matters is the end result, then go kill yourself. you are going to die anyways. if all that matters is the end result, then lets destroy the world. it will happen in a few billion years anyways. the hp/litre cannot be increased anymore. this engine is stretched to the max for our present technology. im sure one could squeeze out more hp, but certainly not much. if you want to compare cars, then compare the NSX to the cobra. on the track, with a V8 the cobra will still lose in nearly every aspect.

    i am tired of this. all you do is go to non-american forums and talk trash. you pick apart word for word what people type, and it is annoying. you have ruined this particular forum, and i will not return here. i will stay in the main sc.net forums, and let you and your friends sit here and trash this beautiful car. you bore me hopefully will leave these forums soon so i can return.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    "again, if you have a problem with the S2000, go to the mustang cobra forum"
    Get all of Rice Burners off of the Mustang Cobra forum, and I'll get off of this one

    "where is the proof of engineering in a mustang?"
    On the race track

    "where did you read that the application of technology leads to a heavier, more expensive car?"
    I didn't. I said American cars outperform Asian cars when you compare prices. You have to spend a crap load of Yen to compete with just a few dollars.

    "why did ford get the slogans "found on road dead", "fix or repair daily", or "fu(ked on race day"?"
    Those acronyms were started by Chevy bashing ford, there are a few of Ford bashing Chevy. They two American cars competing, a competition I suggest Honda stay out of. LOL

    "why does ford not go make 2.0 litre engines that produce high hp numbers?"
    Because you can't get any torque out of them. Because no chicks ever walk up and say, "wow, what a tiny engine!" Because there's no reason to. Besides, why do Rice Burners always BRAG about how small their engines are, and then put a Fart-Can on their exhaust to try to make it sound like a big block?

    "since when does weight make a huge difference in top speed (reg. the MB)"
    This must be for someone else. I never said that.

    "look, if all that matters is the end result, then go kill yourself. you are going to die anyways. if all that matters is the end result, then lets destroy the world."
    Did I strike a nerve? Sheesh!

    "if you want to compare cars, then compare the NSX to the cobra. on the track, with a V8 the cobra will still lose in nearly every aspect."
    That's it, yeah baby! Do what you rice burners will ALWAYS do! Compare a 90K car to a 30K car LOL! Also, there's really not much difference performance wise. MMFF magazine tested the Cobra and got 13.5 on only their second run. It handles really well. Even if the NSX is a better performing car, it's not like it's TRIPPLE the price or anything.
    For 50K get a 2002 Corvette Z06 and the NSX will lose in every aspect.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Honda rulez</i>
    <b>Umm, do u think a S2000 costs more? Or a M roadster? And how bout the Z roadster? I'm sure S2000 can beat that car and costs less. ITR does have A/C, radio and power groups. And in GT races, both ITR and BMW are striped, so both of them are light. And come-on, RSX-Type S is not in the same class as the Mustang!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    They're in the same price class and offer about the same amount of interior space.
    Ha, funny thing about both cars being stripped. You take a 2800-lb car and strip it of 150 lbs. What do you have left? Now take 150 lbs off the 3300-lb BMW and what do you have? Now restrict the intake on the Bimmer due to its extra displacement. No matter how you slice it (or off the Bimmer), 500 lbs is hard to overcome.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from funkadelicpyro</i>
    <b>true, the M roadster is heavier than the s2k and has the same amount of hp. and it did beat the Honda around Thunderhill. but you must consider that the M roadster has 83 more lb-ft of torque than the honda! as for the comment about the camaro SS beating them both, i think it just overpowered them in the straights (325hp, 345lb-ft torque). Notice that the Honda had better handling figures than both the M and the Camaro.

    By the way, I find it amusing that all of these American car fans are getting upset about a little Honda w/ a 2 liter engine. It shows that they're doing something right over there at Honda.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Individual handling figures on that S2000 are incorrect. They're from the NSX. Besides, R&T didn't do any individual testing for that comparo other than lap times. Every individual performance stat on that test was taken from previous road tests. Look 'em up in the Road Test Summary from the previous month (12/00).
    Besides, individual handling tests are no more important to good lap times than power/torque delivery or braking; they have to all be taken as a whole.
    Yes, the current Z3 3.0i Roadster (with 225 horses) should be faster than the S2000, considering how close it is in performance to the previous 240-hp M Roadster. A Z3 3.0i Coupe, which isn't all that much faster than the Roadster, is 17 seconds faster than the S2000 at the Nurburgring and 1.7 seconds faster at the short Hockenheim club circuit. I'll bet a Z3 3.0i Roadster would split the difference between the two. And the current 315-hp Roadster should be quicker than all of them.
    Price-wise, they're not all that different. Considering the markup on S2000's, they'll be about the same as the 3.0i Roadsters once you pay all the taxes and license and registration fees.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from funkadelicpyro</i>
    <b> but you must consider that the M roadster has 83 more lb-ft of torque than the honda!...By the way, I find it amusing that all of these American car fans are getting upset about a little Honda w/ a 2 liter engine. It shows that they're doing something right over there at Honda.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    But not everything right. Just right for some people.
    And where does the M Roadster find all this extra torque? Is it through higher rpm's? Smaller displacement?



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Nope, ur wrong, M roadster costs CAD$67900, Z3 costs CAD$57000, and S2000 costs CAD$48900. And M roadster isn't in the class of S2000 while Z3 is, but S2000 still kicks its ass.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. kingsnake2001

    Dude, you are a fool. "no style HONDA tries to hard they will never be like any german car" ok, um honda didn't desingn this body. the first prototype was designed by Pininfarina, made famous by ferrari. so, shut up.
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from funkadelicpyro</i>
    <b>SeansVette - please write on a piece of paper "I will try to hide my ignorance", one-hundred times. If "HP doesn't mean shit if you don't have the torque to back it up" is true, then how come the Boxter S, w/ plenty more torque than an S2000, then how come the S2000 has a better 0-60? </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Hey, how come the Boxster S is also faster at the quarter mile and over 10 mph faster in top speed? [Any engine builder will tell you a n 11-14 mph top speed increase is VERY good for a 13-hp increase.] The answer (and perhaps the answer to your question) may be explained in gearing: The S2000 has a 4.10:1 final drive vs. the Boxster S's lazy 3.44:1. MPG figures also bear this out, with both cars getting 18.5 mpg in R&T's test cycle. Despite the fact that the Boxster S is carrying an extra 100 lbs. By Autocar's predeteremined test route, the Boxster S gets 33 mpg, the S2000 29.

    Further evidence that outright hp/l at the expense of torque is not always a good thing (From edmunds.com):
    "Somewhat Flat
    Yet once the initial high wears off, it slowly becomes apparent that the S2000 doesn't have an abundance of torque. It has 153 foot-pounds at heady 7,500 rpm, which is only 1 foot pound more than a four-cylinder Accord LX. Two liters of displacement, no matter how much technology one throws at it, is still two liters. Honda is about the only auto company in the world that can write 50 pages of press material about a new sports car and conveniently forget to mention torque until the last page.

    This isn't to say the S2000 is a slowpoke. In normal driving, VTEC plumps out the torque curve sufficiently. It's just when you're stuck well below 6,000 rpm and you ask the S2000 to leap forward immediately that there's a big lag between command and actual execution. So either you keep the engine on boil at all times (not really realistic), or you take the S2000 out of the city where it can truly run."

    Read any test regarding the Boxster S and you'll never hear these gripes about its 3.2-liter engine.

    From Autocar's Road Test Results:
    "Porsche Boxster (5 stars):
    Fantastic chassis that's safe and secure. Roof goes up and down quicker than any other. It's definitely a pukka Porsche. Pick of the range: S."

    "Honda S2000 (3 stars):
    One of last year's big disappointments. Awesome engine revs to 9000 but has little torque. Steering and chassis aren't in the Boxster's league, either."

    FWIW, both the Corvette and Camaro (and the Chrysler Viper) received 4 stars. So does the 3.2-liter NSX.
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mephiston</i>
    <b>

    1 Create dull, style free body work
    2 Insert automatic gearbox to avoid straining arms to change gear
    3 Insert huge, poorly tuned engine that can partially mask the slop of the automatic gearshift
    4 Remove any sense of grip and handling
    5 Add some weight with needless electrics
    6 Attach advertising stereotype
    7 Inflict on public

    b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->



    "1 Create dull, style free body work"
    This is a matter of opinion. It's one of those things people use when they don't have real facts to back up their position. They say, "my car looks better." I personally love the look of many American cars. Especially the C5 Corvette. You're welcome to your opinion, but I just don't agree

    "2 Insert automatic gearbox to avoid straining arms to change gear"
    The Corvette Z06 comes standard with a Manual 6 speed. My 01 Saleen Mustang came standard with a Manual 5 speed. Could you make a comment that was anymore stupid than this one?

    "3 Insert huge, poorly tuned engine that can partially mask the slop of the automatic gearshift"
    Back to the Z06 Corvette. It's a poorly tuned engine that gets great gas mileage and does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (That's about 0-100 kph) for you Brits. And this is in a car that costs just under $50,000 USD. Oh, and that automatic gearshift you say we're masking is a manual 6 speed.

    "4 Remove any sense of grip and handling"
    1.00g Lat. Accel. for the Corvette Z06. How well do your cars do? Better question, how well do your cars do that cost under 50K American dollars?

    "5 Add some weight with needless electrics"
    I have a 99 Corvette (not the Z06). It weighs about 3100lbs. Your Jaguar XK8 weighs about 3700lbs. If I can have a car with outstanding performance (.93g around corners in my case), AND have the electronic goodies (such as 2 memory settings for the seats, mirrors, and steering wheel), Heads Up Display so I don't have to take my eyes off the road, etc., Traction Control/Active Handling, etc. then great.

    "6 Attach advertising stereotype"
    Did you mean to say Attack advertising? I would Looooove to see just one example. Just one. I bet you can't come up with one. I'm thinking back about every American car advertisement I can think of and I can't come up with one. Chevy Trucks, "Like a Rock", Ford, "Built Ford Tough." How are these attack advertising?

    "7 Inflict on public"
    Huh?

    "Throughout the forums of supercars.net there is a recurring sense of 'if the engine isn't big enough to float a warship, it can't be good'"
    I'm not knocking this car because it has a small engine. I just get sick of Jap car supporters who always answer to inferior performance with, "gee, but look how small our engine is."
    Now, if Honda made a 2.0 Liter engine that had high horse power, high torque, AND the performance/price ratio could compete with American cars... THEN I'd be impressed.

    The notion that American car makers don't make high horse power, small displacement engines because they're UNABLE to is not only ignorant, it's ridiculous!

    "and I defy the inevitable stream of flag waving patriots to convince me otherwise."
    Yes we are patriotic. We fought long and hard to break away from the evil British Empire and gain our independence. But you're right, you won't be convinced otherwise because you’re stuck on your snobby "we're more sophisticated" ways.


    <!-- Signature -->
     
  16. S2000 is made so that they bring back so FRs in their line up.
    It's made to be fun, so that's why it have a 50/50 weight distrabution<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Buzzbomber,
    Allow me to address some of the things you said.

    "why in the hell is it a POS because it cannot run with a car that costs 10X as much?"
    Really??? A Mustang Cobra costs $300,000??? Wow! I was under the impression that they started at about $29,000 and the S2000 starts at $30,000. Thank you for correcting me.

    "oh, and FYI: IRS does not give a car a 2.00g on the skidpad. in the RACE world, the realtime Acura Integras and Civic HB's blow away the BMW's"
    I never said IRS gives a car 2.00g on the skidpad, and I never said the Cobra does 2.00g. IRS is not the only suspension/handling package that SVT adds to the Mustangs. I've read many road tests on this car and they're always amazed how well it handles. I would be shocked if the S2000 could "blow it away" as you put it.

    "not made to handle that kind of stress? yeah i guess a 9000 redline is pretty bad. its not a two stroke engine, not a rotary engine either. the reason they are so reliable is because they CAN handle such stress."
    Yes the engine AS IS can handle lots of driver abuse and will last a long time. I've never denied Honda's ability to make reliable cars. BUT, there's no way a little 2 liter engine could handle the same power output that a 350 big block can. My point was directed to people who tout how reliable their Hondas are when they're building them for Race. I'm sorry, but a tiny 4 banger with NOS or a big ass turbo kit is NOT reliable.

    "im a rice driver and i dont give a damned about 1/4 mile times. what is so special about sticking a big V8 in something to make it fast. yeah a chevy 454 will make a car fast. of course, its like 7.3 litres of engine to work with too."
    No Honda Drivers give a damn about 1/4 mile times because Hondas are slow. It's unbelievable to me how you people say going "fast" isn't important for what's supposed to be a "fast" car! Everyone on this board has raced from light to light, on the freeway, or on the drag strip. How many of you have actually raced cars going around corners in a residential neighborhood doing about 60? If Hondas were pumping out 300HP and 300lbs of torque, you Ricers would be all over us and that's about all you would talk about. Sit in my Corvette, stomp on the gas, and THEN tell me having a powerful engine is not important.

    Now, I am reasonable. Admittedly for a Honda the S2000 is not bad at all. For 30K you get a well built car that has respectable (but not great) performance. I just know that America still builds more bang for the buck.

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    After all those blabbering bullshit there sean, lemme tell you one thing. It's not like we f**king race our car on the street everyday so does it matter about you and your 1/4 mile bullshit. There's also a video on sale on ebay about street racing. A civic hatch back (modified) creamed a ferrari. Are you trying to tell me your american muscle bullcrap can do that. Sean maybe you are a patriot but accept the fact Japan and Europe are pioneers in car engineering not America. You brag about american car 1/4 times but when you compare American modifieds and Japanese modifieds, the jap cars would smoke the american cars in terms of top speed, handling, etc. And for ppl that think every jap car owner ($*)#( it, it's BS. Ricing is just a phenomenon in America. You don't see r}ced up skylines and supras in japan.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. #18 SeansVette, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Advan</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Buzzbomber,
    Allow me to address some of the things you said.

    "why in the hell is it a POS because it cannot run with a car that costs 10X as much?"
    Really??? A Mustang Cobra costs $300,000??? Wow! I was under the impression that they started at about $29,000 and the S2000 starts at $30,000. Thank you for correcting me.

    "oh, and FYI: IRS does not give a car a 2.00g on the skidpad. in the RACE world, the realtime Acura Integras and Civic HB's blow away the BMW's"
    I never said IRS gives a car 2.00g on the skidpad, and I never said the Cobra does 2.00g. IRS is not the only suspension/handling package that SVT adds to the Mustangs. I've read many road tests on this car and they're always amazed how well it handles. I would be shocked if the S2000 could "blow it away" as you put it.

    "not made to handle that kind of stress? yeah i guess a 9000 redline is pretty bad. its not a two stroke engine, not a rotary engine either. the reason they are so reliable is because they CAN handle such stress."
    Yes the engine AS IS can handle lots of driver abuse and will last a long time. I've never denied Honda's ability to make reliable cars. BUT, there's no way a little 2 liter engine could handle the same power output that a 350 big block can. My point was directed to people who tout how reliable their Hondas are when they're building them for Race. I'm sorry, but a tiny 4 banger with NOS or a big ass turbo kit is NOT reliable.

    "im a rice driver and i dont give a damned about 1/4 mile times. what is so special about sticking a big V8 in something to make it fast. yeah a chevy 454 will make a car fast. of course, its like 7.3 litres of engine to work with too."
    No Honda Drivers give a damn about 1/4 mile times because Hondas are slow. It's unbelievable to me how you people say going "fast" isn't important for what's supposed to be a "fast" car! Everyone on this board has raced from light to light, on the freeway, or on the drag strip. How many of you have actually raced cars going around corners in a residential neighborhood doing about 60? If Hondas were pumping out 300HP and 300lbs of torque, you Ricers would be all over us and that's about all you would talk about. Sit in my Corvette, stomp on the gas, and THEN tell me having a powerful engine is not important.

    Now, I am reasonable. Admittedly for a Honda the S2000 is not bad at all. For 30K you get a well built car that has respectable (but not great) performance. I just know that America still builds more bang for the buck.

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    After all those blabbering bullshit there sean, lemme tell you one thing. It's not like we f**king race our car on the street everyday so does it matter about you and your 1/4 mile bullshit. There's also a video on sale on ebay about street racing. A civic hatch back (modified) creamed a ferrari. Are you trying to tell me your american muscle bullcrap can do that. Sean maybe you are a patriot but accept the fact Japan and Europe are pioneers in car engineering not America. You brag about american car 1/4 times but when you compare American modifieds and Japanese modifieds, the jap cars would smoke the american cars in terms of top speed, handling, etc. And for ppl that think every jap car owner ($*)#( it, it's BS. Ricing is just a phenomenon in America. You don't see r}ced up skylines and supras in japan.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    "It's not like we f**king race our car on the street everyday so does it matter about you and your 1/4 mile bullshit."
    ----> Maybe to you having a fast car is not important. But then if it's not why are you on Supercars.net? You should be on economycars.net.

    "There's also a video on sale on ebay about street racing. A civic hatch back (modified) creamed a ferrari. Are you trying to tell me your american muscle bullcrap can do that."
    ----> Yes, I am. As a matter of fact I'm going to tell you that anything you do to a Honda, you can do to an American car and get better results. I'm not just going to talk out of my azz, I'm going to SHOW you. Let's take a look at what forced air induction does to your beloved Civic, and a Mustang Cobra. from www.vortechsuperchargers.com

    1999-2000 Civic SI 1.6L DOHC VTEC
    The first complete centrifugal supercharger kit designed to "bolt-on" to stock or modified Honda/Acura vehicles. Increase Horsepower to 218 and torque to 142 ft/lbs. Installation time is 10-12 hours
    http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/yourcar/99-00civic.html

    2001 Mustang Cobra
    One of our best selling systems, this Cobra system will impress you with the obvious attention to detail and fully integrated appearance. Performance is awesome. The Cobra's 4.6 four-valve engine really responds to supercharged boost. Bolt one of these systems on an unmodified engine and feel 464 horses screaming under your feet.
    http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/yourcar/01mustang_cobra.html
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  19. #19 GimmeaJaguar, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I really think that everyone needs to visit this site. For all you rice rockets it may take awhile since all your money is spent to sup up your cars so you can't afford a nice cable modem. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=7

    And as to the guy who said a (modified) hatchback Civic beat a Ferrari? What Ferrari? Was it parked? You sure it wasn't Ferraro? As in Geraldine Ferraro b/c anyone could beat her. And even if that Ferrari lost, I'd rather have the Ferrari just b/c it isn't a fugly hatchback Civic.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. OK, a little clarification about torque and its effect on a car's suitability daily driver: true, the S2000 has about as much torque as the Accord. 1 more lb/ft, in fact. The crucial issue in regards to its daily drivability is WHERE that torque comes.
    S2000: 153 lb/ft @ 7500 rpm
    Accord: 152 lb/ft @ 4900 rpm

    Of course, the Accord also comes with a 3.0L V6 with quite a bit more torque altogether.
     
  21. hey i own a tractor trailer with lots and lots of torque so i am fast and i have the best car in the world. hell, its not even a car. i also own a very large tank for blowing through the quarter.<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. Again, I love Hondas, but for Christ's sake, stop trying to argue that you can make a Civic that can beat a Mustang for the same price. The Civic is a commuter car that just happens to have an engine that's strong enough to withstand all the crap rice burners do to it. Honda makes nice engines, but they're small engines designed to make little cars go fast enough to get your average Joe to work every morning. The Mustang is meant to go fast. No, not Ferrari fast or even BMW fast, but faster than a Civic. No matter how many bolt-ons you buy for a Honda, you can't get past the fact that NO Honda engine has more than 3.5L of displacement. The smallest Mustang engine is 3.8L. Displacement equals possibilities, so Hondas will always be limited by their small size unless they decide to make a huge engine for some reason. In the end, you can make a Civic go fast, but you have to do so much more to get that speed than you would have to do to a Mustang - or any other American muscle/sports car - to get the same result.

    Specifically, the S2000 isn't meant to compete with any of the American sports cars. It's meant to be a pleasure to drive, not to be the fastest on the road. If you've felt the gear changes, heard the engine effortlessly breathing at 8800rpm, seen the instant response from the steering and throttle, and felt the light little chassis crouch and grip its way around every corner, then you know that this car is perfect for enjoying driving and engineering. Then again, if you've ever raced a Corvette in an S2000, you know that it has limits.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. I totally agree.<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. Thankyou Seansvette, for actually providing some logical, legible arguments. Previous postings normally attract the opinions of those who believe ghetto phonetics is a language.

    You have chosen a good example in the Z06 corvette, and I cannot argue it is a well engineered car; 50:50 weight distribution for great handling is a great achievement, though I have never been a fan of its styling and 405 BHP from 5.6 liters is nothing amazing. Sadly though, it is not the norm for American cars. Not being an American national, perhaps my knowledge of your cars is lacking, but I cannot think of another similar car to stand alongside it. The standard Viper is laughable; with 8 liters and just 450 horsepower, it must have one of the poorest specific outputs on the planet, and yet seems to be acclaimed by all and everyone for its power. Pontiac seem completely unable to produce any power from their engines, while the styling of the Ford Mustang has got gradually worse from its inception.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  25. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mephiston</i>
    <b>Thankyou Seansvette, for actually providing some logical, legible arguments. Previous postings normally attract the opinions of those who believe ghetto phonetics is a language.

    You have chosen a good example in the Z06 corvette, and I cannot argue it is a well engineered car; 50:50 weight distribution for great handling is a great achievement, though I have never been a fan of its styling and 405 BHP from 5.6 liters is nothing amazing. Sadly though, it is not the norm for American cars. Not being an American national, perhaps my knowledge of your cars is lacking, but I cannot think of another similar car to stand alongside it. The standard Viper is laughable; with 8 liters and just 450 horsepower, it must have one of the poorest specific outputs on the planet, and yet seems to be acclaimed by all and everyone for its power. Pontiac seem completely unable to produce any power from their engines, while the styling of the Ford Mustang has got gradually worse from its inception.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I personally love the Corvette styling. You were asking about other "well engineered" American cars, and I'll tell you.
    First of all, I can say that every country seems to have their nich when it comes to cars. The Japanese make very reliable, economical cars. The Germans make awesome sports cars (though expensive), Italians dominate the exotics. But for what I look for in a car, the Americans are the best. To me it's all about the bang for the buck. There are plenty of very wealthy people in this world, and to them it makes no difference if they pay $50,000 or $150,000 for a car. If you can write $150,000.00 check with out blinking then by all means buy a Porsche.
    But, if the sky is not the limit and you really want to get the most for your money then go with an American car. For $25,000 dollars you can buy Camaro or Firebird that handles well and and does high 13s in the 1/4 mile. For $30,000 you can get an 01 Mustang Cobra which does mid 13s in the 1/4 mile, responds EXTREMELY well when you supercharge them, and sticks to the road like glue. For $40,000-$50,000 dollars you can get a Corvette that will out perform most cars that double their price. About the only Porsche you can buy in the US for $50,000 is the Boxter. The Boxter would get murdered by any Corvette.
    The only real advantage to a Porsche is in a social event you get to say, "I have a Porsche."
    Probably the most common thing people use to knock American cars is the size of their engines. I don't know why people are stuck on the idea that a bigger engine means crappy engineering. That is so rediculous! Americans have pioneered most of the technology we use today, including the computer, the internet, and the semiconductor. The computer capital of the entire world is right here in "Silicon Valley", California. We were the first to land on the moon. We've made huge medical break-throughs. To say we're not capable of making a high horse power, small displacement engine is laughable. The question is always asked, "Why doesn't Ford or Chevy make a 2 liter 250 horse power engine?" My question is, why should they?<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page