Re: Honda S2000 vs. Porsche 944

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by 107104, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. ok, im just gonna tell you people a few things. you can not call the 968 slow. if you are lookin at 0-60 its in the low 6's for the non-turbo and its at 4.5 got the turbo. Then you could look at top end....non-turbo is 156 (faster than the S2000) and the turbo is at 176 (much faster than the S2000) so how could it be slow? I think you are just throwing out some names of porsches that you dont believe to be fast because you are ignorant/never driven it. you may say that you have driven it yet i highly doubt you have. since you have so much time on your hands over there in Kuwait, why dont you try to learn a thing or two?
     
  2. it just shows how some people tend to look at others the same way they expect others to look at them! it seems that you lie about lots of things, thats why you think the same way about others. anyways, learning a thing or two was done a long time ago when i went to school, we are talking about cars here not physics. the standard 968 is "slow" compared to other porsches, wasn't comparing them to Chevy Malibu!! and for the 156mph top speed, i guess you didn't check my post, I already stated that My S2000 already clicked more than that on the highway. don't just take numbers from SC.net and jot them down, drive the car if you could, then state a more profound opinion. Comparing the 968 Turbo with +300hp to the S2000 wasn't the original case, besides I haven't tested the turbo to talk about it.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from doroth</i>
    <b>Well let me think A PORSCHE 944 WOULD SMOKE THIS PILE and if it was a turbo....</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->LOL! thats a good one!<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>probably the 944 you guys are talking about isn't the actual 944 we know!! beats the 911's handling?? I am sure it's a super 944.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->hey dumb#$%# get your shit straight before you talk. the 944 has some of the best handling on earth, ever hear of weight distribution??? because it has perfect 50/50 witch would make it handle very well, and it does
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Porscheman944</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>probably the 944 you guys are talking about isn't the actual 944 we know!! beats the 911's handling?? I am sure it's a super 944.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->hey dumb#$%# get your shit straight before you talk. the 944 has some of the best handling on earth, ever hear of weight distribution??? because it has perfect 50/50 witch would make it handle very well, and it does</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You've been reading too many BMW ads, it seems. Weight distribution is an important part of good handling, but front/rear weight doesn't really tell you anything. Also, 50/50 isn't always desireable, especially if you're a RWD 911. Cars with only 2 wheel steering, and especially those with rear wheel drive, benefit from having slightly greater weight in the rear. Also, where is the mass located? A car with 50/50 F/R won't turn well if all the mass is in the front and rear end. If it's in the center of the car (the best example of this is the McLaren F1) then it will turn quite well. Is the center of mass up around the car's headrests or is is below the seats? Lower is better. What type of steering does the car have? What type of suspension? What type/size tires has the manufacturer put on it? Is camber/caster/toe-in adjustable? What are the factory settings? What is the chassis' design? What are the matierals used? How rigid is it and how strategically is the suspension fitted to it?

    Weight distribution is something that people like to bring up because it's easy to understand. Everyone likes things that balance well, so it is easy to believe that something that balances is more orderly and therefore more apt to handle well. This is partly true, but it is only a small and somewhat insignificant part of the story. Simzer seems like a good guy, and it's rude to come on with a short, insulting, and informationally empty post. Maybe you should get your shit straight before you talk.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Thanks Lancia for the kind words, and for clarifying some facts for Mr. Porsche lover. I just don't understand why these people are missing my point. They are talking about the 944 as if it is the best Car Porsche ever built. the car is totally slow when compared to the other 1980+ models. unfortunately, there are some really ignorant people talking about issues while not having the proper background. I've heard people say that the lack of torque of the S2000 would require drivers to extreemly rev it in order to get it moving. whats the problem with that statement? i'll tell you; I raced a new Mustang GT (rolling street start), not having to rev it to 8000rpms, and I managed to beat the guy. yes I had to fry the cluch when I got my 13.9sec 1/4 mile, and the 5.6sec 0-60mph, but the car does tend to pick up speed/rpms fast(especially on 1st gear) which defies what most of people here think, that the S2000's lack of torque makes it very difficult to launch and accelerate. one last word, maybe the torque production of the S2000's engine is low in it's value, but the power delivery of this car is so different than other cars. the perfect Power/transmission/light-weight combination of the S2000 makes it a very fast roadster, you'll have to drive it to fully understand my statement.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. I've made that argument about the torque delivery on this site before. People say that 240hp doesn't mean anything because you only get it at 8000rpm, but the fact that you can get to 8000rpm is impressive. The S2000 engine puts out at least 140lb-ft consistently over a huge rev range, a feat which is impressive from both an engineering and performance standpoint.

    If things turn out badly over the next month, I might have $30,000 to spend on a car...I think my local Honda dealerships might be getting calls from me. One of the local guys, however, is selling a new (!)2001 Prelude SH for $20,000. I checked it out and he's serious. They didn't advertise it when they first got it, so no one knew and it stayed on the lot. Now it's cheap because no one wants a year-old, discontinued "new" car, but what the hell do I care? That car is unbelievable. Plus, I'd have $10,000 left over for upgrades. It's hard to know what to hope for: getting a car or not having to suffer the consequences of getting the $30,000. Sigh.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from LanciaDeltaIntegraleS4</i>
    <b>I've made that argument about the torque delivery on this site before. People say that 240hp doesn't mean anything because you only get it at 8000rpm, but the fact that you can get to 8000rpm is impressive. The S2000 engine puts out at least 140lb-ft consistently over a huge rev range, a feat which is impressive from both an engineering and performance standpoint.

    If things turn out badly over the next month, I might have $30,000 to spend on a car...I think my local Honda dealerships might be getting calls from me. One of the local guys, however, is selling a new (!)2001 Prelude SH for $20,000. I checked it out and he's serious. They didn't advertise it when they first got it, so no one knew and it stayed on the lot. Now it's cheap because no one wants a year-old, discontinued "new" car, but what the hell do I care? That car is unbelievable. Plus, I'd have $10,000 left over for upgrades. It's hard to know what to hope for: getting a car or not having to suffer the consequences of getting the $30,000. Sigh.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->i think i would do that with the prelude. 10k for upgrades would, i think, be better than the S2k for performance, and you could do what you wanted to. id bolt on a supercharger, and bulletproof it. the handling is already fantastic.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. well i just met a guy who has an s2000 and we're racing once i put my car on the road which won't be for probably another month or so, or whenever the nice weather decides to stay in NY, i'll let you guys no how i do, just to let you know mine's not totally stock, triple plate clutch and timing control that's it. and i'm in the 5's 0-60.
     
  10. i love you all..i really do
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>probably the 944 you guys are talking about isn't the actual 944 we know!! beats the 911's handling?? I am sure it's a super 944.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Your an idiot. The 944 was one of the best handling porsches ever. Whn this car was made the 911 still had some rear sway left in it too, so dont talk about what you dont know.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mr X</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>probably the 944 you guys are talking about isn't the actual 944 we know!! beats the 911's handling?? I am sure it's a super 944.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Your an idiot. The 944 was one of the best handling porsches ever. Whn this car was made the 911 still had some rear sway left in it too, so dont talk about what you dont know.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->the 944 is also the porsche that is considered by porsche purists and enthusiasts to not be a TRUE porsche. FR design, water cooled. i dont see whats so great about it. the non turbo design got to 60 in around 8 seconds. big deal.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. he,s not the only person i burried the speedomiter in my 944 it went past the 170 line
     
  14. I like the S2000 (they only Honda I like) but the fit and finish of the 944 is much better. I have killed s2ks before in both my S and my Turbo S yes they have a few mods (my cars) but the S2k has over 10years of new tech. Well I guess if the 944 is not a "REAL" Porsche that water cooled GT2 is not either, and just think of all the money and tech that went in to that non Porsche V10 CGT.
     
  15. I'm not interested in debating with all of the experts here about Porsche and Honda cars but here is a picture I took in my 1986 944 which I will honestly admit did have one aftermarket component. A K&N air filter.

    Best wishes,
    Gary
     
  16. I have to admit I have driven neither of the cars in debate. From what I know, (I did beat a S2000 of the line with my El Camino) is that if the S2000 driver screws up, misses a gear, or does not shift at the proper RPM's it seriously hurts its preformance. About me beating it with the Elky, I blame the Driver of the s2000, my car/truck had less HP than the S2000, I know with the proper driver it could have killed me. It takes a decent driver to handle this car correctly, unlike a 944.
     
  17. im quite insulted with these posts dissing 944's

    our 944, actually 951, has 268 HP at the wheels

    ive never seen any S2000 get close to our 944
     
  18. let's try and see them take a turn nearly as fast as a 944 w/o spinning out, won't happen
     
  19. #44 SeansVette, Sep 23, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    If you're going to choose between those two you should stick to the S2000 in my opinion, being that's it's rear wheel drive.

    Of course, if you were open minded to buying a domestic I could suggest some REAL performance vehicles.

    Here is one of MANY lovely choices for well UNDER your budget

    http://www.cars-on-line.com/69cam8071.html

    420 horsepower for $17,900 (or less), and it will turn a lot more heads than any Prelude.
     
  20. i'd like to se the s2000 and a 2003 mustang svt go at it. lingenfelter.com does wonders with corvettes,vipers,camaro's at a reasonable price.
    preformance that imported cars dream of.
     
  21. The 2003 Cobra would KILL it in a straight line, beat it on a track, but would likely lose in stopping distance.

    I agree that Lingenfelter does great work.
     
  22. Yea, that's for sure, the Cobra is a track-biased car, it's meant for racing, while the S2000 is a roadster for the weekends.
     
  23. but still good evough for racing and the road.
     
  24. BRRR. WRONG. The Carrera GT has a V-10, not a puny V-8.
     
  25. The 944 almost put the company out of Buisness? Give me a break! It is the second best selling model after the almighty 911.
     

Share This Page