Re: This car is horrible...

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by 300zxdriver, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. What a disgrace to your species!<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hennesseyms</i>
    <b>Aside from the fact that it's a chaep foreign car and it has Dr.jeckyl-mr.Hyde handeling it is over rated. What's your opion? Post reply here.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You wouldn't know a good car if you saw its tail lights while getting your ass burnt in a race. You know jack shit about this car yet you feel like you have the right to flame it? This car is a masterpiece in terms of engine work. No other Naturally Aspirated car makes 240 hp in a 2.0 liter engine. The S2000 recieved an exceptional rating in terms reliability and longevity. And as for it's handling, the S2000 has a slalom speed of over 66 mph. So where the #$%# do you get the idea that this car is horrible you goat #$%#ing hick?<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW M</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hennesseyms</i>
    <b>Aside from the fact that it's a chaep foreign car and it has Dr.jeckyl-mr.Hyde handeling it is over rated. What's your opion? Post reply here.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You wouldn't know a good car if you saw its tail lights while getting your ass burnt in a race. You know jack shit about this car yet you feel like you have the right to flame it? This car is a masterpiece in terms of engine work. No other Naturally Aspirated car makes 240 hp in a 2.0 liter engine. The S2000 recieved an exceptional rating in terms reliability and longevity. And as for it's handling, the S2000 has a slalom speed of over 66 mph. So where the #$%# do you get the idea that this car is horrible you goat #$%#ing hick?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> No other naturally aspirated car makes 240hp out of 2.0, thats REAL funny. Gm has a 2.2 n/a engine producing 700hp in a cavalier concept, ford had a similar engine (not sure about the numbers) for a focus. And I will never see the tailights of a gay S2000 as long as I am racing it. Why all the insults? Can't get enough real evidence? Or just a 14 year old kid sucking his mom's cum filled asshole?
     
  4. YAMAHA R6 RULES!

    All i gotta say is, my Yammie R6 will have all of you guys eating the exhaust out of my Yoshimura Pipe!

    0-60 in 2.8 secs. 1/4 mile in under 11 seconds.
    On Curves, i kill you, then on the straights, i kill you again.

    Now, enough with all the boasting - My bike will kill all of your cars, so why bother arguing?

    With cars it's all relative. I love cars as much as bikes though. WHo cares if somebody's Mustang or Camaro gets better mileage than the S2000, or if the S2000 is overpriced. If the guy likes it, let him buy it.
    After all, my R6 cost half of what your guys cars cost ($10K), and can smoke a Ferrari.

    Before you get all cocky remember than a well driven bike can smoke a car any day.

    PS: I have heard, that the S2000's tranny is the best in the world, or at least one of them, in addition the driver's connection to the car is v. good, almost "telepathic."

    The Z06, or Camaro, might post better numbers and even get better mileage. The Z06 probably even has a higher grip rating than the 2000, due to it's monstrous tires; but the S2000, perhaps is more fun to drive.

    It is more delicate; I have read that the Vette's gearbox is a bit clunky, and it is brute force vs. finesse, which the S2000 is.

    Again, those aforementioned things are all hearsay, i have not driven either car; however, Brit. mags, for example universally agree that the Vette is a brute-force car. I am not putting down the Vette or the 2000, but merely saying that they are different, perhaps as different as my R6 and a car in approach and delivery; so comparison makes no sense.
     
  5. did you say that the cavalier was a CONCEPT, yea thats what i thought. this my friend, is production. how much do you think that cavalier costs? hmmmmmm way over $30,000. And i've read articles on this focus you are talking about, beating a corvette and in those articles is told the price for building one of those as well, try $200,000. hows that on your wallet. so sit down and shut up<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. okay, dicky, i see you are getting too cocky, now lay off the cheetos, and put the controller down and give final fantasy a break. THE S2000 is probably a mere dream for you to have one. You probably drive around in a rusted up 88 accord lx. im paying 29 grand for a SVT because i want one. Its one of the most powerdul stangs ever. (STOCK). One more thing your wrong, S2000 doesnt come with power locks.. windows.. or engine. Its one of the most horrible things honda has done. a 32 thousand dollar weak ass porr BHPL and it weighs too much for its little self.


    What a moron you must be, are you saying that a S2000 doesn't come with power locks, windows, or ENGINE? you are retarded! I happen to work at a Honda dealership here in Detroit and i have an S2000 in my garage right now. One thing i know is that it has little options because for $32,000 almost ALL of them come standard, power windows, locks, engine and all!i wanna know what shop you work at because im gonna want to tell my friends to keep their dirty mustangs away from there because they will only get worse from constant visits to you.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Hey Iluvchevys:

    I'd hate to burst your bubble fruit boy, but that 700 bhp Cavalier is not a production car and is not sold to the public. The S2000 is the ONLY production car to make a bhp/liter of 120. And your condemning me for not using numbers? That's really funny kid, considering how you made an ignorant thread in this forum that didn't have a single logical/factual argument. And I don't think that you can beat an S2000 that does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds(Car and Driver) with your beat up 88 Cavalier so why don't you go screw yourself? The 66 mph slalom I posted, was tested by ROAD AND TRACK so why don't you get off your fat lazy ass and go buy a copy.

    As for build quality and reliability, the S2000 recieved the highest rating (exceptional) in Consumer's Report Auto Magazine and JD Power also ranks it amongst the elite in this category. The Camaro and Mustang are utter garbage that will give you constant mechanical problems and they both recieved a "poor" rating in terms of reliability and build quality by Consumer's Report Auto Magazine. So to all the morons that argue that the S2000 is too "expensive" why don't you look at your crappily built Camaros and Mustangs that depreciate and break down at a rapid rate while the S2000 retains its value and runs without problems for thousands and thousands of miles while giving awesome performance.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. ok first off...just curious, henneseyms, what kinda car you drive? apparently youre a big hennesey enthusiast even though you dont have one??? "proud to be a friend of an owner" cool.......

    next issue: musclecar0291 or whatever...ya there are cars that will spin the tires at 4500 rpm...theyre designed to. however, they will start shittin bricks if you push them to 9000 rpm. who cares if s2000s are slow when you shift at 4500 rpm? if youre going for performance, you will shift higher. thats like saying a muscle car is slow if you shift at 2000 rpm. they are totally different engines, you cant really compare them like that.

    and to the guy with the vette who was saying HP/liter doesnt matter: as an american, i agree with you. however, you have to remember that these cars are made in JAPAN. in japan, having low displacement is a big deal because you pay car taxes that are based on displacement. this is why you dont see many muscle cars from japan, hardly any v8s. remember, i agree with you (when were racing..who gives a #$%# if you have more HP per LITER? i gots mo' litas!) but for anyone who doesnt know, this is the reason its so important when it comes to japanese cars.

    and my $.02 on the overall issue... i think s2000s are nice cars. the engineering is incredible. sure there are a lot of cars that are faster, but that doesnt make it a bad car. if it's well tuned, it can tear up road courses and hold its own in a drag race. and even though it doenst matter that much, they look really nice too. who the hell said a Z28 looks better than an s2k, and what kind of "influence" were you under?
     
  9. SPHZ is totally right! If he didn't say it, I should as all HELL would! A 2L inline 4-banger worth 250HP? Everyone's favorite american car: The Dodge Viper, 60HP per litre... what a waste! If Honda made a 8.7 litre V10, it'd be worth something more like 1100 HP (ever wonder why a 6-cylinder is as high as Honda will go?), and knowing Honda, it'd be lighter! The thing about Honda's versus GM's and Ford's, is that the Honda's are made for people who want to turn the steering wheel while hauling @$$. I will start to give props to American car engines when they start pushing 100HP/Litre, until then, I'm stickin' with Japanese engineering.

    Actually, I already DO respect ONE American engine designer: Diamond Star Motors, bought out by Mitsubishi after the success of the '91-'93 Mitsubishi Eclipses, Plymouth Lasers, and Eagle Talons. After the buyout, however, DSM (more or less) disappeared. Their memory lives on in everyone who owns one of the aforementioned cars who cream $30,000 krout grinders with throttle to spare. Americans CAN do it, but they see 100HP/litre as "too conventional". 1100HP... ha! Take that, Dodge!<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SakabatoSuka</i>
    <b>SPHZ is totally right! If he didn't say it, I should as all HELL would! A 2L inline 4-banger worth 250HP? Everyone's favorite american car: The Dodge Viper, 60HP per litre... what a waste! If Honda made a 8.7 litre V10, it'd be worth something more like 1100 HP (ever wonder why a 6-cylinder is as high as Honda will go?), and knowing Honda, it'd be lighter! The thing about Honda's versus GM's and Ford's, is that the Honda's are made for people who want to turn the steering wheel while hauling @$$. I will start to give props to American car engines when they start pushing 100HP/Litre, until then, I'm stickin' with Japanese engineering.

    Actually, I already DO respect ONE American engine designer: Diamond Star Motors, bought out by Mitsubishi after the success of the '91-'93 Mitsubishi Eclipses, Plymouth Lasers, and Eagle Talons. After the buyout, however, DSM (more or less) disappeared. Their memory lives on in everyone who owns one of the aforementioned cars who cream $30,000 krout grinders with throttle to spare. Americans CAN do it, but they see 100HP/litre as "too conventional". 1100HP... ha! Take that, Dodge!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Horsepower per liter does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for performance. Total horsepower does, as does torque, weight, etc.

    And your analogy that you can just enlarge the S2000 engine design and have the same horsepower per liter is rediculous. If you had a magic machine that would just ENLARGE the same engine, it probably wouldn't run right (if it would run at all). Horsepower is nothing more than a calculation using torque and RPM. More torque = higher horsepower, and higher RPM = more horsepower. The smaller the engine the easier it is to rev them higher, yes the easier it is to creat more "horsepower per liter". But, it's much harder to create torque with a small engine.. hence.. only 153 ft/lbs of torque.

    Tell me, do you want a lot of TOTAL horsepower AND torque, or do you just want horsepower per liter? If I made a 3 cylnder 1 liter engine that had 150 horsepower per liter, would want it in your car? I sure as hell wouldn't.

    Honda boys get so wrapped up in irelevant things such as horsepower per liter that they miss the big picture. 1: How much does the car cost? 2: What are it's capabilities? 3: Do you like the apparence and amenities?

    #3 is totally a matter of personal taste, but #1 and #2 are where Honda falls very short. Yes, the S2000 is infact a great car for it's class (a roadster). It handles exceptionally well, but the power is lacking. The 2003 Mustang Cobra will hand the S2000 it's ass both in a straight line and on a track. But the S2000 has a much better stopping distance. Yes, the Cobra only has 85 horsepower per liter, but when you can dominate the other car.. does that really matter?

    PS: If Honda could so easily make an affordable 1000 horsepower production car, why don't they? And don't give me this "they're not allowed to" crap. Otherwise the rumors about the 400 horspower V8 NSX would be a complete falicy from the start.

    PPS: Take a look at the Cadillac Cien concept. There's your 100 horsepower per liter since you're so hung up on that unimportant statistic. 7.5 liters, 450 ft/lbs of torque, 750 horsepower, and very expesive. <!-- Signature -->
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SPHZ</i>
    <b>I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

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

    Maybe you don't want to sound like a *****, but you do.

    1: Horse power per liter is much easier to get from a SMALLER engine because it's easier to rev them high in the RPM Range.

    2: Horse power per liter doesn't do dick for performance

    3: Torque is the real tricky thing to produce with small displacement, not horse power. Show me a N/A 2.0L I4 with 240 ft/lbs of torque, THEN I'll be impressed.

    4: What does your 120 horse power per liter give you in this car? A 240 horsepower, 153 ft/lbs of torque car that gets worse gas mileage than the 5.7 liter 405 horsepower, 400 ft/lbs of torque Corvette LS6 engine.

    You have to be pretty narrow minded to think that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge don't have the money and resourses to produce a tiny high reving engine with lots of horsepower per liter. That makes no sense at all. Especially when you consider Ford owns Mazda who designed the rotary engine RX-7, which many import fans consider to be the God of Japanese sports cars.

    Did any of you read the lastest Car and Driver shootout between the SVT Focus, the Civic Si, and the VW Golf GTI?
    Guess who came in first... the SVT Focus. And if you think Car and Driver was only looking at 1/4 mile times you're wrong. The GTI blew away both Ford and Honda with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and they came in 3rd. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Tell me Vette man, does the NA Focus beat any of those cars? Nope, not a chance. Make it a fair compairo and run it against the TypeS RSX or even the Civic TypeR when it comes out. The SVT supercharged Focus has more torque then both of these cars I just mentioned, but yet it doesn't even come close to performance stats. Maybe hp/liter does make a difference then huh? A low 16 in the 1/4 is not impressive with a supercharged car. Take that SVT Focus and see what it does against the older/faster Civic Si with a NA 1.6L. The new Civic Si isn't going to be the Civic performace car here anymore like it was in previous years, so Honda didn't make it much of a performer. The reason being is because the Civic TypeR is due out next year, which has the same engine and tranny as the TypeS RSX, but in a smaller package. I can't wait til they come over, very sweet cars compaired to American in the same class. Focus SVT?? LMAO! Cavalier Z24?? LMAO! Saturn?? LMAO! God help the American cars with anything short of a V8 if they both come over from Japan.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. SeansVette, Horsepower per liter does mean a lot. If you have two of the exact same size engines, one has 120hp/liter and the other has 60hp/liter, which one would you want? Don’t ask us stupid question either, “If I made a 3 cylinder 1 liter engine that had 150 horsepower per liter, would want it in your car?”, shut up!!
     
  13. Okay Hold your horses guys, both HP/L sides of the argument whether PRO or CON have some truth in them. SeansVette has a point when he says "total" HP is what makes the difference along with the according Torque that comes with it. having High HP/L on a smaller displacement engine (for instance .. the ONE liter example) does only mean that this engine produces a final amount of HP equal to the HP/L ratio multiplied by the number of liters. But from a mechanical engineering point of view, designing and manufacturing a N/A 4 cyl. engine thats capable of producing 250HP is worth HUGE respect. especially if the engine was very precise and efficient!
    But Sean, you keep on saying that HP is nothing but a calculated value, and that torque is what counts, but thats not true. the only reason behind your statement is the fact that all dynos are capable of measuring rotaional force off of the crank or the rear wheels. but believe me, from a technical point of view, Power is the main element when any engine/motor/generator is under technical contemplation, not Torque.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from civichatch</i>
    <b>SeansVette, Horsepower per liter does mean a lot. If you have two of the exact same size engines, one has 120hp/liter and the other has 60hp/liter, which one would you want? Don’t ask us stupid question either, “If I made a 3 cylinder 1 liter engine that had 150 horsepower per liter, would want it in your car?”, shut up!! </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    LOL!
    If you have two of the exact size engines, one has 120hp/liter and the other has 60hp/liter... the one with 120hp/liter has more (TOTAL) horsepower now doesn't it!
    Think before you type. <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from accordsirh22a</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SPHZ</i>
    <b>I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

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

    Maybe you don't want to sound like a *****, but you do.

    1: Horse power per liter is much easier to get from a SMALLER engine because it's easier to rev them high in the RPM Range.

    2: Horse power per liter doesn't do dick for performance

    3: Torque is the real tricky thing to produce with small displacement, not horse power. Show me a N/A 2.0L I4 with 240 ft/lbs of torque, THEN I'll be impressed.

    4: What does your 120 horse power per liter give you in this car? A 240 horsepower, 153 ft/lbs of torque car that gets worse gas mileage than the 5.7 liter 405 horsepower, 400 ft/lbs of torque Corvette LS6 engine.

    You have to be pretty narrow minded to think that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge don't have the money and resourses to produce a tiny high reving engine with lots of horsepower per liter. That makes no sense at all. Especially when you consider Ford owns Mazda who designed the rotary engine RX-7, which many import fans consider to be the God of Japanese sports cars.

    Did any of you read the lastest Car and Driver shootout between the SVT Focus, the Civic Si, and the VW Golf GTI?
    Guess who came in first... the SVT Focus. And if you think Car and Driver was only looking at 1/4 mile times you're wrong. The GTI blew away both Ford and Honda with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and they came in 3rd. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Tell me Vette man, does the NA Focus beat any of those cars? Nope, not a chance. Make it a fair compairo and run it against the TypeS RSX or even the Civic TypeR when it comes out. The SVT supercharged Focus has more torque then both of these cars I just mentioned, but yet it doesn't even come close to performance stats. Maybe hp/liter does make a difference then huh? A low 16 in the 1/4 is not impressive with a supercharged car. Take that SVT Focus and see what it does against the older/faster Civic Si with a NA 1.6L. The new Civic Si isn't going to be the Civic performace car here anymore like it was in previous years, so Honda didn't make it much of a performer. The reason being is because the Civic TypeR is due out next year, which has the same engine and tranny as the TypeS RSX, but in a smaller package. I can't wait til they come over, very sweet cars compaired to American in the same class. Focus SVT?? LMAO! Cavalier Z24?? LMAO! Saturn?? LMAO! God help the American cars with anything short of a V8 if they both come over from Japan.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Hmm.. now how am I supposed to argue with that? Well, let me think.
    I can start by informing you that the SVT FOCUS IS (NOT) SUPERCHARGED!

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAA!

    What a dumbass
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>Okay Hold your horses guys, both HP/L sides of the argument whether PRO or CON have some truth in them. SeansVette has a point when he says "total" HP is what makes the difference along with the according Torque that comes with it. having High HP/L on a smaller displacement engine (for instance .. the ONE liter example) does only mean that this engine produces a final amount of HP equal to the HP/L ratio multiplied by the number of liters. But from a mechanical engineering point of view, designing and manufacturing a N/A 4 cyl. engine thats capable of producing 250HP is worth HUGE respect. especially if the engine was very precise and efficient!
    But Sean, you keep on saying that HP is nothing but a calculated value, and that torque is what counts, but thats not true. the only reason behind your statement is the fact that all dynos are capable of measuring rotaional force off of the crank or the rear wheels. but believe me, from a technical point of view, Power is the main element when any engine/motor/generator is under technical contemplation, not Torque.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Simzer,
    I never said horsepower is not important, infact I did say that TOTAL horspower IS important. But here's the point. Horsepower AND torque are important. For acceleration torque is a greater factor. For top speed horsepower is a greater factor. In any case, building a small, high reving engine will give you low torque with (relatively) high horsepower. Building a larger engine will give you high torque AND high horsepower, usually even more than the high reving 4 banger.

    I still stand by my word that horsepower per liter is completely unimportant for performance. In the end it's only the results on the track and drag strip that matter. <!-- Signature -->
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from civichatch</i>
    <b>SeansVette, Horsepower per liter does mean a lot. If you have two of the exact same size engines, one has 120hp/liter and the other has 60hp/liter, which one would you want? Don’t ask us stupid question either, “If I made a 3 cylinder 1 liter engine that had 150 horsepower per liter, would want it in your car?”, shut up!! </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    LOL!
    If you have two of the exact size engines, one has 120hp/liter and the other has 60hp/liter... the one with 120hp/liter has more (TOTAL) horsepower now doesn't it!
    Think before you type. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    LMAO! You’re real good with the words, aren’t you? Anyways, “total” power is needed to find HP/L or HP/L is needed to find “total” power. I could say my car makes 100 HP/L (total power, 160hp), you can say you’re car makes a "total" 350hp (61.4 HP/L). It the same thing only said different. I could also say my car makes 40hp/cylinder and yours makes 43.75hp/cylinder. You make absolutely no sense to me, but you are funny though
     
  18. Horsepower PER LITER is meaningless. If an engine is larger, has more horsepower, AND less HP/Liter... it STILL has more horsepower does it not? <!-- Signature -->
     
  19. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Horsepower PER LITER is meaningless. If an engine is larger, has more horsepower, AND less HP/Liter... it STILL has more horsepower does it not? </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Yes, it still has more horsepower. You say HP/L is meaningless, but you’re simply wrong. If you have no HP/L, you have nothing, no horsepower, not torque, get it yet? It’s just another way of saying what your horsepower is, but I guess you’ll never get it. I would agree if you said, “having a higher HP/L is meaningless”, but you didn’t say that!! Got it?
     
  20. If chevy or ford could make a decent engine then they would be winning formula 1 but theyre not so shut up. Everyone knows honda makes the best engines, it just so happens that BAR chassis suck.
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from civichatch</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Horsepower PER LITER is meaningless. If an engine is larger, has more horsepower, AND less HP/Liter... it STILL has more horsepower does it not? </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Yes, it still has more horsepower. You say HP/L is meaningless, but you’re simply wrong. If you have no HP/L, you have nothing, no horsepower, not torque, get it yet? It’s just another way of saying what your horsepower is, but I guess you’ll never get it. I would agree if you said, “having a higher HP/L is meaningless”, but you didn’t say that!! Got it?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Oh that's not what I said? Read up. Better yet I'll copy and paste what I said.
    "Horsepower per liter does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for performance. Total horsepower does"
    Got it?

    And if (YOU) realize that it means nothing, great. I wasn't talking to you. <!-- Signature -->
     
  22. SeansVette:

    I have no clue what you were trying to say in your last post, and I don’t really care. I think you understand what I was saying was right and that’s all that matters.
     
  23. let me try and help end this.

    hp/litre does NOT do anything for performance. thats right. nothing at all. BUT, it is a good measure of an engine's engineering. 125 hp/litre is very impressive. thats why when the cien came out, everyone was gawking at its 100 hp/litre out of 7.5 (?) litres.

    it doesnt make a car faster, it just shows the efficiency of an engine. (not fuel economy) it shows how much power one can get from each litre. would you rather have a 2.0 litre engine with

    a) 60 hp/litre (like the viper)

    or

    b) 125 hp/litre (s2k)?

    yet with the vipers 60 hp/litre, it easily beats the s2k on the strip. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  24. Buzzbomber and SeansVette:
    Boneheads, I swear!! Let me get this straight. If I have two engines of the same size, let’s say a 5.7L V8. One puts out 350hp and the other puts out 400hp. Which one would perform better, saying they were in the exact same cars, 350hp or 400hp? Will the one making 61.4hp/L perform better, no, the one making 70.18hp/L will. I know it has more “total” horsepower, but it also has more HP/L. They go together!! How hard is this to understand?? You can’t compare two different size engines when talking about HP/L. You need to understand that!! Please, don’t post a reply. I’m done trying to get this through to both of you!!
     
  25. You guys are sad. Seriously. The S2000 is a nice vehicle. It wasn't built to be a #$%#ing road monster that competes with Ferraris and Corvettes or Vipers. Honda wanted to make a sports roadster to make sales against the Z3 and Z8 roadsters, not performance, SALES. Honda doesn't think about people like us and say, OK WE GOTTA MAKE A HOT ASS CAR THAT KICKS COREVETTES! They are more like 'let's make some #$%#ing cash.' So I think it's pretty #$%#ing retarded that you guys are talking about how your big V8 road warriors could hand this thing it's ass. Just shut up. If you want to argue about that shit, go to the NSX forum or the Ferrari, or whatever. That's like saying 'Your Civic DX would get wasted by my Camaro.' NO SHIT SHERLOCK! And my 150 pound Rottweiler can tear apart your mut. God damn some people piss me off. Learn to classify cars dumb asses.
    Chad
     

Share This Page