Reasons why this car sucks

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by SHOboy, Apr 7, 2003.

  1. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    lol. Your comparing the S2000's engine with an F-1 engine!? too bad those things are million dollar plus engines. This car as well as all Honda's are over rated in my book. Everyone see's the VTEC sticker on the side and they get mezmorized. And as for that one idiot who decided to come on here and say "you told him!" your a dipshit. If your going to come on here and say stupid shit like that then we don't want you here. Either contribute to the argument or shut the hell up. I went to Atco on thursday and saw 3 S2000's there. The fastest one there was running a 14.1 because of his NOS setup. I saw each of them race once and then they left. The first one ran a Nissan 240SX with an SR20DET engine swap, boost controller, CAI, catback exhaust, NOS, headers, and ECU. So they race and the S2000 gets smoked! 240SX's ET: 12.429...S2000's ET: 15.183. WOW! Speed demon! Next one lines up with the Nitrous setup. He line's up next to a Supra TT. The S2000 loses. Supra's ET: 13.745...S2000's ET: 14.274. Last race was my favorite. You remember that example I used at the beginning of this thread Honda Rulez? The 350Z vs. S2000 *since they cost about the same* well they raced. The 350Z was a track edition. The 350Z ran a 14.410 and the S2000 ran a 15.391 *the guy had no idea what he was doing* so once again the S2000 comes out the loser. I dunno why you sticking up for this POS. All it is is a over priced roadster. You next nothing for the money so why spend it to being with? Oh yeah...I remember why people get it! VTEC BABY!!!
     
  2. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Well, u gotta understand that teh S2000 is INTENDED TO BE THIS WAY - a street legal F-1 style car. If u dun't understand this, ur no car enthusiastic ( i know i spelled this word wrong). Hodna basically put its F-1 technology into the S2000. If Honda wants to make a torquey sports car, it can easily put a Pilot's engine in to the s2000's body, the cost would be cheaper too. But no, Honda wants to break some records. I'm not surprised that teh 240sx won at all, since it has been modified so much. The SR20DET is capable of 400hp with its stock parts. Again, teh S2000 isn't built for drag racing. There's no doubt a 350z would beat a s2000 on a straight line. Come on, it has 47 more hp. Also, the 350z was designed in whcih year? 2003; how bout the S2000? 1999, see the difference there? The S2000 is in its 2nd to last year of production if not the last.
     
  3. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    And the 240SX was developed when? As well as the SR20DET engine? Oh yeah a hell of a lot earlier then 1999. For about $8000 you could have a 240SX hatchback with just the SR20DET in it and it would smoke a S2000. And the 240SX as well as the SR20DET were developed many years earlier before the S2000. So if you want to compare build dates then there you go.
     
  4. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Yep, but in terms of handling, which is better? Every professional driver knows that the S2000 handles better, unless ur a drifter.

    The SR20DET is great, but too bad, after so many years of development, it still failed to meet the minimum requirements of the emission law. On the other hand, Honda still managed to meet the strict law even though it has such high redline and hp/l ratio; i'm not saying that high hp/l helps performance, but it's just a fact that it's pretty amazing to get 120hp/l while meeting the strict emission law. So yea, it's not hard to make an engine or a car to go fast with little money, but meeting emission law is the hard part.
     
  5. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont think this car was created for drag racing...AT ALL. See if your Spec V can keep up with the S2000 on the track. Obviously, this car is not meant to be driven at low rpm's if you want to go fast. You need to keep it revving high if you want to keep the available acceleration up. If you have a family or if you want a car to drive around town in, buy the Spec V but if you want to race this car on a track(not drag race), buy this car. Sure, most people dont race their cars, but most people buy cars on looks anyways. I would say probably half of S2000 owners have no idea why this car is so special and never go over the 7000 rpm range where the power really starts. Who drives 30 miles an hour in first gear anyways??? This car is OBVIOUSLY made for the track so whomever compares its 0-60 times, its quarter mile times, is very dense and knows nothing about cars.
     
  6. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Jeez...so many ignorant people here. Lets get somethings straight. The S2000 is a pure sports car, it wasn't made to have low end torque because a sports car doesn't need to be at low revs. The engine was built to be revved quick and high. The acceleration of RPMs in the s2k is probably the fastest ever in a production car. What I mean by that this engine gains revs like no other, its almost like a motorcycle engine. So yeah, this engine is a short stroke engine, meaning it uses high revs to make its power. So what other engines do this? F1 and motorcycle engines. Too many people get the illusion that it takes forever for the s2k to get to its lofty 9000 redline, but have you ever driven an S2k, if you did then you would know that with a quick blip of the throttle, the engine quickly jumps to higher speeds. And because its a short stroke engine, Honda used much shorter gear ratios along with ultra light flywheel to take advantage of the peaky power.

    So with all this good stuff on a such a small engine, why do people tend complain about its engine? The best reason is that people don't understand the purpose of the engine. Remember, its a pure sports car, daily driving is not its forte. And most rookie drivers wouldn't know how to use the peaky power, so they complain when they should've been complaining that they lack the skill to use the engine to its potential. Bad drivers simply lug the engine when driving the S2k because they don't know when to shift. But avid drivers would notice how fun it is to shift at high RPMs. If the S2k used a longer stroke in order to gain more torque, the car itself would actually be slower. Remember, short stroke engines emphasize high RPM power while a long stroke engine emphasizes low end torque. A S2k with a longer stroke 2.0 motor would be slower, the torque would just become unneeded for a such a lightweight car. Its simply the nature of the beast. Like how an F1 engine has a 18000 RPM redline but never drops below 10000 RPMs under the hands of a world class driver. And oh, F1 engines make about 900 HP from its 3 liter engine, but only make 250 Lbs of torque! Who says torque wins races when you only got as much torque as a typical V6 but be able to fly around road courses over 200 MPH? Talk about ultra short stroke huh? But yeah, an F1 car was built to be at the track, the S2k is no different although quite a bit less extreme and reliable and light enough to be driven on the street.
     
  7. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    "F1 and motorcycle engines. Too many people get the illusion that it takes forever for the s2k to get to its lofty 9000 redline, but have you ever driven an S2k, if you did then you would know that with a quick blip of the throttle, the engine quickly jumps to higher speeds. And because its a short stroke engine, Honda used much shorter gear ratios along with ultra light flywheel to take advantage of the peaky power."

    -Unfortunately, the gearing and nature of the short stroke comes at a price. As you said, not the best daily driver. At the risk of being yelled at for the next 20 posts, if I wanted a light, nimble high reving vehicle with no roof, I would probably go with an R6. It'd be cheaper too. But thats just my opinion, though I do 100% respect the car.

    "If the S2k used a longer stroke in order to gain more torque, the car itself would actually be slower. Remember, short stroke engines emphasize high RPM power while a long stroke engine emphasizes low end torque. A S2k with a longer stroke 2.0 motor would be slower, the torque would just become unneeded for a such a lightweight car. Its simply the nature of the beast. "

    -A longer stroke wouldn't necessarily make the car slower, it would just lower the efficiency (HP/L) of the engine. I'm sure that the Shelby Cobras have a pretty long stroke and yet in a recent test put on by Road and Track, it managed to out accelerate, and run faster through the slalom and I think even beat on the track a 2003 Z06 and a Viper SRT 10. Giving the engine a larger displacement through a longer stroke would probably decrease the redline but would probably add more power and certainly more torque over a broader range. This would change the driving aspects of the car completly though.

    "Like how an F1 engine has a 18000 RPM redline but never drops below 10000 RPMs under the hands of a world class driver. And oh, F1 engines make about 900 HP from its 3 liter engine, but only make 250 Lbs of torque! Who says torque wins races when you only got as much torque as a typical V6 but be able to fly around road courses over 200 MPH? Talk about ultra short stroke huh? But yeah, an F1 car was built to be at the track, the S2k is no different although quite a bit less extreme and reliable and light enough to be driven on the street. "

    -The F1 is a classic example. Unfortunately most street cars don't have million dollar engines in them. Besides, the relativly low revving torquey C5-Rs are doing pretty well.
     
  8. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    I have not read all the posts here but I would like to say that this is probably one of the greatest road car engines ever built, certainly as a 2L. It`s a phenominal peice of engineering and reliable too.
     
  9. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    The reason being for it not having a lot of torque is because the F1 car weighs next to nothing. So why bother having the torque of a NASCAR that weighs two maybe three times as much? All it will do is spin tires. And as for the Spec V keeping up with S2000's on the track...my friend races his Spec V in the SCCA and he's destroyed many S2000's as well as ITR's.
     
  10. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    How about you guys who hate honda cars since they are good shut up ok. Tourqe is just for acceleration also look at the bhp per liter. A raly race car has 150 bhp per liter and this has around 125 so its a good horsepower. The only reason you might think its over priced or a little too high is because of the technology thats put in the car. Other manufacturers just use old engines and the chasis.
     
  11. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Yea, of coz, weight si very important, and the S2k is very light when comparing to its competitors. So, if u ahve a heavy car, torque is quite important, but for such a light car, and for its purpose, high end power is mroe important. I'm sure tuned spec Vs can beat S2000s, there's no doubt, any car can go fast with proper tuning and setup. But when u compare track times, u need to be fair. How? Well, read the track times from car magazines, they are tested by professional drivers, that's more accurate.
     
  12. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    I meant getting out of a corner.
     
  13. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    You have to know that torque does have its advantages. Yes, maybe the S2K does rev quickly.
    Anyways, more torque gives you a faster take off. Those F1 don't have very quick take offs, but they rely on short strokes to make much higher top speeds, which helps in making the car go around the circuit in 200 MPH.
    You can have a quick accelerating car that can burn out a fast top speed car out of corners, or you can have fast top speed cars that never have to slow down since they're going fast enough. Each type has its advantage.
     
  14. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    No need for that. Why would you?
     
  15. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    No need! You would never shift out of 2 . Why would you think that?
     
  16. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    F-1 cars don't take off fast?? They do 0-60mph in 2.3 sec, I think that's fast.
     
  17. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Me too.
     
  18. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Your ignorance knows no bounds, and he was right that I told you, you haven't even responded to my post yet, so obviously I did put you in your place.

    I find it hilarious that in none of your examples of the 3 S2000's you saw race, you did not mention the S2000 that ran 14.1, hmmm could you be FOS?? Yep, I think so.

    And what about the fact that the STOCK S2K runs 14.1? hmmm...more BS...

    Your idiocy is not helping anyone, please, for everyone's sake, stop posting.

    The FairladyZ has always been a great car, but since the S2000 came out, it's been faster, even though it's not even in the same class, get a grip boy, the S2000 is better than you'd like to believe.
     
  19. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    I agree with the very first guy, theres one thing you cant improve on this car, and thats the fact that its a honda, plus this car is excessively over rated by the way some people talk about it
     
  20. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    Another uneducated person.
     
  21. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    The S2000 is a $30,000 sports car. It was introduced four years ago so it reached its peak sales a LONG time ago and an update is very near. It offered:

    -the best handling on the market (this is not a drag racer, and a sports car does not need to be fast in a straight line to be a good sports car)
    -sub 6 second 0-60
    -30+mpg
    -a beautiful exterior
    -incredible reliability
    -a power convertible top
    -a quirky and satisfying interior
    -an engine that will sing all the way to 9000rpm (fact: a high redline is A PLUS).

    In 1999 with all these features, I say $30,000 is a good deal.

    Please do not associate SHOboy with all Nissan owners.
     
  22. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    lol. Your comparing the S2000's engine with an F-1 engine!? too bad those things are million dollar plus engines. This car as well as all Honda's are over rated in my book. Everyone see's the VTEC sticker on the side and they get mezmorized. And as for that one idiot who decided to come on here and say "you told him!" your a dipshit. If your going to come on here and say stupid shit like that then we don't want you here. Either contribute to the argument or shut the hell up. I went to Atco on thursday and saw 3 S2000's there. The fastest one there was running a 14.1 because of his NOS setup. I saw each of them race once and then they left. The first one ran a Nissan 240SX with an SR20DET engine swap, boost controller, CAI, catback exhaust, NOS, headers, and ECU. So they race and the S2000 gets smoked! 240SX's ET: 12.429...S2000's ET: 15.183. WOW! Speed demon! Next one lines up with the Nitrous setup. He line's up next to a Supra TT. The S2000 loses. Supra's ET: 13.745...S2000's ET: 14.274. Last race was my favorite. You remember that example I used at the beginning of this thread Honda Rulez? The 350Z vs. S2000 *since they cost about the same* well they raced. The 350Z was a track edition. The 350Z ran a 14.410 and the S2000 ran a 15.391 *the guy had no idea what he was doing* so once again the S2000 comes out the loser. I dunno why you sticking up for this POS. All it is is a over priced roadster. You next nothing for the money so why spend it to being with? Oh yeah...I remember why people get it! VTEC BABY!!!



    Hahahah... how funny.. Just few words.. S2000 kills fairlady. Download the proof from Kazaa if you wish. There is a plenty of movies there that can prove that. I saw only one where S2000 lost, and it was to M3... And not that huge of a loss (m3 has more than 300 bhp) , and in fact, the s2000 began to catch up in after few seconds..
    Anyway... stop writing stupid things against s2000 because the car can smoke most of the other cars in the street racing, and I am not talking about the 0-60 but real street racing... From one part of the city to another... You know why? Because the power that comes out in those high revs can't be compared to any of those shitty cars you are mentioning here... Thank you
     
  23. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    The car has gains more speed and stability at the same time in the corners on lowe gear. I know 1st gear is way too low, but some cars drive too slow even on 2nd gear, so you have no choice but to go to 1st gear.
     
  24. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    This is the best car ever so shut the mother #$%#er up.
     
  25. Re: Reasons why this car sucks

    But u rarely shift to 1st gear with this car.
     

Share This Page