S2000 -vs- 88 IROC.. Stuuuupid Honda. lol

Subscribe
Aug 13, 2002 | 12:14 AM
  #1  
Aight, I'm new to the board so I'm gonna go ahead and say whats up to everyone.. I'm Joe.

So I'm down at the local "Ave" cruisin around w/ my buddy and this yellow Honda S2000 is whippin around and I could tell he was lookin for a race, I mean.. why else bring a $34,000 "Sports Car" out to the local race spot right? LoL

Anyway, I pull up to a red light and what rolls up next to me throwing a pretty nasty 9,000RPM Red-Line Rev? Damn you guys are smart.. the S2000. LoL So my boy Dave is like "Dude, throw this kid the pipes and smoke him" - I didn't throw him the pipes, just got in the brake and preped my 2grand launch.

Light goes green and I ease into the gas for a second and he gets about a half-fender lead.. I floor it at about 3,200RPM and I reel him in and take a half-car lead leaving a decent strip as I do so I might add, lol - grab 2nd and the car gets alittle sideways and by the end of 2nd I was up 2 car lengths got half-way through 3rd and he was toast. I let off and coast to another red light where he pulls up next to me and suprisingly.. was cool about it.

"Hey.. Car sounds nice" he says.
My buddy is like "Yeah, It goes alright."
"Yeah.. Its Umm... Its Got.. Its.. Big Engine. Powerful Engine." The kid in the S2000 says as he's pointing to all sorts of things on my car not knowing what to say. LoL

Gotta love beating expensive cars.

Ofcoarse I got the tradiational Honda "I didn't launch it hard" excuse.. Oh well, little does he know I launched at 1/4 Throttle

One More.. For The Good Guys! :lala:
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 12:22 AM
  #2  
S2000 Performance #'s:
0-60: 5.4 Seconds
ET: 14.1 @ 99.6

Got that from Car/Driver
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 12:51 AM
  #3  
**** on c/d i crush these cars every time they try to race
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:11 AM
  #4  
Well excuse me for posting about "Crushing" one too. The kid also said he brought his car to the track and ran a 14.3 so Car and Driver can't be all that far off. Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

I went to the track and ran a 14.004 @ 100.7MPH on street tires, launching real easy.. due to the balding street tires, lol, and a slipping stock 700R4. Now I got a "Built" 700R4 w/ bigger servo's and all that good stuff, a 2,300 stall and a 120lb System in the hatch, LoL Can't wait to get up to the track to see wassup w/ my times now. I'm hoping for 13.7 on Street Tires w/ an Easy Launch all day. We'll see.
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:22 AM
  #5  
i wasn't being sarcastic. i guess all the ones i've raced just had poopy drivers
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:26 AM
  #6  
good kill , i'm just tired and came off wrong
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:33 AM
  #7  
Thats cool, nice win.

IROC-Z28 :rockon:
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:33 AM
  #8  
No problem man, Its all good. I didn't think you wanted to "Cyber-Fight" over it or nothin.

You got any good kills lately? I'm sure w/ a 14.0 and the new **** you got your prolly smokin afew cars worth talkin about lol
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:40 AM
  #9  
still on jack stands marking spots for the welding of the connectors. it will all be done this weekend hitting the track in 2 weeks for new times. i'm marking the spots because this is the first thing i'm doing to the car that i didn't do on my driveway and i wan't them in the right spots
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:43 AM
  #10  
Yeah, I noticed a huge different when I put on my Comp. Eng. Sub-Frames, but then again.. I also redid the entire rear suspension w/ Hotchkis stuff, lowered it 1.3" all around, all poly bushings, and new poly-sway bar end-links at the same time so..

But yeah, post some times when ya get to the track, I'm interested to see what you run. Its gotta be 13's but one can only guess how low.
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:50 AM
  #11  
i'm going crazy waiting ahhhh. 13's yes, exactly where in the 13 i have no idea
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 03:45 AM
  #12  
good kill but why does everyone compare there heavily modded f-bodies with a bone stock car not necisarily built for straightt line performance....

i guess the question is.. do you hate on teh car, or the moron driving them.. cause imho it is a great car..
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 10:22 AM
  #13  
i'm not heavily modded just a few bolt ons
i consider internal mods heavy mods. i mean i still have the stock intake manifold runners and plenum. the only porting i've done is to the plenum right at the front casting marks. my goal is 12's on stock cam and heads. i believe it to be possible
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 10:27 AM
  #14  
Quote:
Originally posted by snjracer
good kill but why does everyone compare there heavily modded f-bodies with a bone stock car not necisarily built for straightt line performance....

i guess the question is.. do you hate on teh car, or the moron driving them.. cause imho it is a great car..
Maybe cause other people like to compare their stock ''NEW TECHNOLOGY" cars to ours, Just isn't fair is it. I mean compare a stock IROC to a Stock Honda from 1988. Haha.

It's goin to take some mods for ours to keep up with a S2000, what a waste of money.

Nice Kill too.
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 12:26 PM
  #15  
Quote:
Originally posted by snjracer
good kill but why does everyone compare there heavily modded f-bodies with a bone stock car not necisarily built for straightt line performance....

i guess the question is.. do you hate on teh car, or the moron driving them.. cause imho it is a great car..
well i didn't pay $34,000 for my car and think it can run with the C5s
our cars have engines that are in a way 40 year old tech
Gen I GM 350s (and 305)
and we weigh what 3,300 Lbs?
sorry, for the price you pay for a stock s2000 What could you do to a Third Gen?
heck, get a 02" Z-28 for what 28K? and take the other 6 Gs and you have a car running what? low 12s high 11s?????
so the s2000 is an over priced, hard to drive, tiny POS
just my 2c.
biker
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 12:55 PM
  #16  
hell i'd take nice mustang over a s2000 any day of the week. faster and cheaper. can't beat that.

by the way good kill
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:05 PM
  #17  
True, comparing a stock car to a modified car isn't all that fair but the technology is so great now, thats in some cases a modified car from the "Good Ol' Days" can't even keep up with this new technology. Its not like my car is built to rip a 1/4 time and then get trailored home. Its got pretty much everything done to make it handle like a champ not take life "a 1/4 mile at a time" LoL

Anyway, thanks for props.. its always cool to embaress and over-priced car. :lala:
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 01:08 PM
  #18  
Actually i love S2000's (since i have driven one) and would love to have the cash to buy one. They are fun cars, just not straight line beasts. Nice kill though and good to hear the guy was cool about it.

P.s. How many of you guys have driven an S2000? Would just like to know since so many trash the car.
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 02:01 PM
  #19  
Quote:
S2000 Performance #'s:
0-60: 5.4 Seconds
ET: 14.1 @ 99.6
Yeah, if that car runs that then my car runs mid 13s. I know that's not true. The two times I've raced an s2000 I've won by a few car lengths. Could have been ****ty drivers, but I still call


I have ridden in one, and they are actually a nice car.
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 03:51 PM
  #20  
Quote:
Originally posted by jd13


Yeah, if that car runs that then my car runs mid 13s. I know that's not true. The two times I've raced an s2000 I've won by a few car lengths. Could have been ****ty drivers, but I still call


I have ridden in one, and they are actually a nice car.
i beleve the powers that be wanted a car that handles on rails, and not one that runs the 1/4 in 12 secs.
biker
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 04:34 PM
  #21  
Don't get me wrong, I'm an fan of the S2000. Thats why I was so pumped about smokin it. Its a real nice car, and you kinda have to be a decent driver to drive one right anyway. 9,000RPM Red-Line.. alot of people are afraid of 6,000RPM
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 04:35 PM
  #22  
Aight, the fact that my sig. doesn't show all the time is pretty g*y in the face.. lol
Reply 0
Aug 13, 2002 | 09:29 PM
  #23  
Well i know that things eventually get better, and in this case engines and cars have improve alot over the last 15 years. But it also pisses me off that cars like 5.0 stangs, Iroc-z's and GTA's were once the kings of the road, and u wouldnt have to worry about the family sedan next to u, that maybe he can take u.

Nowadays almost every car now out there made can compete with us 3rd gen guys and even beat us! It gets me so mad, i wish the set a "limit" to how fast certain type of cars can get. Like family sedans, luxury cars, and freakin vans.

I'm not against improving technology, and things getting better, but they dont have to make NON-SPORT cars faster, just make them better. After all, when u get a sport car u expect to kick ***, and your only other competition would be another sports car, not some "luxury" car.

Anyways just my thought guys, but if it were up to me, u buy a sports car and u would never worry about any other car unless it was a sports car, or a "modded" family car.

my .02
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 04:34 AM
  #24  
Apples and oranges, guys...I mean, in 1987, you didn't use 'Honda' and 'fast' in the same sentance unless you were talking motorcycles. Fifteen years later, we have fast Hondas. We also have even faster F-bodies.

Joker: I have driven an S2000, and I was impressed. It's not quite my cup of tea, though. I like torque. Lots of torque. The S2K is all about revs. Most non race car / sportbike drivers are a little gun-shy about reving above 6 grand. There are very few vehicles that can/will go much higher than that. To get the max out of an S2K, you have to drive it like you're trying to blow it up. That gets tiresome after a while.....

I like the high-rpm rush in the 300ZX, and the VVT-i in my girlfreind's Carolla is entertaining, but give me the Right-The-F-Now thrust of big torque any day of the week.
(is it any wonder I'm shopping for diesel trucks?)
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 05:00 AM
  #25  
I wouldnt buy/own one myself but I'd glad there are cars out there like the S2000. They are only fast in certain situations, but like mentoned above, the output for the displacement is amazing. The reason I say it is good for us to have cars like ths is because it can show the American car manufacturers whats possible. Right now its fun to laugh at them but whats not to say we might have a 2006 LS1 with variable valve timing putting out 90hp per ltr ... over 500hp stock all motor ...

could happen!!! and if it did, it would be because of the sport compacts.
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 11:16 AM
  #26  
i was recently thumbing through one of my rice rags... adn saw a s200 with SERIOUS suspension package and a blower... even with very low boost it must be sick.. im really looking foward to seeing what they will do modded... i know they are not all that fast but i would hardley say they are that hard to tune.. they are new... and im sure as internals and things of that nature become available they mightget pretty sick pretty fast
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 12:15 PM
  #27  
the thing about an s2000 is that it already comes highly tuned. there's not really much you could do for the car (at least the engine, anyway) that will make it better than stock. it's not like just about all the engines in our cars where there is so much you can do to make the car go faster (cam, heads, etc...).

i'm just saying that it's one of those cars where you have to be pretty much content with what you've got.
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 12:24 PM
  #28  
Quote:
Originally posted by LYV18F
the thing about an s2000 is that it already comes highly tuned. there's not really much you could do for the car (at least the engine, anyway) that will make it better than stock. it's not like just about all the engines in our cars where there is so much you can do to make the car go faster (cam, heads, etc...).

i'm just saying that it's one of those cars where you have to be pretty much content with what you've got.
thats where i disagree... with a fat wallet you can make a geo metro fast... sure it will cost way more to mod the a late 80's stang gt (just an example) but with mild interals and a blower.. i bet it would be pretty sick to drive... pretty fast also.. like i said im just guessing.. so we will haev to wait till i have FACTUAL numbers... as i am not one to BULL****
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 12:35 PM
  #29  
to prove my point, i go to the august 2001 car and driver. they tested a mugen s2000, which cost $56,352 (compared to $32,740 for a stcok 1999 s2000). overall, they put in about $4400 into the engine and around $4000 into the suspension. and all for - get this - A WHOPPING 15 HORSES (not to mention the oh so impressive 4 lbft of torque).

so if you're willing to almost double the price of your s2000, you can have a 255 hp speed machine instead of your regular old run of the mill 240 hp piece of trash.

i hope that helped
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 01:05 PM
  #30  
Quote:
Originally posted by LYV18F
to prove my point, i go to the august 2001 car and driver. they tested a mugen s2000, which cost $56,352 (compared to $32,740 for a stcok 1999 s2000). overall, they put in about $4400 into the engine and around $4000 into the suspension. and all for - get this - A WHOPPING 15 HORSES (not to mention the oh so impressive 4 lbft of torque).

so if you're willing to almost double the price of your s2000, you can have a 255 hp speed machine instead of your regular old run of the mill 240 hp piece of trash.

i hope that helped
very easy to believe since mugen is over priced crap.. seriously... i mean quality is good.. but ***.. chips alone are like a G plus... i still say put a blower on it.. im sure it will boost more than 5 hp..
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 03:51 PM
  #31  
i thought since the S2000 had such high compression, you cant really throw much boost at it. if this is true, a charger will help, but not all that much
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 03:56 PM
  #32  
Quote:
Originally posted by tpivette89
i thought since the S2000 had such high compression, you cant really throw much boost at it. if this is true, a charger will help, but not all that much
i agree completely.. that is why i am waiting to see some real numbers... i KNOW that a blower has been added.. i dunno if it is in standard production yet
Reply 0
Aug 14, 2002 | 10:17 PM
  #33  
Yes there are supercharger kits for the S2000. They are very expensive and prolly dont run high boost (as the engine has a 10.5:1 CR) but they really make up for the lack of power at the low RPM. Look for the post of the Supercharged S2000 beating the IROC-Z.

Another trick people are doing is (believe it or not) a 20 shot of nitrous to cheat the low revs. They hit the button at the beginning of each shift to get right into the powerband (jumps from 1500 rpm to 5000 rpm really fast). This can cause amazing results. Forget having no power at low RPM's. Heck forget about the low RPM's altogether!! For any of you who have driven the S2000, imagine driving around in the powerband (5k - 9k) all the time. That thing would be a blast to race!

My friend did the same setup on his Nissan 240 sx with the stock motor. He installed a 50 shot, tuned it to shoot 20, put in the extra large bottle and went down to the track. All motor he ran a 16.1, but when he used the juice at the right times to get right into the powerband (20 shot believe it or not) he posted a 14.3. Pretty amazing!! And not hard on the motor at all (like the guys who hit it at the high rpm and go boom).
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 08:43 AM
  #34  
I have heard something like that, too. I'm not sure if it was a drag racer or a rallyist, but they were using a little tiny shot to keep the turbos spooled up.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 09:00 AM
  #35  
on modding an S2000: High performance cars are bought to go fast and handle well. Well, the kinds of people who buy these cars always want to be a little faster or corner a little better. Check out the new (September) issue of Car&Driver for their Supercar Shoot-out. Among the players are three Vipers, three Corvettes, and a Nine-Eleven. All of these cars, in stock form, can whip up on almost any other car on the road, but people still want to go faster.

I mean, we all want to go faster, that's why we're here, right? Why should S2000 owners be any different?
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 09:07 AM
  #36  
sweet kill man good job!
I like the way u wrote that also.
got me into the story and I pictured all of it in my mind.
sweet kill
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 02:43 PM
  #37  
i have seen a S2000 at the track with a vortech supercharger. It supposed to add over 100hp. It ran a low 13 I think
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 02:45 PM
  #38  
Thanks Davecamaro.. I take pride in my mother goose like ability to tell stories.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 02:57 PM
  #39  
An S2000 would be so easy to mod for big power it would be ridiculous. Know why it costs so much? Engine builders aren't doing it, mag editors are. Use some sense. It revs to the sky, so the cam and valve train are already done. Next thing is it needs to suck way more air. Sheet metal intake big enough to house a small family and tubular 1-3/4 headers that are stock length instead of those speghetti stings that are on it now. The only restriction left is the head, so you hog that out on a mock up until you hit water, and then don't go quite as far on the next one. Cut it for big huge valves, and mill it down to 12 or 13 point or higher compression and go racing. After a little custom work and some actual machine shop time you got a pretty good little *** kicker. Who ever thinks this is impossible can look up some records for 2.0 Pintos and those are only 2V heads.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 03:10 PM
  #40  
the only way to make them faster is forced induction, they are pretty much maxed for n/a performance without going way over 9k rpms. i have heard they arent a lot of fun to drive daily due to lack of low end torque.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 03:15 PM
  #41  
Quote:
Originally posted by snjracer
good kill but why does everyone compare there heavily modded f-bodies with a bone stock car not necisarily built for straightt line performance....

i guess the question is.. do you hate on teh car, or the moron driving them.. cause imho it is a great car..
I think its actually the other way around. Ricers often know not to mess with a first or second gen camaro/TA , especially if it has been restored because likely its stock. Third gens are another thing though, their were so many of them made, that one day they could be chewing up a badged up berlinetta/IROC, and the next get decimated by an RS. Fact of the matter is, the just don't know what to expect from a 20 year old car. I kinda like that.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 03:16 PM
  #42  
I still don't buy that. There is no way a car that passes smog is maxed out. I do see how taking it to the redline every time would get annoying. Oh well this is getting way to deep into the BS for me. Later.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 07:28 PM
  #43  
Gotta remember that shlt is a 4 banger. I've heard "be all that you can be" but that car is their and then some. It seems that a lot of the import manuf. are afraid to embrace the V8.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 08:26 PM
  #44  
Quote:
Originally posted by ATOMonkey
I still don't buy that. There is no way a car that passes smog is maxed out. I do see how taking it to the redline every time would get annoying. Oh well this is getting way to deep into the BS for me. Later.
yeah i didnt think of pulling the smog out. i dunno if i were buying it i would want a car that i thought had some more ponies to be pulled out of it, the only buildups of those cars i see are supercharger setups.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 09:13 PM
  #45  
You guys gotta remember, the car hasn't been out for mad years like the "Small Block Chevy" so its gonna take some time for parts to start rolling in to make that little speedster into a rocket. And your trying to tell me that its "Maxed Out" From the factory? So if i were to take it all apart, there would be no room to bore the block out.. no room for ANY head work.. it comes stock with JE pistons or something.. stock with a stroker kit maybe? Don't give me that. Theres always room for improvement on ANYTHING. Even a built engine. How do you think cars got so fast anyway? At one point, 200HP was crazy.. and no look at it. Vipers come w/ 500+ stock and STILL Has an aftermarket.
My 2 Cents.. or something
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 09:24 PM
  #46  
Quote:
Originally posted by TheRoc88
You guys gotta remember, the car hasn't been out for mad years like the "Small Block Chevy" so its gonna take some time for parts to start rolling in to make that little speedster into a rocket.
And I doubt it will be around for long.
Reply 0
Aug 15, 2002 | 09:54 PM
  #47  
Quote:
And I doubt it will be around for long.
good point. it was supposed to be a limited thing for the year 2000 only (hence s2000) but they sold pretty well. my friends from school that are obsessed with them say that they should be out of production soon.

Quote:
You guys gotta remember, the car hasn't been out for mad years like the "Small Block Chevy" so its gonna take some time for parts to start rolling in to make that little speedster into a rocket. And your trying to tell me that its "Maxed Out" From the factory? So if i were to take it all apart, there would be no room to bore the block out.. no room for ANY head work.. it comes stock with JE pistons or something.. stock with a stroker kit maybe? Don't give me that. Theres always room for improvement on ANYTHING. Even a built engine. How do you think cars got so fast anyway? At one point, 200HP was crazy.. and no look at it. Vipers come w/ 500+ stock and STILL Has an aftermarket.
another good point, i really didn't take into account how long the car has been around. BUT, my main point was that a car like that doesn't have the long list of engine modifications that are necessarily "better than stock" like a small block chevy does. and, since the engine comes so highly tuned, even if you did modify the engine, just as you would a small block chevy, the added power would be nowhere near the potential for the power a sbc can make. so i'm sorry if it came out the wrong way.
Reply 0
Aug 16, 2002 | 04:51 PM
  #48  
Quote:
Originally posted by LYV18F


good point. it was supposed to be a limited thing for the year 2000 only (hence s2000) but they sold pretty well. my friends from school that are obsessed with them say that they should be out of production soon.



another good point, i really didn't take into account how long the car has been around. BUT, my main point was that a car like that doesn't have the long list of engine modifications that are necessarily "better than stock" like a small block chevy does. and, since the engine comes so highly tuned, even if you did modify the engine, just as you would a small block chevy, the added power would be nowhere near the potential for the power a sbc can make. so i'm sorry if it came out the wrong way.
might be surprised on that one
Reply 0
Aug 16, 2002 | 05:27 PM
  #49  
Quote:
Originally posted by snjracer
good kill but why does everyone compare there heavily modded f-bodies with a bone stock car not necisarily built for straightt line performance....

i guess the question is.. do you hate on teh car, or the moron driving them.. cause imho it is a great car..

Maybee, everyone is entitled to there opinion, so here is my 2c. worth!

I've driven S2000 on the track (I work for a corprate motorsport facility in england) and granted they are quick. BUT with that crappy honda VTEC system a great launch, bog down and total tyre smoke is about 63 RPM apart! most S2000 owners couldn't get within a second of the official 0 - 60 time coz they are driven by total hairdressers!

the reality is they are a twitchy buzzy car that off VTEC (below 6500 RPM) will bog forever and on VTEC go ok.

V. V. V. hard work to get the best out of. if the dude driving is a typical ***** and launches at 4000 rpm you'll have time to raise a couple of kids before he gets going!

VTEC is a nasty way to disguise a weak engine!

Ive seen about 6 VTEC engines with under 20 000 miles, some integra, some accord and some S2000, blow themselves to pieces, (rods kicked out) these engines will cost a small fortune to get minute power gains out of because they are TOTALY maxed out at the factory.

NSX engines seem to work pretty well though.
Reply 0
Aug 16, 2002 | 07:25 PM
  #50  
Quote:
Originally posted by philoldsmobile



Maybee, everyone is entitled to there opinion, so here is my 2c. worth!

I've driven S2000 on the track (I work for a corprate motorsport facility in england) and granted they are quick. BUT with that crappy honda VTEC system a great launch, bog down and total tyre smoke is about 63 RPM apart! most S2000 owners couldn't get within a second of the official 0 - 60 time coz they are driven by total hairdressers!

the reality is they are a twitchy buzzy car that off VTEC (below 6500 RPM) will bog forever and on VTEC go ok.

V. V. V. hard work to get the best out of. if the dude driving is a typical ***** and launches at 4000 rpm you'll have time to raise a couple of kids before he gets going!

VTEC is a nasty way to disguise a weak engine!

Ive seen about 6 VTEC engines with under 20 000 miles, some integra, some accord and some S2000, blow themselves to pieces, (rods kicked out) these engines will cost a small fortune to get minute power gains out of because they are TOTALY maxed out at the factory.

NSX engines seem to work pretty well though.

bog bellow 4k??? maybe in england bog means somethign differant...

ive run a **** load of nitrous through my car and it has yet to break with BONE stock internals... adn a small fortune.. ha... once again maybe things are differant over sees.. granted nothign beats theband for the buck as an old domestic... but small fortune.. jeeze thats a small exageration

and as far as typical ricers driving then.. last time i checked.. most 18 yr old ricers could not afford a car like that..
Reply 0