GMC Syclone and typhoon Kick *** vehicles!! And theyre AWD too!:hail:

 

Man, I forgot. I know a kid with one, upped the boost and turbo upgrade and runs like low 13's i hear. Very sweet truck.

I like S2000's exhaust. Nothing like 240hp natural aspirated from a little 4.

 

You know what... I'm a GM fan... and I hate to say this, but there is the odd import I would drive... S2000... the new 350Z is a cool car too.

 

240hp stock very nice




129.2 ft-lbs
thats just plain wrong u cant just be like good hp and no ft.lbs

 

A very common ***** excuse you will run across is the power/liter argument. They always use the S2000. It makes 240hp out of 2.0 liters. That's 120hp per liter. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I think the Viper makes a weaksauce like 56hp per liter or something.

That's the main issue with the small 4 banger motors, no torque. The S2000 is a race car off the show room floor. You can buy one brand new, take the plastic off, then lap it around a track until you can't lift your arms anymore, but you've got to keep it above 6,000rpm to have fun.

Add a supercharger, and it's a whole different story though. My buddy has a SC S2000 and runs in the 13's at just over 100mph. An S2000 is one of the few 4 bangers I'd supercharge, most other ones are a waste of money.

Here is another good example of a lot of HP and a lot less torque.

http://www.g2ic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101378

There is a guy on my board with over 400 ft/lbs of torque, and a little less HP out of an STi, but the pictures are gone, so I won't bother linking it.

 

Yeah that's all too common. I prefer the power/engine arguement myself

 

yeah thats been my argument with my friends all the time too they are alwase liek oh look at this it puts out like 200 soemthinf horse out of a 4 cylinder but then i have to point out how low the torque rating is.... horse power to me doesnt meen as much as torque does.

 

A stock syclone will run a 13.4 stock. If he has an upgraded turbo and more boost he is easily in the 12's possibly 11's

 

Wow thats impressive. havent talked to him but I heard low 13's. that might have been when it was stock. dont know what he runs now.

 

yep mean *** little trucks. Even a typhoon will run a high 13 stock. Im building a turbo 4.3 for my S-10 like the syclones. But mine will just be 2WD.

 

I think that Ford and Chevy were pretty evenly matched from the mid 80's on until the LS1 came out. Actually I'd say it's easier to get power out of a 5.0. Anyways, the LS1 is a far superior engine when compared to the OHC ford v8's of the 90's (I'm not just talking about power, but quality and engineering excellence). IMHO ford v8's sound better. That's really all anyone has in this argument is the aesthetic each car carries to us. I may be a GM person, and I love to embarass the stock gt/v6's out there with my superior looks and performance, but as soon as ford releases a new DOHC boss 302, I'm driving as quickly as possible to the dealership. :hail:

 

89305rs, good luck on your build.

Gm always outpaced the mustang in the 90's in most every category except popularity. Mustangs are still being made today and I see 4 mustangs or more for every camaro. I do see more trans ams then camaros too. Mustangs have a nice unique sound to them but its not as good as a sbc chevy or ls1 with loudmouth in my opinion but then again its a matter of opinion to everyone. You can go back and forth on this topic forever comparing ford cars to GM, and both winning categories.

I like the GT500 shelby and boss 302 mustangs of the late 60's and Cobra sounds better than SS. But GM camaros and trans ams body styles today I like better. But between chevy and ford, the arguement ends with chevy cuz we have the corvette!

 

well it really does not matter to me. it has *** awful ft.lbs i and like having ft.lbs. its like i said yes very good hp but the ft.lbs sucks and it means a lot more to me.

6,000 rpms thats all good and dandy but when the other cars making peak powers at 3200rpms and 2700rpms then ur screwed. maybe u can just race people from a role


ps yes the rt viper is 52hp per lt but the twin turbo viper is 110hp per lt. and its foot pounds don't suck

 

Any mention of hp/liter is completely useless. Don't let the import people spew this crap for more than a second. The laws of physics dictate that a larger engine will be less efficient. A model plane motor gets on the order of 600hp/liter because it is so small. A bigger engine will always be capable of making more streetable horses than a smaller one. Finally, there is no reason to limit your displacement unless you are in a competition that dictates a maximum displacement. The worst thing about the S2000 is not it's peak torque, but where that peak torque is. 161 ft lbs @ 6500 RPM (I don't even want to know what its torque curve looks like before that ). That thing is a total wimp until you get it past the redline of our engines. It will run good times if you don't care about your clutch, but it's so focused on high revving power that it's fuel economy is worse than many v8's. Not only that it won't be any fun. I'll take a 52 hp/liter viper any day.

 

The viper is just a heck of alot better car anyway. I take one of those over a s2000 that was turbo'd and ran quicker than the viper. The viper looks awesome and sounds great too. Truly an eye catching unique car. Yeah, their ft-lbs dont suck. lol

Dont understand hp per liter? Where'd that come from. Always heard hp per cubic inch or pounds(weight) per horse. I guess now that everything goes liter nowadays that its the new thing.

Makes sense that hp/liter wouldnt be good to compare cuz it doesnt account for torque. 300hp 305 would lose to 300hp 350 in same car cuz 350 has more torque.

 

thats one thing the import guy wont do is try to compare ft.lbs .thats y there always saying look at my hp look at my hp just don't look to the left and see my ft.lbs.heheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheheheheheehehehehehhe


ps. i just got the old drag rear end from my dad. its a 6.23 Detroit rocker or something like that i never heard of it but my dad says it will make my 450hp car run like mid 6s in the 1\8 mile i wonder if its to low of a gear ????

 

I think a gear like that would make your 1/8th and 0-60 kick some serious ***, but that's about it... Don't try to use it on a streetcar or a car that you want to do the 1/4 in.

 

Talk about spewing crap. Just because the car doesn't have any torque doesn't mean that it gets terrible gas milage.

An S2000 is a fun car to drive, but only in turns. There is much to be desired as far as straight line performance goes.

 

2002 S2000:

displacement: 2.0 liter
curb wieght: 2809 lbs
fuel economy: 20/26

2002 Corvette:

displacement: 5.7 liter
curb wieght: 3246 lbs
fuel economy: 19/28

They aren't too far off, but I think it's safe to say that the S2000 "guzzles gas like a v8." And generally speaking it is true that higher revving engines are less fuel efficient. If the S2000's 2.0 had a redline of 5000 rpm and were cammed appropriately, it would have much much higher fuel economy numbers. I never said that a car without torque gets bad fuel economy (there are plenty of integras out there that get great fuel economy), I said that the S2000 gets bad fuel economy because it is rigged for huge revs. Of course the S2000 is fun in turns, but that has nothing to do with somone using it as an example of stellar hp/liter figures.

 

Ive been in a Honda S2000 (passenger) It was pretty quick and was good on turns and was very light. But lets face it, it doesnt have Torque. You need Both HP and TQ.

 

Jesus. Live and learn.

Sorry I started the thread. And to those of you it offended in some twisted way, please add me to your ignore list. I BEG you.

On the other hand, I learned a lot about the state of the nation here.

Thanks.