|
Can't get an S2000 to race.
I've tried to get 5 S2000's to race me in the last month and a half, and nothing.
The gray one wouln'nt race after pacing next to him for 2 miles. The two red ones conveniently turned off. The other gray one was haulin a$$ through traffic and was smokin past everybody, but when I got next to him he did'nt want anything to do with me. Then of course the Yellow one, I was three cars back in traffic and see him picking on a defensless 4-cyl 90 coupe. He was revving at him and dogged him from the stoplight. Conveniently, I was beside him at the next light and he would'nt even look at me. I tached 1st and knew he was a no go. What a wuss. Car and Driver claims they run 14.1. With that, he'll probably beat me. Maybe he was afraid to have his $30,000 honda beat by a car that looks as bad as mine does. (dented door and quarter and needs paint) ------------------ 90LX Ragtop. 14.7@95.3 Strut tower brace, K&N, 2.25'' Flowmasters, Hollow cats, Crank pulley, Crane 2031, Crane rockers, Holley FPR, 155lph, Heavy duty clutch, and alum quadrant. Need Gears Bad!!! |
I have also tried to get 3 or 4 different S2000's to race and none of them would run. One of them was even on a windy 4-lane road and didn't want to play so I pulled ahead of him a little and pitched it sideways.
I can't figure out if these guys are just so arrogant that they think they are in a league above Mustangs, or if they are just scared to lose to a car that costs a lot less money like Jeb said. |
100% of those S2000 owners ignore me (i've only tried to race 2, but i've driven next to alot of others), and this is what i figure:
They're usually older guys and especially here in washington they're probably microsoft employees who just want the image. Maybe they only race similar cars like other hondas, BMW convertibles, etc. Although i've never seen ANY S2000's race, maybe this is a plausible theory. Maybe someday i'll find one to kick my @ss on the street, but until then they're just another rich guy who doesn't want to "use" his car (like most Porsche/Ferrari/exotic car owners) ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 LX My car |
I have seen a Honda S2000 at the track and I was very impressed he pulled off 14.40's all day long if you convert his time to sea level that puts him at a mid 13 not bad at all, but for that price I would rather get a SS camaro a cobra or a vette.
------------------ 88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit 3.73 FMS gears cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs. |
Quote:
and I think... 13s 1/4 with a N/A 2.0L is not bad at all!!! Peace http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph |
Correct me if I am wrong but I was pretty sure that S2000 does not run 13's...and I know that whatever it is that they claim it runs best...keep in mind that those cars are very difficult to drive perfectly every time and to do their best times they have to put alot of wear on their clutches...you will see if you try and look stuff up on em
|
I'll tell you what I understand. A sports car is a sports car. Its made to go fast. And when someone wants to race me, regardless of what it is, I'll race. Its about fun. I don't care what was built to compete against what. If it is next to me at a light, it was built to compete with me. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/cool.gif I do not know why these s2000 owners won't race. I have the same problem here. Only I also have NSXs, '90+ 300zxs, and your typical ricers and they are all driven buy asians! THEY NEVER RACE. For all of you keeping score at home, that is zer0. Hey, thats fine. If I can, I always tell them to roll their window down and inform them on how much of an idiot they are for spending all that money on a sports car they don't use.
------------------ 94' Stang GT Convertible --Cobra upper&lower, Mac cold air w/K&N, BBK equal length shorties, BBK offroad H-pipe, American Thunder cat-back, BBK T/B 65mm, 24lb injectors, Pro-77mm MAM, pulleys, aluminum driveshaft, 3.55s 14.4@100. (Sad, i know. i have stock heads) |
14.4@98MPH was what R&T got with one.
|
I am a Truck driver and I transport new Hondas and Acuras to the dealers and as soon as the S2000's get to the dealer they Jack the price up to $40-41k. I sure as hell wouldn't pay that much for one maybe $30k besides I don't fit in them at all(I am 6,3 245), its bad enough trying to get my head out the window to back them on the truck! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif
------------------ Danny M 98 Cobra Bone stock for Now |
My friend have one... he tried it 2-3 times at the 1/4 and did a best of 13.855 @ 100.356 MPH . Yes those cars are hard to drive perfect on the 1/4 because they were just not made to do 1/4. Its a sport car... its a road racing car... and its what my friend use it for... SOLO I & SOLO II!
Have fun! http://pages.infinit.net/sev/13.855RunOn22Oct2000.jpg ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph [This message has been edited by Special K (edited 07-23-2001).] |
I can't get S2000s to race either. It's because they think they've got an unbeatable car, but don't really want to take the chance of finding out the truth.
|
Ease up everybody. S2000s are not drag cars. My buddy has one and I drove it. Handling is amazing - like a slot car. So much less car to throw around a corner than any stang. Don't get me wrong, its fast, but has a lot less torque and all of it's power comes way up the tach. I think it redlines at 9K or so. Ridiculously high!
We had a friendly race at a light once and my Cobra clobbered him... not even close. However, I'd probably have a hard time staying with him on a road course. That 4 cyl engine is a marvel in my opinion and the car is very, very fun... but I'll never trade my Cobra for one http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif |
oh and my friend dynoed his car at 211 rwhp ... either the drivetrain is GREAT or the engine is underated!
------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph |
I can get one to race either. But as for saying they are only built for road coarses thats crap. How many of us have raced M3's? Designed to be a great all around car. thats what honda was shooting for with the s2000. i would love the looks on their faces if they ran with a lightning. stock on stock run door to door. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif oh and dont forget you can also tow him when he tosses a piston a 9000 rpms
|
The s2000's have no bottom end at all. They only have 150 ft/lbs@7500rpm and 240hp @ 8900rpm. I did see one though at the track. Actually was a friend of mine. His first time at the track he turned a 13.9 at about 97 or 98. If one does race you and you aren't ready he may get ya.
------------------ 90 GT 150k on the motor never had the valve covers off, 1 5/8" headers, x-pipe, 2chamber flowmaster,fms aluminum ds, 3.55, best time on 245/45/17 2.08 60', 13.906 @ 98.98 |
I think it was Motor Trend that took a bunch of cars out and beat the hell out of them trying to get good 1/4 mile times. The S2000 managed to pull off a 13.9, but they said they had to slip the clutch out from 6000rpms and shift at redline to get it to do it.
They said when they shifted at something like 5500rpms or 6000, the 0-60 time went into the 11's. So yes, it's possible for a person who know's what they are doing to get them into the 13's, a few times before the clutch is roasted beyond recognition. |
They shifted at 5500 and only hit 60 in 11 seconds? I think that is a typo or you are very mistaken...I can hit 60 in prolly 10 or 10 and half with my 4000 pound sled...those torque numbers are gross though...its like a joke...I have enough torque for me and 1 of them with a/c on and 4 passengers...just no horsepower http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif I saw some guy on website one time with a turbocharged civic or somethin that barely broke 200 ft/lbs torque...thought that was pretty funny.
|
"It only took the S2000 5.8 seconds to reach 60 mph, and it did the quarter mile in 14.2 at 98.1. This compares favorably to 6.3 seconds 0-60 and 14.8 seconds at 91.4 mph for the BMW, and 6.0 seconds 0-60 and 14.5 at 94.6 for the Porsche. The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds." - Motor Trend November 1999.
|
I can't imagine that the clutch will hold up long after a few 8000 rpm "slip of the clutch" launches.
Sounds like you have to drive the piss out of them to get them to move. On another note, did anyone see the mew MM&FF article on the 01 Cobra? They ran a couple 13.4's and one 13.3 @ 104 in BONE STOCK trim. It is about time! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60' |
Quote:
------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose Estimated Completion: ON STANDBY 84 Toyota Supra: Japanese 6mge installed within two weeks..... High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002. Have HKS turbo manifold for it:D..... |
I agree, and if you'll look, even on their 14.2 run they were short shifting a long ways. If they were powershifting maybe they wanted to have some **** up room left on the redline?
I don't know, but if you ask me, the car is a piece of **** . You have to literally drive the absolute **** out of it to even accelerate normal in traffic. I don't really want to shift my car at 6000rpms just to keep up with traffic. Quite frankly, I don't expect that engine to be putting out 200hp at 80k. It's setup about like a bike engine. Before everybody starts babblin about quality, Honda Quality rules, oh yes, their car will be invincible forever because it's a Honda, I will point out 30k on one of their street bikes, and it's time to turn in the towel. hp/displacement is about equal to an CBR F2 or F3. Both of which could use a rebuild at 20k. I argued to no avail with the morons at Honda-Tech once upon a time. It just didn't matter, the idiots can't comprehend the physics behind the metal that is being used. Morons. |
What I love is how all the honda ricers keep going on about how ford is a bunch of garbage and hondas last forever and ever but when you take a honda that can actually race with a STOCK mustang how long you think its gonna keep doing it? Yea I'm gonna turbo and nos and all this crap and last forever...dream on...15 pounds of boost in that little piece of junk ain't gonna last 200k miles. One common thing I hear from them is how high quality their transmissions are cus they don't have to beef them up when they get mods....gee I wonder why...when slap turbos on they still can't even match the torque of a ford 3.8 liter motor
|
i think that anyone who buyas a car that redlines at almost 10000 rpm should look into the long term effects of that.
every time i drove it i would also be worrying about blowin it up..........then again could never see myself driving anything under a 4.6l let alone a 2.0......i hated when ford came out with the 4.,6 cause i thought it was 2 small....then again i was 12 ------------------ Black 1990 gt cobra bonestock not for long |
If the clutch can't handle it they need to get a better one that is all. High revs don't necessarily mean the engine is going to wear out any faster. First of all most of the time they aren't turning 9000 rpm. Second, Don't forget with the short stroke of a 2 litre honda piston speed is probably lower than your mustang most of the time.
|
Quote:
As far as the short stroke saving it, a short stroke doens't do a whole lot for the car when it cruises down the road at 4500rpm. Piston speed comes in for determining critical mass, not wear. And yes, it is "Most of the time", since the 5.0 has a 3.000" stroke. I've also heard the special cylinder wall lining is going to save the engine, make it last forever. Well, if they have an ultra strong cylinder wall, what about the piston rings? Wear city. So maybe they'll make the rings out of that material, ooops, same metal to metal contact makes for wear as well. It doesn't matter. An engine that turns 2x the amount of rpms as most other cars going down the road, and redlines at 8900rpm, makes it's torque peak at 7500, and hp at 8300 is not an engine that will last. You literally have to rev the thing to above 5k to accelerate. Every time you come away from a light, 5k minimum to keep up with traffic. This car runs like a big engine bike, and contrary to ricer belief, I don't see any way in hell it will last 4x longer. |
Quote:
And about beating the **** out of the car to get it to move... another stupid comment.. come on... tell me you babysitt your car when you drag race?!?!?! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/rolleyes.gif Lets go I have an 3400 pounds AWD car but im not going to launch at its full potential because im going to "beat the **** out of it" so instand im going to launch at 1000 rpm... so that way my AWD drivetrain will be completly useless!! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/rolleyes.gif then about the "the car is a piece of **** . You have to literally drive the absolute **** out of it to even accelerate normal in traffic" COME ON... gimme a F$^%^&%^ break!!! You cant be serious!!! its funny I have a car with only 111 ft/lb of torque and I have NO PROBLEM at ALL to drive with traffic... that thing is just an urban legend!!! Why would the engine broke down because it rev at 9000rpm?!?!?!?!?! If the engine is build for that... it doesnt matter if it rev at 5000 or 9000 rpm. And honda build high reving engine since the late 80'... damn back in 89 they were already selling the engine I have in my car... 1.6L with 160hp! that was 12 years ago guys!!! it doesnt matter if the engine peak power is at 8000 rpm... why because... im not cruising at 2000 rpm like in my mustang... my engine rev at 4000rpm in fifth gear at 75mph. im really rarely under 3000 rpm and its not because I "rev the **** out of my car" but simply because thats where the rpm is at a certain speed. Because I have very agressive gearing! with a 4.40 final drive ratio! I still can go to 60mph at redline in second gear, 85mph in thid gear, 115mph in fourth and the little 1.6L is good for a 140mph drag limited top speed at ~7500 rpm in fifth gear! Im really not saying ford or any domestic company is garbadge... I used to have a Mustang... and I will own a Mustang in the futur for sure!! You guys just cant realize your just like those ricers... you keep talking **** about import engines while your are saying ricers are stupid to talk **** about domestic engine!!! which one is more stupid and less open minded I wonder!!!! ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph |
I was going to say basically the same thing, but I figured if it came from me it would be "wrong", but if it came from a former and future stang owner then maybe some people will open there narrow minds.
------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose Estimated Completion: ON STANDBY 84 Toyota Supra: Japanese 6mge installed within two weeks..... High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002. Have HKS turbo manifold for it:D..... |
LOL, I don't know where you are coming from or going with that Special K
Take a look at the times M/T stated. Launching at 5500rpm and shifting at 5500rpm it took over 11 SECONDS to hit 60MPH. How hard is that for you to equate? I'm not saying that it's in danger of "blowing up." I never stated that. Simply that due to the powerband being where it is, and the inability of the car to accelerate worth a **** below the powerband will hurt it's longevity. The S2000's engine is about the same as a bike engine. I don't see them going 50k (okay I saw a ZX-11 with 56k on it, but it was completely clapped out). I'd like a car that I don't have to practically race everywhere I go just to get from A to B, thanks. The S2000's powerband is not 6000-9000rpms. It's more like 7000-9000rpms. I'm not talking about wear at the track dude. I'm talking about wear during everyday driving. The clutch, as EVERY SINGLE S2000 owner has EVER posted, gets killed when they drag it right. They slip it out from high rpms, they don't drop it to get the best times. Then again, since it's every import owners dream engine, it's practically sacriledge to point out any flaws in the design. Here's the bottom line. It's a high revving, very high horsepower per liter, N/A engine. Last time I checked, 120hp/liter in a N/A engine usually doesn't last very long. |
Oh, and for another thing, get your head out of your *** when it comes to technology. What you think the domestic manufacturers didn't/don't have any? LOL.
They were building SOHC and DOHC race engines in the mid 60's, dude. http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kell...27sohc-chains. http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kell...s/427sohc.jpeg http://www.thecarsource.com/fords/en...427engine.html Those are engines designed by Ford in the mid 1960's. The SOHC 427 made between 88-94hp/liter, with a 7 liter displacement and 8 cylinders, with a fricken old *** carb setup and points. I can't even begin to imagine what it would have picked up with some newer tech and good electronic ignition. Import guys have their heads so far up their asses when it comes to knowing where technology came from. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 07-30-2001).] |
I dont know much about the Honda S2000, I'm not going to even pretend to.
But 9000 RPM, even 5000 RPM usual every day driving is a lot of RPM's. Damn, just think of the amount of heat, even with "Special friction reducing linings" in the cylinders, thats made at those kind of RPMs. I wonder how good there oiling system is, and if they run an auixilary oil cooler. Obviulsy its pretty d#mn good or else the motor wouldnt last a sustained 8500-9000 RPM run. I'm with Unit, I'll go with what the laws and principles of Physics state, after all its one of my specialties. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif ------------------ 64 1/2 "D" code Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 valves, 11:1 comp, 1.7:1 rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, modified 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. GT Apperance pkg. And to many others to list 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. BBK Underdrive pulleys, Flotech off-road H pipe. Hurst T-Handle, 40 series Flowmasters, Steeda Tri-Ax 64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Future resto. |
I guess we are gonna have to wait and see if the engine is going to last for a long time!! But if the other high reving honda engines can be reliable.... why not this one!? I mean... there is 1.6L, 1.7L and 1.8L with +100hp/liter on the road for over 10 years and I dont think they break down any faster then an other engine!!
I dont thing I said domestic engine dont have any technology!!! Where did you get that from?! The S2000 is a road race car... like the Integra Type R... of course some people drag race them... but they were not build for this purpose. Most cars... import or domestic... wouldnt last very long on a race track... with hard braking, hard cornering, etc... while S2000 and the TypeR shine in those conditions! Peace! ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph [This message has been edited by Special K (edited 07-31-2001).] |
Yeah, Honda made some High strung realiable engines, but 9000 RPM! Just think how much Heat the Valve springs alone produce at those RPM's!
|
Ok so basically now that we made it very clear that those high revving honda motors are not set for realistic driving...but they are better for road racing lol...who said anything about going around corners?
And for technology...where was honda when Henry Ford built one of the earliest internal combustion engines? Lets not kid ourselves...everyone in here is not ranking on Honda cars...we are simply debating on the realistic outcome of the engine used in the S2000 and people not wanting to race them because they they have to practically destroy their clutch to race against a similarly matched vehicle. What are we lying? |
Honda has been making engines that rev to 8xxx rpm's reliably for 12 years now. Honda is one of the more concervative, less risk taking automotive manufacturers out there and I highly doubt that they would make the car have such a high redline if they motor couldn't take the abuse. As far as the clutch is concerned, it is true, not very many clutches, including aftermarket upgrades can take that kind of abuse for long. But like mentioned above, the typical S2000 buyer isn't buying the car to drag it.....they are buying the car either to road race it or they are a 40+ year old man wanting to "be young again" who went out and bought a roadster.
------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose Estimated Completion: ON STANDBY 84 Toyota Supra: Japanese 6mge installed within two weeks..... High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002. Have HKS turbo manifold for it:D..... |
If your S2000 doesn't have enough low end for you put a supercharger on it. I don't know what kind of clutch can't handle launching at 6000rpm. Never had a problem with a clutch even with a 468cube built big block chevy.
|
Unit5302 needs to quit quoting from road and track. Magazine 1/4 times and real 1/4 times are more often than not,different.If you think the honda highway cruising speed is going to be at too high of a piston speed for that engine you are high. Just admit the Honda S2000 is a damn fine sports car with an engine that will last longer than any Ford. It doesn't mean it is a good deal or that i'm buying one. But I know the difference. Ford has never built a sports car of this type anyway.
|
Unik5302, what is the 0-60mph time of a 99 mustang gt shifted at 1500rpm? Yuo better build a 700 cubic inch engine and keep the revs low to be safe.
|
ford do not build a sport car anyway... well... maybe the Cobra R... but the Mustang GT is certainly NOT a sport car!
------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph |
Actually, for the rice lovin 1975 Civic drivin folks posting here.
Shifting the Mustang GT at 4k would be comparable to shifting the shitbox Honda at 5500. Shifting at 4k the Mustang would probably pull off 8sec 0-60 times. 1/4 would still be in the 15s easy. Go jump off the deep end if you think a Clutch is going to handle an 8000 SLIP OUT. You don't even have a car 65 GTO. Go back to riding your trike. As far as the quotes about Honda's being reliable at 8k so they should be reliable at 9k, why aren't their bikes seeing 100,000 miles? Their early 90's bikes see 30,000 miles have the same power to displacement ratios, and similar powerbands. You can only take it so far. Furthermore, how many conservative owners redline their Civic's and Integra's around? Not too many, I'll clue you in on that. Most Honda's are babied around by grocery toting tree huggers. Also, 65 GTO, quit babbling about piston speed you idiot. That's to determine critical mass, not engine wear. The 302 or 5.0 like I said before has a very short stroke. 4" bore, 3" stroke. 101.6x76.2mm if you want to look at it in metric terms. Does that make it last longer than say a 351 with the same bore, but a 3.5" stroke 88.2mm? Nope. The 351 also lasts a long *** time. Short strokes are good for high revving engines because they allow engines to rev higher without reaching critical mass. Which is usually of no concern anyway since most engines would have to rev to well over 8000rpms+ to approach that. The times I quoted out of a magazine were good, for the way they shifted. Look again. Shifting at 8300rpms, not 8900 they managed a low 14 out of a car that is good for high 13's with a great driver. If you can get the S2000 to better that performance shifting short by 600rpms, you're welcome to try. I got the same flak on that shithole known as Honda-Tech. No reasoning with them. No amount of physics matters. All they know is in 1980 a lot of the domestics were junky, and their shitbox Honda did okay. Again, the bottom line is an engine that has no power below 6000rpms, redlines at 8900rpms, drives down the road at 4500rpms, and N/A makes 120hp/liter is NOT built with a long life in mind. The import power scene hasn't been around long enough to prove **** IMHO. The cars that have been spoken about produce 20hp/liter less than an S2000. The ones that do that are also babied by most people, and haven't been around more than a few years in most cases. 20hp/liter... That's literally the difference between a Mustang II's 302 making 139hp and the Fox 5.0HO making 225hp from the 302. Do you think those engines compare to each other? **** no! And that's the same damn engine. I'm tired of duking it out with the import boys on this board. It's called WWW.MustangWorks.com. It's a Mustang site. Obviously all are welcome, but don't expect to float import bullshit here. Our car/manufacturer has been racing at the track and building race engines with the technology most coveted by the import scene high revving SOHC and DOHC setups for 40 years, longer than your little high hp/liter car companies have even been in business here. When I roll down the street with 150,000 miles on my Mustang GT kickin the **** out of Type R's, Si's, 3000GT's, Eclipses, old Supra's, RX7's and the like, I feel little remorse. They've been blinded by ricers who think that Japanese quality will win the race for them. I've got news for you. Stock for stock my car costing about $12000 new, and now having 150,000 hard *** , beat down, redline hitting miles on it will still mop up all but the very highest performing imports on the scene. Let alone the imports with equal mileage as mine. Lets see what I've replaced in my car. I've owned it for 30000 miles. The tranny was already replaced with a junkyard unit, it failed, I have no idea how long it had been rolling, it was a 1986 model. Ummm.... fuel pump. Radiator. Wow. That's a pretty long list isn't it? Guess the Mustang's 5 star reliability record from 1987-1993 with the exception of 2-4star years is a fluke. Yeah, these domestics just don't last. My friend only has 260,000 miles on his stang. But to it's credit, the engine was rebuilt only 120,000 miles ago by a monkey who didn't know what he was doing. He's had to replace the control arms and the power rack. Damn these cars. Just junk. No longevity here. My other friend only has 120,000 on his. I seem to remember a member of this board posting a kill a while back of a Typhoon. He pulled his 88 5.0 out of the back yard having been sitting there for something like 1 or 2 years with mileage around 150k. He went out, and with only 3.73's kicked some bowtie *** . Or maybe our 1977 Mustang II that still ran without a tick at 178k on it was a fluke. Course there is always our POS 78 Towncar that had a starter go out and got hauled away with 164k on it. The 1985 Mark VII we had, that my mom bought with 145k on the clock went another 55k miles before we got rid of it. It's last trip I took it to Oklahoma and Texas, Mustang shopping as a disposable car. It made it there, and when I didn't find what I was looking for, it made it back, getting an average of 24mpg at 80mph along the way. For a 4000lb car that was smashed up in the front from hitting a deer, that's not to fricken bad. Course on that 2000 mile driving adventure it did burn almost 1/2 a quart of oil. A hose blew outside Dallas too. Overheated the car till it wouldn't even run, getting it off the freeway and out of the way. Air temp was 117*. My uncle came out, we went to look at a car, came back, slapped a new hose on, added some water, and drove it away, running great. A shitty *** Honda would have blown a head gasket and been sitting there waiting for the 2500 repair bill at the garage for the next 2 weeks. Course my mom's 79 Merc Capri with the 2.8L only made it about 240k before it was hauled off. To it's credit it survived my mom. When the engine began to overheat, she'd have my dad check the oil. Guess what? It didn't have any at all. But it kept going, 1000s of more miles and multiple more out of oil experiances. I could look at my Mazda built 1991 Ford Escort GT. It had a Mazda drivetrain, and almost everything else. The Tranny exploded at 84k, the computer went out, it ticked, got bad fuel economy compared to my previous Mustang GT, fuel pump, electrical system had a gremlin I never could figure out in the fuel pump circuit, had problems with the VAF sensor, the engine and tranny were composed of **** . Cheapass japanese strip-o-matic nuts and bolts. After taking it apart and putting it back together I was totally amazed at it even going 80k. It used the same chinsy construction as my Kawasaki 125cc dirt bike's powertrain. My friend has a Celica that just quits running every once and a while. That's a nice feature. I spent umteen hours one winter trying to get an Eagle Talon Tsi to fricken start in the ice cold temps. So I guess my PERSONAL experiance with 10's of cars of which the Ford Mustang certainly has not had problems and the upper class Lincoln's as well has me seeing red when people talk about domestic reliability. |
I wouldnt call the Honda S2000 a Sports car, more like Roadster.
What does the statement about Ford not making a sports car have to do about the Honda S 2000? Sounds like someones argument is weak and there digging. A vehicle doesnt have to be called a "Sports Car" to be fast you know. Just because something has only two seats doesnt make it a sports car either. Maybe in certian Rule books for particular classes of racing. Dang Unit, thats the maddest I've ever seen you. I feel your pain man http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif |
Unit is a legend in his own mind! Why do you keep bringing up motorcycles? But since you brought it up a Kawasaki 1000 clutch will handle 6000 rpm dragstrip launches for years. The older bikes are air-cooled and have roller bearings so i won't compare the engines to automobiles. The newer motorcycles with watercooling and journal bearings will surely last a long time. Some of the new very high output motorcycle engines probably won't last as long, your car wouldn't last as long if you ran 10 second 1/4 mile times either.
|
By the way unit you lost your credibility when you told your bs story of the 79 Capri and the numerous times it was ran with no oil. Sounds like you'll believe anything as long as it is about fords.
|
I kinda liked Unit's story. As for you Gto what is your beef? First of all, do you know that you can post more than 3 sentences in each post rather than posting 13 times to make 3 points about something? Trying to become a senior member in a week or something. Pretty funny stuff too...like I never had problems starting at 6000 rpms ever...and you can do it for years and years. And the Mustang GT insn't a sportscar...oh really? So a car that runs high 13's stock ...faster than the aforementioned S2000...is not a sportscar? Then why do insurance companies charge out the A$$ for anyone to drive them? Some cars do have weird phenomena where they will be running withot oil. One engine I heard about that did that I believe was a dodge slant six. I believe it was a dodge anyways. So how bout we all stop flamin each other and just get along ok! this thread has gotten rediculous
|
Originally posted by 1965GTO:
Why do you keep bringing up motorcycles? Because the S2000's engine is very similar to a sportbike engine in the way it performs, and it's "ultra quality" manufacturer also builds sportbikes. But since you brought it up a Kawasaki 1000 clutch will handle 6000 rpm dragstrip launches for years. No, it won't. It will last for a while, but not for years, furthermore, a Ninja with rider weighs around 700lbs depending on how heavy the rider is. An S2000 weighs 2500lbs at least with driver, if you have a hard time grasping how much hotter the S2000's clutch parts will get due to the huge amount of extra weight, open a physics book. Get a bike, or better yet, your own bike shop, like one of my best friends. They're listed in the Yellow Pages: "Tech One Motorsports." The older bikes are air-cooled and have roller bearings so i won't compare the engines to automobiles. The newer motorcycles with watercooling and journal bearings will surely last a long time. Again, learn before you babble. If you are talking about an old Katana, sure, it's air cooled (also oil cooled), but even Honda's Hurricane (predecessor to the CBR) was water cooled back in the 80's. If you put 30,000 miles on an F2 600 (similar in power output per liter to the S2000), it's in dire need of a rebuild. Perhaps it would be more fair to compare a larger bike that turns less rpms. How about the sportbike with the most mileage I've ever seen. A 1990something Kawasaki Ninja ZX-11. Water cooled, just so you know. It had 56k on it, and it was totally clapped out. I mean toast. It needed everything, pistons, rods, crank work, rockers, rings, sleeves, everything... and the owner BABIED it. Maybe you'd like to compare to a big twin? How about Ducati? They redline pretty close to the S2000 and their engines are built to take abuse, but only for about 15k. That's when they need a rebuild. Rings, pistons, valvetrain work (Desmo valvetrain doesn't help here). Still, needs a set of pistons and rings. Some of the new very high output motorcycle engines probably won't last as long, your car wouldn't last as long if you ran 10 second 1/4 mile times either. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The new engines are exactly that. Everything in the new engines is stronger than the old ones. You're still gonna take out rings and pistons just as quick, but the engines are better built. As far as being a heck of a lot more powerful and running 10's, you appearently have no idea about bikes. Compare the Hurricane to the F2 to the F3. You're talking a difference of 30rwhp. The head is slightly worked, a different exhaust, and some jetting. The extra stress on the engine is minimal. In fact you can pick up a real 10rwhp by putting an F3 exhuast onto an F2 bike. The Dynojet, part of Tech One's assets, shows that. That's about the extent of modification. An F3 is about 10-15hp less than an F4 engine, which is built superior. The F4 should last just as long as an F2 or F3. About 20k, 30k clapped out. If you are going to make a comparison, please, at least have a little clue about what you are talking about. And yes, the 2.8L solid lifter V-6 in the 79 Capri my mom drove was run severely low on oil several times. To the point the engine would overheat. It kept on going for thousands more miles. |
I think... (I can be wrong of course)
a sport car is by diffinition a RWD, compact car, with good handling! Power or straith line performance have nothing to do with the term sport car!!! Good exemple of a sport car? RX7, Corvette C5, Honda S2000, Miata, NSX, MR2, etc... Mustang, Camaro, etc... are Pony cars in my book!!! ------------------ 2000 Honda Civic SiR 15.217 @ 91.884 mph (w/ AEM CAI in +100F temp) 1989 Ford Mustang LX Coupe 5.0L (RIP) 14.120 @ 98.126 mph |
I've been following this thread, and these are my observations:
GTO got one good hit in on Unit. That was a mistake; it just pissed him off. GTO's been on the ropes ever since, except of course when he was picking himself up off the canvas. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif I like to see a good beating as much as the next guy, but someone please throw in the towel! Jeff ------------------ CodeNinja 2001 Laser Red, "Bone Stock" Cobra |
Unit:
Shifting the Mustang GT at 4k would be comparable to shifting the shitbox Honda at 5500. Shifting at 4k the Mustang would probably pull off 8sec 0-60 times. 1/4 would still be in the 15s easy. Actually, shifting a GT at 3500 would be the equivilant of shifting the S2000 at 5500. I am sure that the Mustang will do just as poorly dispite it's higher torque. As far as the quotes about Honda's being reliable at 8k so they should be reliable at 9k, why aren't their bikes seeing 100,000 miles? I don't even see why bike engines were even brought up in this discussion. Just because the S2000 has a similar power band to a bike doesn't justify saying that the engine won't last a long time. Honda would not risk their reputation making this engine if it wasn't going to last. The B16(which also has a powerband similar to a bikes) has been revving to 8XXX rpms since 1989. There are B16's out there with well over 150k miles and are doing just fine. Furthermore, how many conservative owners redline their Civic's and Integra's around? Not too many, I'll clue you in on that. Most Honda's are babied around by grocery toting tree huggers. This is true. But it is also true about the S2000 so far. Most of the people who buy them aren't going to be driving them hard. I figure 80% of S2000 owners are 40+ upper middle class men with no thoughts of racing the car. I understand your frustration about owners of other cars on this site, but there is no need to insult any body over something this stupid. Also, I see no need to speak badly of any other manufacturer(except for Daewoo http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif). Oh yeah, one last point, someone in this thread(not sure who and am too lazy to go back through) said the GT runs 13's which is not true. Both the S2000 and the 99+ GT are low 14 second cars but with great drivers(such as LizardKing) can dip down in the 13's. ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose Estimated Completion: ON STANDBY 84 Toyota Supra: Japanese 6mge installed within two weeks..... High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002. Have HKS turbo manifold for it:D..... |
Inferno.
There are 99+ GT's here in Fayetteville that run high 13's stock. Thats in high humidity and a southern summer evening. Seen Z28's run high to mid 13's stock. Hell, even saw a Stock Roush Stage 2 turn in 13.9's. Its not just one driver turning in 13's with the new GT's. On the street racing seen, I saw a Honda S2000 beat a 97 Stock GT (Except for Flows)by only about a fender length. I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong, just observations I've made. ------------------ 64 1/2 "D" code Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 valves, 11:1 comp, 1.7:1 rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, modified 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. GT Apperance pkg. And to many others to list 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. BBK Underdrive pulleys, Flotech off-road H pipe. Hurst T-Handle, 40 series Flowmasters, Steeda Tri-Ax 64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Future resto. |
Probably should have closed this sooner. I think this one has served it's useful purpose and then some.
Thread Closed ------------------ SVO siamesed 351 stroked to 417ci,Yates heads, solid roller,Trans King glide and a little blue bottle of giggle gas. My Car |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM. |