Can't get an S2000 to race. - Page 2

Unit 5302 · 07-27-2001, 07:30 PM

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.

LincoConti87 · 07-27-2001, 07:57 PM

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

RAGE_5.0 · 07-28-2001, 02:24 PM

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

1965GTO · 07-29-2001, 01:40 AM

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.

Unit 5302 · 07-29-2001, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1965GTO:
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.

There is no clutch in the universe that was made to slip out from 6000-8000rpms. That is what people like to call wear. Even if the clutch could withstand it, the pressure plate and flywheel will glaze over. Perhaps you can help us with the name of a clutch/presure plate/flywheel manufacturer who will certify their clutch for 8000rpm slip launches? Didn't think so.

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.

Special K · 07-29-2001, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
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.

duh!!!! an honda engine is not a domestic V8... completly different way to drive!!! To get the best out of an engine at the track you need to stay in the power band... while the 302 power band need you to shift at ~5000rpm the honda engine do not loose power at high rpm... the hp band just keep going up all the way to redline... the powerband of the S2000 is between 6000 & 9000 rpm... and you NEVER drop under 6000rpm when you race the car! would you shift your Msyatng at 3000 while drag racing?!?!?! no so why shift an S2000 at 5000 rpm?!?!?!?! thats really stupid. I do the exact samething with my car... I launch at 6000 rpm at the track! and shift every gears at redline... because thats where the powerband is!!

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?!?!?!

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!!

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

inferno · 07-29-2001, 11:27 PM

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

.....

Unit 5302 · 07-30-2001, 12:56 AM

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.

Unit 5302 · 07-30-2001, 01:13 AM

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://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).]

Mercury · 07-30-2001, 01:21 AM

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.

------------------
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.

Special K · 07-30-2001, 05:47 PM

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).]

Mercury · 07-31-2001, 01:18 AM

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!

LincoConti87 · 07-31-2001, 11:22 AM

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?

inferno · 07-31-2001, 02:20 PM

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

.....

1965GTO · 08-05-2001, 01:52 PM

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.

1965GTO · 08-05-2001, 02:03 PM

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.

1965GTO · 08-05-2001, 02:12 PM

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.

Special K · 08-05-2001, 04:26 PM

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

Unit 5302 · 08-06-2001, 01:18 AM

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.

Mercury · 08-06-2001, 11:51 AM

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

07-29-2001, 11:27 PM	#27
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	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.....

07-31-2001, 02:20 PM	#34
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	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.....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oct.11 Mid-Mich Toys for Tots Benefit drag race	Doug Dornbos	Ford Show & Go	0	09-29-2003 02:24 PM
I wanna drag race..... they wanna road race	Rev	Stang Stories	19	10-09-2002 03:11 PM
MY FIRST RACE!!!	#1 Pony	Stang Stories	7	07-01-2002 07:55 AM
Biggest Race I've Ever Had. 440vs302	Skyman	Stang Stories	51	03-02-2002 05:40 PM
Best race EVER!! Im still shaking.. :-D	Skyman	Stang Stories	28	02-27-2001 12:05 AM

07-27-2001, 07:30 PM	#21
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	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.

07-27-2001, 07:57 PM	#22
LincoConti87 Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tallahassee,Florida,USA Posts: 188	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

07-28-2001, 02:24 PM	#23
RAGE_5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Leamington, Ontario, Canada Posts: 767	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

07-29-2001, 01:40 AM	#24
1965GTO Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dupo,ill Posts: 219	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.

07-30-2001, 12:56 AM	#28
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	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.

07-30-2001, 01:13 AM	#29
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	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://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).]

07-30-2001, 01:21 AM	#30
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	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. ------------------ 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.

07-30-2001, 05:47 PM	#31
Special K Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Montreal, Quebec (Canada) Posts: 246	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).]

07-31-2001, 01:18 AM	#32
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	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!

07-31-2001, 11:22 AM	#33
LincoConti87 Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tallahassee,Florida,USA Posts: 188	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?

08-05-2001, 01:52 PM	#35
1965GTO Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dupo,ill Posts: 219	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.

08-05-2001, 02:03 PM	#36
1965GTO Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dupo,ill Posts: 219	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.

08-05-2001, 02:12 PM	#37
1965GTO Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dupo,ill Posts: 219	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.

08-05-2001, 04:26 PM	#38
Special K Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Montreal, Quebec (Canada) Posts: 246	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

08-06-2001, 01:18 AM	#39
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	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.

08-06-2001, 11:51 AM	#40
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	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