LOL.

So I'm turbo now?

The sound you hear is my leaking header. I have the stock Si donut gasket so there is a leak coming from the header and cat joint. You guys crack me up. A lot of people from the car boards know me and they know all I have are boltons so far. My car isn't close to being finished yet. Either the guy in the Stook couldn't drive that well or the S2k isn't as fast as you guys claim it is. But i definitely don't have turbo.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by integrate
[B]yea, 20 mph is a real bad start.

 

I'm not doubting your video. Personally, I think my s2000 feels weak in second gear sometimes. It's kind of weird how hard a s2000 pulls in 3rd and 4th, and not so hard in second. I did pull on a eclipse turbo pretty well in second though, so maybe it's in my mind.

 

The problem with that is that we have track slips to show we're not making anything up.

Maybe all the magazines are in with us on a global conspiracy to make our car seem faster than it is...yeah, that makes sense.

 

Wes, which magazines are you refering to ?

The magazines I've read seem confused about how fast the S2000 really is. They keep changing their minds and posting different times. I've seen as fast as 13.8 in the mags and as slow as 15.1. That is a huge difference.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]Wes, which magazines are you refering to ?

The magazines I've read seem confused about how fast the S2000 really is. They keep changing their minds and posting different times. I've seen as fast as 13.8 in the mags and as slow as 15.1.

 

It's true that the car is difficult to launch from 0 MPH (hammer needs to be dropped at 7K-8K). That's why you see the varying times. But still, you won't see a Civic Si with I/H/E running 14.1 (the most realistic 1/4 time for a stock S2000). From a rolling start, the S2000 becomes much more predictible.

 

I watched your vid, thanks, and for the few hundred feet you raced each time the S2000 spanked your bum. Not sure what you are getting at. I think once you're beat by 2 cars you're beat what's the point of beating you by more? We're you expecting to come back in some late inning charge? 1.3 (your numbers) seconds difference in the quarter mile. A 1/4 mile is like 1320 ft and he would have beat you by more than 100ft. The video doesn't disprove that but rather confirms it since he had you beat by 30ft at least in only a couple hundred feet of road.

100MPH is 145 fps.

 

Well that's one unique way to look at it. The S2000 did not start pulling until third gear and it was a pretty slow pull. To me that's still a pretty close race. Everyone that was watching thought so as well, and most on here that have posted confirm that. I've been beaten worst by cars that aren't supposed to be as fast as the S2000. But you're right in that the further this race would go the uglier it would have looked.

My guess is that if we raced from a stop to 1320ft I would have lost by 4 cars

Hey, I still lost all three times. But no biggie though, my car is only gonna get faster and faster.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KleeftonSi
[B]