LOL. ya got me, wait till i show him. no edits here. its an M roadster. dinan stage 3. LOL

 

[QUOTE=S2oooNvegas,Sep 19 2004, 06:50 PM] LOL.

 

The cadillac CTS-V runs a 13.5 sec quarter mile. Obviously the driver didn't know how to launch properly. I know the S2k could keep up with it from about 0 to 80mph, but after that I'm sure the CTS-V would pull.

 

I believe the CTS-V is capable of 0-60 times in the 4.7-4.8 range which isn't vey likely in the S2000 in addition to which the CTS-V traps about 6 mph faster in the quarter which makes it significantly faster than the S2000. An S2000 vs. a CTS-V in a straight line should expect to lose on a regular basis.

 

CTS-V > S2000 in a drag race, the driver of the CTS-V was not driving properly or something was wrong with his Caddy.

Good Run!

 

Sorry - the S2K is a fantastic car and I love mine, but if your emphasis is straight line runs, you got the wrong car. Torque, my man, is the answer in a straight line, not HP.

Ever look at a V-12 Ferrari specs? Or for that matter gone to a Ferrari club outing? Watch those guys TRY to start from a standing start!! Hysterical!!?? Stall them, feather the clutch, etc. - anything to get it rolling. Saw an F40 LM and the poor guy could barely get it rolling. Why? NO TORQUE!!! Same with an F1 engine. How many clutches has C&D burned out dragging a Lambo from a standing start?? Same reason - they can't get out of their own way from a dead stop. Once they get rolling though!!!!

A frined of mine years ago had a very nice '68 327/350HP Corvette. I drove it - nice balanced car. What did he do - put the Z28 cam in it. I drove it after the mod - had to rev to 3000 RPM and feather the clutch to get rolling from a traffic light. Destroyed the balance of the car - lots of top end HP but no low end torque.

The original Z28 was a screamer - an OHV V-8 that would turn over 7000 RPMs.
A killer on the track and in IROC. But in a straight line? Stock big blocks ate them for breaksfast, lunch, and dinner - torque. My '68 396/350 HP Camaro with automatic put out over 400 ft.lbs. of torque - and chewed 'em up and spit 'em out. Get into the twisties and my car plowed like a farm tractor from understeer caused by 60+ % of the weight on the front end. A big block engine was not exactly light versus a 302 Z28 engine. The Z was much better balanced.

And that is the S2K - a balanced sports car with superb handling, braking and certainly more than adequate power - but it is not, nor would I want its image to be that of, a straight line street racer. The CTS-V driver was either playing with you, babying a new car, or did not know how to drive. Enjoy your car for what it is.

 

FYI Ferrari F40 has 426 ft lbs @ 4000 rpm and it weighs 400lbs less than the s2000! 0-60 in less than 4 seconds and you are telling me it can't get rolling because there is no torque? All the exotic cars you mentioned have plenty of torque to take off without stalling and are lighter than most cars out there.

You could have all the torque you want but no Horsepower=slow car.

 

Fever - you are right

I did not make my point re Ferrari - no BOTTOM end torque. They had to rev the engines like crazy to get them moving - they may do 0-60 under 4 but only do that by dumping a $$$$ clutch. Ok if you are Car and Driver - any owner doing that is a fool, IMHO.

 

I have a friend that owns an exotic car rental here in Miami and he is always complaining about the idiots that burn his clutches and they are worth up to $15K. Its just damn insane.

 

cts-v 0-60 time is said to be 4.3