tell me which part isn't true?

 

except for the fact that no, not all S2000 are like that..I have met quite a few cool ones here actually. Heck, there are owners like that of every car...but like I said, none of that was directed towards any of you that appreciate a car for what is it and not how much u payed for it.

 

Okay, the SRT-4 is fast, and a VERY good performing car for the money, but don't say something stupid like this.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KevPSR

 

Okay, since the trash talking has started, let's see if we can point out a few things.

1. Yes, the SRT is quick, no argument there. It better be considering it has almost .5 liters (or .4 liters if you want to be tacky) more and boost. I'd imagine a modern day 3.0L 6 cylinder packing boost and spraying would be quicker than a 2.4L turbo (get the picture?).

2. Considering the S2000 packs the "torqueless" power (all motor, no crutch of a turbo) of it's F20C 2.0L engine, it's more than enough to give pre-'04 stock SRT-4's a damn close run, provided both cars are driven well.

3. Just to educate the morons who thinks the S2000 has no torque, name any production car packing the same displacement or less that outputs more torque and power without boost? For that matter, I've never heard of a "4 cylinder NA torque monster."

4. The SRT's strengths are the motor, Viper seats, and the Autometer boost gauge (LSD for the '04 model and more HP). The back seats look like a rental car, the suspension is soft and dives even at light braking and shifter looks like a silver lollipop that comes out of nowhere and feels like crap. I must admit that the OEM exhaust sound of the SRT sounds nice, (no mufflers, only resonators I think).

5. The S2000 has the stiffest convertible chassis you'll ever find commonly roaming the streets. The suspension is solid, the brakes are incredible, the shifter feel is world-class awesome, and no where on the car does it remotely display anything cheap looking, like a rental car. The steering response is quicker than the SRT, and the list goes on.

I've done a write-up a while back regarding my impressions of the SRT-4. To make a long story short, the S2000 is a high performance masterpiece of all motor engineering that spells performance, quality and style at every inch of the car. Dodge took a cheaper approach and engineered performance only at select areas, focusing a lot in the engine and sacrificing the plain styling of the interior.

I'd imagine it'd be cheap to take a Sentra chassis, stick a 2.4L intercooled turbo motor under the hood, put Skyline seats, a boost gauge and a metal lollipop for a shifter and call it a sports car. It took Honda years to come up with its high x-bone frame to increase strength to the car despite being an open sports car. If you wanted a car that'll take out an SRT4 (even modded ones)...

you could easily get a used EK9 Civic, swap it for an H22A, T3/T4 Hybrid with Tial wastegate, FMIC, LSD and such and you'd smoke the SRT and many other cars out there and still be under what they're asking at the dealer, but that's not the point. The SRT guys like their cars and we do ours.

The reason behind my reaction to the whole thing was due to one person claiming the Neon was stock which was absolute bullshit. So what if the SRT is faster than the S2000, there's a vid on the net of a Caravan beating a Camaro on the drag strip so should we all go out and buy Caravan's?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KevPSR

 

hahahahaha...this is getting funny. Thanks for the laugh!

"Just to educate the morons who thinks the S2000 has no torque, name any production car packing the same displacement or less that outputs more torque and power without boost?"

hahaha, regarless the circumstances, it has no torque. MY bad it didn't come stock with a turbo or more displacement..you still have no torque.

Why would we need to go anywhere to prove something when it is you guys first claiming the S2000 is better at handling? It'd be different if I was the first to say that.

When did I ever tell or imply for anyone to buy a car if they loose to it? Feel free to point that out.

Either way, I think S2000 are beautiful cars...heck, if I had the money, I'd sport one(yes, make fun of me because I'm too poor). And all this is is smack talking over the internet, no need to get worked up about it. O well...at leaste it's a good laugh!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
Ohh, the S2000 has so little torque?

 

Like I said earlier, considering it has "no torque" it's enough to stay nose to nose with a stock 03 SRT4 packing boost and larger displacement, assuming both cars are driven well. What does that say, that it takes no torque to stay with a '03 SRT4 and all the extra torque that it's making means nothing? The S2000 using all motor is doing what the SRT4 needs boost to achieve.

So from what you're saying... we should all ditch our cars to rush out and get an SRT4? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

 

yeap, had to quote myself...show me how in anyway I have implied that you need to sell it. Thanks