The movie makes sense. The RX-7 driver just didnt know they were racing, happens to me all the time. The light turns green your listening to some tunes easing out for a block or so, and you look over in your mirror and there some guy in a pokeymobile who has never seen a really fast car and he thinks he's racing you.


Hyper-X Your posts are like soooo BS

 

yes foo there are no N/A FD's

lol

 

I am fully aware of the FD not coming in an N/A form, but the best example to compare it with is the FC which was available N/A. Even if you added in a 20hp margin and such, the FC non-turbo is no threat to the cars of today. It was my means to say that boosted versus unboosted cars don't make good comparisons.

In search of ultimate power, the FD is the clear winner and if you payed attention to my original post, I did state that in sheer power the FD is on top, so what are you trying to argue with me here?

Dude, your numbers are way off on the FC3S turbo. I owned one for 4 years, i got it bone stock and modded it to approximately 250-255whp depending on conditions. In stock form, the best time possible was a 15.3 at 91mph which is incredibly slow for today's standards. I ran my S2000 for the first time, got a horrible 2.9 sec 60ft and still finished 14.6 secs at the 1/4 mile, plus we are at sea level. Don't speculate on your numbers, unless you owned one, don't act like you know what you are talking about. I don't say squat about cars I've never owned.

You say that the S2k needs a 9000rpm rev? Your right. I don't think you know why I'm agreeing with you but let me explain it in simple but crude English. A high-power naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine gets it power by spinning the engine at higher rpms because unlike a force fed engine, it needs more air flow and higher engine rpms means more air is flowing. In other words, there's less power generated at lower rpms otherwise we'd all race at idle. Class dismissed.

The RX8 is a fantastic car IMHO, the Renesis engine is what Mazda should have developed with the FD but due to the design of it, it appears to be hard to slide a turbo in there. The development of the new side exhaust and intake ports allow for less or no overlap allowing the engine to run leaner and cleaner, plus increase the fuel mileage potential. This new car is Mazda's attempt to shake the reputation of the gas-guzzling nature of the earlier 1.3L engines.

In stock form, I've never seen any of the cars I've listed to hit the 13's here. No Supra, RX7 or 300ZX has ever broken 14's at HRP in Hawaii in stock form. I used to be there every weekend for 8 years and I'm yet to see one. Unless our track is unusually long, I've only seen them break into the 13's after modding, be it small or otherwise. BTW, times don't mean much to me versus the trap speeds.

If you are referring to the better car as the car with the ultimate power potential then perhaps the S2000 shouldn't be on the list, but that doesn't mean that the car is necessarily slow.

Find me a car, 4 banger or 1.3L rotary, natually aspirated within a reasonable price range in stock form that can outclass the S2000 in speed. BTW, that competitor would be a Honda also.

I don't disrespect any car out there, only people. I won't let anyone dis on the S2000 easily either.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
[B] I used to own a turbo FC3S and it was slow in stock form and very little torque to go with it.

 

No problem. Back then, I was trying to compete with my friend who owned a 300ZX TT with all kinds of HKS stuff.. EVC's, scramble boost controllers, etc. Hence the reasoning for the upgrade to keep up with his times.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
[B]I am fully aware of the FD not coming in an N/A form, but the best example to compare it with is the FC which was available N/A.

 

Yes, I can say that the FD non-turbo is a slower car than the S2000, stock for stock as a comparison. I used to own a turbo FC3S and it was slow in stock form and very little torque to go with it. It was only after modding it with a bigger turbine, intercooler and new 3mm seals did it achieve real performance.

The N/A RX7 FD is slower than than the S2000, hands down. (I hope to not hear anything regarding the 1.3L displacement subject as an excuse).


As 94rexsf had already corrected, there were no NA FDs, only NA and T FCs.

Yes the Masuda guys do like to signify their special engine, but you guys do it too and even more.



Don't get me wrong, I never said that the RX7 Turbo sucked, it just wasn't tuned well at the factory, that's all. I owned 1 for 5 months and sold it to a friend of mine who went all out on it. It is a very fast car.


I think you were expecting too much for a stock car that old. If it was an NA, you can be disappointed, but for a turbo car, you are suppose to mod the s&*&( out of it to get the best performance.


Are you saying the Honda didn't achieve anything by coming out with the S2k? It sure sounds that way after reading it and having a few others here read it also. I never said anything about the 9k redline and such, but since you brought it up, Honda is the first to make such an engine that is LEV. To me, there's no excuse anymore to not tune a car for performance and have very effective emission controls put into play.


OK, so the S is environmentally friendly.


I have no idea where you are coming from by trying to put me down with not knowing anything about cars outside the US and since you don't know me, you should keep your comments to yourself.


My apologees, was not in a good mood today.


SHIRI said: " ... they copied practically everything from Toyota/Suzuki, in particular the Toyota Trueno Sprinter (from dashboard to high revs"

So by what you are saying about Honda is that you are sure that they copied Toyota and Suzuki for the dashboard to the high revs? What evidence do you have to support your claim? The dashboard of the S2k doesn't even remotely look like anything that Toyota or Suzuki ever put into production. On top of that, how do you know whether one copied something from another? Honda has F1 engines that rev much higher than 10k rpms and have won numerous races based on technology applied to some of their current model vehicles. Another thing, that would suggest that the FD which shares a similar rev limit near 9k that they too have copied Toyota/Suzuki with their rev limit, although the rotary and piston engine share very little in common.



http://www.4age.net/gallery/ae86/033.jpg

Ferrari has been building high RPM cars for years, they just didn't feel the need to go as high as 9000. Likewise with all the other cars. 9000rpm is no big deal, hearing it probably is.


The heads, pistons, rods, and block of the F20C doesn't even remotely look like anything used in the 4AG series (take any one, 16v to the 20V) so I have no clue where you got this idea of Honda copying others. Take a good look at the blown up schematic of the S2k's engine and you'll see that its very different in design.


Toyota has been producing high performing NAs a lot longer than most of the other japanese companies. They had the right idea, Honda just simply copied it but took it to another level, a marketing one that is.


SHIRI said: "I may not like the RX7, but it is a car I can respect (any car that can go really really fast would"

By your description of a car you'd respect is something that can go really fast. That would mean that a Dodge SRT-4 would be something you'd respect more than an RX7 turbo, Supra Turbo, 300ZX because it is faster stock versus stock.


The topic at hand is about performance, so yeah the RX7 is a worthy opponent to any fast cars out there. You like to talk stock for stock. If the SRT-4 is faster than the RX7 stock for stock, then that is a car to be respected! But, mod both cars and guess who gets the last laugh and the respect?


SHIRI, please RE-READ my post. I didn't trash on the RX7 FD, but having owned and worked on one, I know of its strengths and weaknesses. I'm only beginning to learn the S2000 so I have much to learn plus I won't ever claim to know any car that I haven't owned, but that's me.


What did you own? FC or FD? I don't like the FD because of its poor reliability and design (a matter of personal opinion here). I like the NA FC because its old skool and less outrageous.


No, I don't know much about cars outside of the USA because unfortunately I live in the USA. I don't care what car (enter name here) in a country outside the US can do against my S2000 here because I don't worry
about a car I won't get to see here. You think I care if Geo made a Metro with a 9200rpm redline? You think that'll make me run out and get one just because? Dude, numbers mean nothing, driving experience means everything.


I don't pretend that my cars are as good as the Ferraris or Lambos, they (my cars) are fast but they are no power exotics. Likewise, the S strive in certain situations that the RX7s, Supras, Zs and GTRs may not do so well in. If you wanted a fast car, you can do a lot better than an S. But if you like the S for what it stands for, driving enjoyment of a different sense, then you got the right car.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 94rexsf
[B]

i can run a 13.2 with a 2.6 60 ft.

 

Please?

 

No shit, your comparing a car from 1986 to a car made in 2003... I should hope you could beat an NA rx7 that you can buy for around $3k, as compared to your $34k car. My FC with stock turbo, will beat a stock s2k in a straight line and definately give it a run for its money in handling.