All your credibility went out the window when you suggested overhead cams were new technology compared to push rods, so whatever you "get" is probably wrong.
[/quote]

right... because if he got one fact wrong that must mean that he knows nothing about anything.../sarcasm
[/quote]


S2000 is built by a company who owns F1 technology -ok-. They could've easily produced a much nicer car at a much higher price point. They did not opt for aluminum construction -so did the Z06-. But they decided to give S2000 a screaming engine with higher power per displacement than anything else (until the 2010 Ferrari) -and no tourqe-. They did decide what the S2000 should have or not -Hm so Chevy called some kids to design the Z06?-.

On the other hand, C6 seems like it is produced by a company with whatever they can put together -Except that they've been racing the Vette at Le Mans for years and using it to develop technology-. Don't get me wrong, it is a decent car. They had access to a small block V8, and it worked pretty well, and they went with it . Does it work well in the C6? Yes. Is it the best option for a sports car? No -Says you? What about a 240hp engine in a sports car?-. If Chevy had the technology to build a modern (think double overhead cams), reliable, high revving engine, would they still go with the LS? Of course not -They do, and they chose not to. There is a ton of "technology" in the LS7. The SBC gave birth to the aftermarket. If thousands of people race it, it must have some redeaming qualities-. Corvette looks like a good honest try in reaching to build a high performance sports car. -An honest try that hangs with 997 Turbos and Ferraris-

Honda did not have to reach for anything. They had it. -Yes Honda has a history of using Vtech and high reving engines. But they didn't do a good job with this one. Why is the K series so much easier to mod?- They just had to make the right decisions to create an affordable yet competitive sports car, and they did. F20 is a showcase of high technology, not a recycled engine from decades ago. -And then the K20 came along- 0-60 times can be had cheap. Refinement, know-how, and technology cannot. -Yea technology is expensive, which is why Honda left F1 and Chevy is still racing-

That's why I consider C6 not an upgrade, not at the same level, but a clear downgrade from the S2000.




That's his original post. My responses are between - - .

Check out this list and see how the "downgrade" from the S2000 stacks up.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...to_2011_page_8

And to make this clear. I love the S2000. I'm flying to get mine tomorrow. But to say all these things about the S2000, as if it's the best thing since sliced bread, and talking down about the Z06 is just very very ignorant. You might not like it. Think it's ugly. Refuse to buy from Government Motors. That's all fine. But you can't deny the Z06 is a great performance car that has a lot going for it if it can hang with the best from Porsche, Ferrari and Lambo.

 

Hahaha, the '11 Mustang V6 is 2 sec faster than the S2000 CR.

For those who haven't driven a 2011 Mustang V6, do it. It's everything we always hoped the Accord Coupe would be - fast, fun and fuel efficient. I rented the cowl shaking convertible version for a week and averaged over 30MPG out of the 305HP V6. Really nice car, just wish I didn't need my primary car to be FWD/AWD for winter.

I would say the '11 Mustang is now much more a competitor to the S2000 than the C6 is, but I'm sure I'll get flamed for that. The Boss 302 is delicious.

 

'09 ZR1s are going for less than $90k if anyone is interested

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...standard=false

 

I didn't realize honda put phones in their cars. It's VTEC Variablie valve Timing and lift Electronic Control. If you are going to rip on someone for car knowledge at least know your stuff.

 

and they dont use VTEC in their race cars.

 

Exactly.

And yes, not a phone brand. My mistake.

 

seriously guy use your head - the GTO is a practical sports car designed for road use in Australia originally not a "pony car" - compared to the vette it has much better visibility a narrower profile and more importantly suspension stroke to deal with the types of roads generally considered "back roads" It was designed the same was as the G8 another great but sadly gone product.

As a race car on prepared surfaces even the auto x the vette doesnt have these issues but none of that makes it a better sports car only a better race car.

Even around a track like streets of willow which is designed to mimic a back road the gto can take a far more aggressive line through the corners - I rode in the back seat of one while the 82 year old driver destroyed every other instructor on course that day and were not talking about v6 mustangs many of them had highly tuned m3's and there was even a z06 out there as well.

As far as the Lotus though we can all respect the idea Colin Champan had you obviously don't know about them very well. The base model corolla engine that powers it is known to throw rods out the side of the block for fun - the body which is so light is represented in the fact that you can see light through it and the quality is such that I've had them peel off fender lines and even the rear bumper once cruising at high speeds - did I mention the 1970's brake booster ?

It may be a great car on maintained roads but wouldnt survive long on many of the local roads here is so cal.

Then again based on your comments you don't really know what a good back road is anyway so maybe it's all moot.

 

LOLWUT?

not sure if serious.

 

Really..? I mean I saw the post about it all being marketing, but I doubt that's the case. The S2000 was never meant to be such a high volume car, or at least not as high as it was. It was like Honda's birthday gift to themselves. I don't know much about the mechanics behind a car, but from what I've heard there's a lot of racing/F1 tech in the s2000. It might not be as direct as Chevy actually putting parts they used from racing into the Corvette, but I would think they would at least use their knowledge of tuning and whatnot from F1 to improve the performance.

What I mean is just that the knowledge is there, although obviously they won't be putting F1 car parts in a street car. One of the guys at the shop I go to talked about how the suspension on the S2000 is like a F1 car too, after looking at my car. I had no idea what he was talking about, but it was just something about how the upper and lower arms of the suspension were so thin, or so I think. I don't really see why Honda wouldn't use the knowledge they got from F1 and use it when they made a sports car. That being said, I don't see why any of this even really matters.

The S2000 and C6 both are really good cars, and it doesn't and shouldn't matter where they got the technology from, so long as it performs.

 

THere is a big difference between taking lassons learned from F1 and taking technology from F1... the suspension is an adaptation of the same double wishbone suspension honda had been using for years. The engine is High revving kinda like an F1 engine but doesn't use any technology from an F1 car. But there are no design elements or anything from F1 besides the inspiration in the S2000... That said, it does not make the car bad in any way, I love it, but the whole point of bringing this up in the first place was a counter argument to someone who said that the S2000 used F1 technology, and that the corvette did not use any racing technology (which it clearly does)