Wouldn't lowering it ruing the main purpose of the CR?

 

I agree with 90% of what you said so far, but the real "hardcore" enthusiasts haven't gone soft, just disappointed with AHM's claim and CR just simply not hardcore enough.

Again, aero parts, it's proven to make you go faster on a "race track," not on the freeway, drag strip or an oval. I think some of you should take your car out to a track day and you will understand and get a better picture of how and why ppl modded their cars that way.

CR is targeted towards new buyers, not existing owners, I'll agree to that.

 

Lots and lots of places.

A few examples:

1997-2002 Honda powered Indy cars ran a turbo V8.

The all-conquering Marlboro McLaren Honda (remember a guy named Alain Prost? Ayrton Senna?) powered F1 cars of the late 80's ran 1.5l turbos.

I could go on, but there's no point

Your move.

 

Well, then the CR should have a turbo too. Why doesn't it?

 

[QUOTE=toofast4yalll,Apr 4 2007, 06:54 PM]90 pounds of weight reduction, are you kidding me?

 

Because quite obviously, they were trying to spend as little money as possible on this project.

 

That wasn't your question.

 

What exactly are you talking about?

Then the CRX Si, Integra Type R, and NSX Type R(both of them) should have had turbo's as well.

 

Someone sure doesn't know Honda history, asking where they used forced induction. Honda produced the FIRST (!) factory turbocharged motorcycle, the 1982 CX500T. I used to own one. Not great but a hoot to ride (twist the wrist and wait for the boost). Kawasaki's slightly earlier boosted bike was an American dealer add-on, not a factory bike.

I'm mixed on whether or not a boosted S2000 would have been the "right" move. In the spirit of the original design I'd have preferred the Spoon-modified 2.0 motor. Wasn't that a 10K or higher redline?

 

Just wondering what a CRX si has to with an S2000 CR, the CR is a very limited production car and the CRX Si was and still is all over the place.