Interesting find.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 196
Likes: 6
From: Macon, GA
TVPincDoc,
Although I agree to a degree (but not entirely – the S2000 has an excellent chassis), I would counter that the GTR doesn't permit topless driving. I very much like the appearance of the GTR as well, but the S2000 is prettier – even in CR form. I can see arguments against the look of this beast, but I'd rather not argue matters of aesthetics. Of course, the weighting of the chips we each toss on the scales by which we decide are our own. You must also keep in mind that this S2000 is equipped with significantly more grip than stock. I wonder if that extra $15K might not also squeeze some more performance out of the S2000? In all honesty, it's hard to call this an S2000, but I understand and appreciate it – I even like it (in fact, I think I'd take it further by having it converted to a proper coupe - so much for topless driving
).
---
Jdrum1,
Unfortunately, what's in the engine bay is worse than useless without the body kit. What good is power when the car doesn't 'hook up'? In order to do more than burn rubber, a significant increase in contact patch is required – period. I don't see how one could obtain the necessary tire size without widening the body (unless one likes the appearance of tires that protrude from the fender wells). This car is set up to utilize the power on tap, and that should make it a blast to drive – as someone mentioned, a track monster.
Control is more than just 'go' as well. Lots of 'go' needs lots of 'stop'. That base appears to be covered. The contact patch comes into play there as well, and it doesn't hurt one's chances of keeping the line 'round a corner. So, the wide body kit and the aerodynamic treatments (as well as the rear end changes) are part of a synthesis aimed at maximizing the impact of what's in the engine bay. I actually think it's dangerous to have the latter without the former, so I can accept the following of the form to its function.
Besides, I subscribe to the Lamborghini school of thought regarding a supercar – it should shout! I only care for that shouting from a car that can back it up in a big way, and I have a feeling this car can.
Is it worth $80K? Ah, that's a question we each have to decide for ourselves, but someone obviously thought it was. It'll be interesting to see if another agrees to part with that kind of dough for this car, or if the seller will have to accept less. We'll know tomorrow, eh? (Well, we'll know if the auction price reaches his reserve.)
Although I agree to a degree (but not entirely – the S2000 has an excellent chassis), I would counter that the GTR doesn't permit topless driving. I very much like the appearance of the GTR as well, but the S2000 is prettier – even in CR form. I can see arguments against the look of this beast, but I'd rather not argue matters of aesthetics. Of course, the weighting of the chips we each toss on the scales by which we decide are our own. You must also keep in mind that this S2000 is equipped with significantly more grip than stock. I wonder if that extra $15K might not also squeeze some more performance out of the S2000? In all honesty, it's hard to call this an S2000, but I understand and appreciate it – I even like it (in fact, I think I'd take it further by having it converted to a proper coupe - so much for topless driving
).---
Jdrum1,
Unfortunately, what's in the engine bay is worse than useless without the body kit. What good is power when the car doesn't 'hook up'? In order to do more than burn rubber, a significant increase in contact patch is required – period. I don't see how one could obtain the necessary tire size without widening the body (unless one likes the appearance of tires that protrude from the fender wells). This car is set up to utilize the power on tap, and that should make it a blast to drive – as someone mentioned, a track monster.
Control is more than just 'go' as well. Lots of 'go' needs lots of 'stop'. That base appears to be covered. The contact patch comes into play there as well, and it doesn't hurt one's chances of keeping the line 'round a corner. So, the wide body kit and the aerodynamic treatments (as well as the rear end changes) are part of a synthesis aimed at maximizing the impact of what's in the engine bay. I actually think it's dangerous to have the latter without the former, so I can accept the following of the form to its function.
Besides, I subscribe to the Lamborghini school of thought regarding a supercar – it should shout! I only care for that shouting from a car that can back it up in a big way, and I have a feeling this car can.
Is it worth $80K? Ah, that's a question we each have to decide for ourselves, but someone obviously thought it was. It'll be interesting to see if another agrees to part with that kind of dough for this car, or if the seller will have to accept less. We'll know tomorrow, eh? (Well, we'll know if the auction price reaches his reserve.)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 420
Likes: 2
From: Livermore
TVPincDoc,
Although I agree to a degree (but not entirely – the S2000 has an excellent chassis), I would counter that the GTR doesn't permit topless driving. I very much like the appearance of the GTR as well, but the S2000 is prettier – even in CR form. I can see arguments against the look of this beast, but I'd rather not argue matters of aesthetics. Of course, the weighting of the chips we each toss on the scales by which we decide are our own. You must also keep in mind that this S2000 is equipped with significantly more grip than stock. I wonder if that extra $15K might not also squeeze some more performance out of the S2000? In all honesty, it's hard to call this an S2000, but I understand and appreciate it – I even like it (in fact, I think I'd take it further by having it converted to a proper coupe - so much for topless driving).
---
Jdrum1,
Unfortunately, what's in the engine bay is worse than useless without the body kit. What good is power when the car doesn't 'hook up'? In order to do more than burn rubber, a significant increase in contact patch is required – period. I don't see how one could obtain the necessary tire size without widening the body (unless one likes the appearance of tires that protrude from the fender wells). This car is set up to utilize the power on tap, and that should make it a blast to drive – as someone mentioned, a track monster.
Control is more than just 'go' as well. Lots of 'go' needs lots of 'stop'. That base appears to be covered. The contact patch comes into play there as well, and it doesn't hurt one's chances of keeping the line 'round a corner. So, the wide body kit and the aerodynamic treatments (as well as the rear end changes) are part of a synthesis aimed at maximizing the impact of what's in the engine bay. I actually think it's dangerous to have the latter without the former, so I can accept the following of the form to its function.
Besides, I subscribe to the Lamborghini school of thought regarding a supercar – it should shout! I only care for that shouting from a car that can back it up in a big way, and I have a feeling this car can. Is it worth $80K? Ah, that's a question we each have to decide for ourselves, but someone obviously thought it was. It'll be interesting to see if another agrees to part with that kind of dough for this car, or if the seller will have to accept less. We'll know tomorrow, eh? (Well, we'll know if the auction price reaches his reserve.)
Although I agree to a degree (but not entirely – the S2000 has an excellent chassis), I would counter that the GTR doesn't permit topless driving. I very much like the appearance of the GTR as well, but the S2000 is prettier – even in CR form. I can see arguments against the look of this beast, but I'd rather not argue matters of aesthetics. Of course, the weighting of the chips we each toss on the scales by which we decide are our own. You must also keep in mind that this S2000 is equipped with significantly more grip than stock. I wonder if that extra $15K might not also squeeze some more performance out of the S2000? In all honesty, it's hard to call this an S2000, but I understand and appreciate it – I even like it (in fact, I think I'd take it further by having it converted to a proper coupe - so much for topless driving
).---
Jdrum1,
Unfortunately, what's in the engine bay is worse than useless without the body kit. What good is power when the car doesn't 'hook up'? In order to do more than burn rubber, a significant increase in contact patch is required – period. I don't see how one could obtain the necessary tire size without widening the body (unless one likes the appearance of tires that protrude from the fender wells). This car is set up to utilize the power on tap, and that should make it a blast to drive – as someone mentioned, a track monster.
Control is more than just 'go' as well. Lots of 'go' needs lots of 'stop'. That base appears to be covered. The contact patch comes into play there as well, and it doesn't hurt one's chances of keeping the line 'round a corner. So, the wide body kit and the aerodynamic treatments (as well as the rear end changes) are part of a synthesis aimed at maximizing the impact of what's in the engine bay. I actually think it's dangerous to have the latter without the former, so I can accept the following of the form to its function.
Besides, I subscribe to the Lamborghini school of thought regarding a supercar – it should shout! I only care for that shouting from a car that can back it up in a big way, and I have a feeling this car can.
Is it worth $80K? Ah, that's a question we each have to decide for ourselves, but someone obviously thought it was. It'll be interesting to see if another agrees to part with that kind of dough for this car, or if the seller will have to accept less. We'll know tomorrow, eh? (Well, we'll know if the auction price reaches his reserve.)The car is more of a novelty or for someone who loves only the S2000 and wants more power. This sort of price range is ludicrous, even if that is what it cost in parts. Again, I'd rather have a GTR coupe than an S2000 with 545 hp for $70k.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
