Most Mercedes cars run high 14's. Most Toyota cars are slower than that. Most Neons are slower than an S2000. Go on if you like, but if you don't want to come across as stupid, stop saying things that make it sound like you don't know any better. You are simply jaded. I've been there too, and believe it or not, you'll get over it one day.

 

The guy is either higly jaded and too inexperienced to realize it, or he's yanking your chain, but either way, you shouldn't let it get under your skin. Everybody can see that he's just talking smack.

 

you are trying to say a 14 second car is fast. I love my S2k and this thread makes me laugh. You must have never owned a car with more then 4 cylinders i guess

 

this is not shut down yet......................ha!

 

My Neon ran very high 16s. Dunno where you guys are finding a Neon in the 14s.

I presume you mean the SRT-4. Which as of recent has become it's own model, rather a package to be added on to the Neon.

 

Yeah srt4! But no offence but whome ever has/has had a neon, ITS STILL A NEON. Its like me putting perfume on a peace of s*it it will always stink no matter how much pefume i put on it, it will always smell like dookie!!

 

lol this is just fun to watch we are all gonna give a biased view we all have an S i personally love my S and thats why i bought it. There are tons of cars faster and slower than the s2k. why does it matter generally speaking s2ks are faster then civics, ofcourse there will be alot of exceptions. honestly from driving tons of race cars almost all street cars feel slow and its because of their stock suspension...my bike runs a good 3 seconds faster in the quarter but doesnt change the fact i love driving the S

 

No, the problem is that you are jaded, and too inexperienced to realize it. You are also too inexperienced at dealing with people on the Web to make very good guesses. Perhaps you need to re-read the thread, becaue I've already commented about some of my own experiences with becoming jaded, and I mentioned 0-60 MPH times of under three seconds and quarter mile times in the 10's. If you were paying a little more attention to what others are saying, you'd have realized that I've had experience with vehicles that are much faster than the S2000, and you'd also realize that I've been jaded before, just like you're jaded now. The thing is, I've had WAY more experience than you, and I've outgrown it. You haven't, but you will. Everyone who gets jaded outgrows it eventually, so you can count on it.

Just so you don't jump to any more rediculous conclusions, I'll fill you in a little. I started driving in 1963, and have owned a number of "muscle cars." I've also driven a few very fast drag cars, and my shop builds GTR engines that range from 400 to 1000 WHP. I have PLENTY of experience with quick cars, so much more so than you that I am no longer jaded by them the way you are. If you stick with it as long as I have, you'll eventually understand.

However, the fact that you are jaded isn't the issue here. You have made false statements. You have asserted that the average car (and you cited Benz cars as an example) is quicker than a stock S2000, and that is an untrue statement (even using your example). So I point that out, and you try to attack my experience with this silly response, but you have failed again. Why don't you go back to your original argument and try to convince everyone that the S2000 is "slower than most of the cars on the road?" Is it possible that you have realized that you were wrong and are now just trying to draw attention away from your mistake by attacking me directly? If that is your goal, the best way to achieve it would simply be to let this drop. I won't stoop to personal attacks the way you're doing, but you're not convincing anyone here of anything so what do you think you're going to accomplish? So far all you've done is make false statements, jump to incorrect conclusions, and make statements that don't bare up well to any kind of examination. Don't you realize that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than it is to speak out and remove all doubt?

IBTL.

 

[QUOTE=f20milo,Jan 7 2008, 11:32 AM]Yeah srt4! But no offence but whome ever has/has had a neon, ITS STILL A NEON. Its like me putting perfume on a peace of s*it it will always stink no matter how much pefume i put on it, it will always smell like dookie!!

 

To eleminate the need for more foolishness, click here. There should be no more need to discuss how the average car compares to the S2000.

I find this comparison interesting:

Vehicle/0-60 time/quarter-mile time
2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2

1967 Ferrari 275 GTS/4 NART 6.7 14.7
1977 Ferrari 308 GTB 8.2 17.0
1980 Ferrari 308 GTS 6.9 14.9
1981 Ferrari 308 - Dino GT4 7.8 N/A
1981 Ferrari 308 GTSi 7.9 N/A
1983 Ferrari 308 GTBi Quattrovalvole 6.8 15.2
1986 Ferrari 328 GTS 5.6 14.2 (C&D May 86)
1988 Ferrari 328 GTS 6.7 15.0
1968 Ferrari 330 GTS 6.9 14.9
1970 Ferrari 330 GTS 6.9 14.9
1990 Ferrari 348 tb 6.0 14.3
1993 Ferrari 348 Spider 5.6 14.1
1986 Ferrari 412 6.7 15.0
1973 Ferrari Dino Spyder 8.8 15.3
1974 Ferrari Dino 7.1 15.5
1986 Ferrari GTO 5.0 14.1
1982 Ferrari Mondial 8 9.4 17.1
1984 Ferrari Mondial Cabriolet 7.6 16.0
1986 Ferrari Mondial 3.2 7.1 15.3
1991 Ferrari Mondial t Cabrio 6.6 15.0
1989 Ferrari Testarossa 6.2 14.2

Of course everyone knows all these pittiful Ferrari's are slow. That's what the cars are known for, right?

Somebody who cares can multiply the production numbers of all the cars listed in the link above, times the quarter mile times, if they really want an average, but any fool can see that the average is WELL OVER 14 seconds. Any doubters?

IBTL