Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #15 – May 25, 2007, 06:08:29 PM All the talk about horsepower and torque stops when you have to make that first turn... Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #16 – May 25, 2007, 06:11:36 PM yea thats true the s2000 was much more nimble, but the cobra just is more fun, and can seat more then 2 Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #17 – May 25, 2007, 08:30:32 PM Quote from: Tbird232ci;149724All the talk about horsepower and torque stops when you have to make that first turn... i KNEW that one was coming :D and ill be the first to say :flip: (i dont want to ignite a fight/debate, just stating my humble opinion) Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #18 – May 25, 2007, 09:30:14 PM Hell is riding for any length of time in the back of a Mustang. It is a two-seater in my opinion. Heck, I hate to put anybody in the back of our cars for anything more than an in-town errand. Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #19 – May 25, 2007, 10:11:38 PM Quote from: daboss351;149717It still has the highest specific power output of any street-legal naturally-aspirated engine, with more power for its size than even the engines of the Italian exotics.I think Mazda might have a bit to say about that claim. 232 horsepower from 1.3 naturally aspirated liters. That's a staggering 178.5 horsepower per liter. To put that in perspective, one of our 4.9 liter V8's (yes, they're 4.9 liters, not 5.0 as Ford would have us believe) would have to belt out nearly 875 horsepower, naturally aspirated and street legal, to match it. The original S2000 put out 240 from 2.0 liters, or 120 horses per liter (newer ones put out 240 from 2.2 liters, so they have a lower specific output). The RX-8 also has 159 lb-ft of torque, only three less than the 2.2 liter Honda. The Mazda will happily spin to 9k RPM, too. Just like the Honda. And just like the Honda, the engine has to be revved to get any power out of it. That's what those cars are all about, though. I've never driven either - the closest I came was an Acura Integra type R (or whatever they called it - it was a used car and I was doing the "GM Certified" used car inspection on it). You haven't lived until you've revved an engine to 8k RPM (and that's still 1K RPM below the S2000). It's a different kind of fun than a V8 owner will be used to, but it is still most certainly fun. I almost bought that car on the spot, but the dealership owner's son had a friend that had dibs on it.Personally, for a small puppiesanese roadster I'd take a Miata over an S2000 (and a 350Z over either) Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #20 – May 25, 2007, 11:04:38 PM True love is turning one of our beloved V-8s to 9000+rpm.....And then sliding it through the first corner..... Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #21 – May 25, 2007, 11:18:52 PM hp/Liter is nice for a racing series where you are restricted on displacement, but in the real world, hp/dressed engine weight is far more important. This is one reason the LS7 is still state of the art. Light for its power output. Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #22 – May 26, 2007, 12:45:26 PM ive rode in the back set of a 66 stang for 5 hours, back seat of the 04 for about 5, 11 hours in the back seat of a turbocoupe, and a dakota, the back seat on all of those is MUCH BETTER then that DAKOTA!! Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #23 – May 26, 2007, 04:06:37 PM Quote from: Tbird232ci;149724All the talk about horsepower and torque stops when you have to make that first turn...I'm not auto crossing or anything. Handing doesnt mean anything going from stoplight to stoplight or on the strip. If I need to take turns and have as much speed as the Tbird, I'll take my dad's 85 T/A with the WS6 suspension. That thing handles like nobody's business. Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #24 – May 28, 2007, 12:40:20 AM Quote from: Thunder Chicken;149761I think Mazda might have a bit to say about that claim. 232 horsepower from 1.3 naturally aspirated liters...It's a bit of a stretch to equate a rotary to a piston engine in "displacement" because it's just a little too different...besides the fact that the traditional means of determining displacement don't really give you the "true" displacement of a rotary. Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #25 – May 28, 2007, 09:58:13 AM Quote from: kingcars;149879I'm not auto crossing or anything. Handing doesnt mean anything going from stoplight to stoplight or on the strip. If I need to take turns and have as much speed as the Tbird, I'll take my dad's 85 T/A with the WS6 suspension. That thing handles like nobody's business. Meh, theyre not too bad. Ive been into third-gen F-bodies long before i knew thunderbirds existed. Ive ridden in some NASTY ones, anything from auto cross, to 9 second cars.The point im making, an S2000 isnt meant to go straight. Its a car built with cornering in mind. Take a road race car to the drag strip, youll be dissapointed. Take a drag car to the road race circuit, youll probably wreck it. Quote Selected
Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right Reply #26 – May 28, 2007, 01:09:58 PM Yup, and thats exactly why I'm not road racing :hick: . Still doesnt take anything away from the fact my Tbird was hanging with a pretty expensive sports car. :)About dad's T/A, it's really funny to ride around in it for a while, then hop in the Chevelle and drive some. Two COMPLETELY different cars handling and horsepower wise. Quote Selected
Topic: Tbird vs S2000.....hmmmmm daboss is right (Read 3405 times)
previous topic - next topic
