Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

I love how people can make general statements like modded srt-4>modded s2k... if you want a car with a cheap interior, looks like ass, fwd, get an srt-4... there's a lot more to a car than straight-line power which is about the only thing an srt-4 is good for

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

Please, oh PLEASE DO, show me ANY stock S2000 in the country that has put up better 1/4 mile numbers than my STOCK 2002 Mustang GT.

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

you guys are funny...

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

I ran 12.35 with 310 hp.. and 307 lb/ft of torque :)

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

my penis is bigger than all of yours.

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

I dunno, I think his car is nice and thats cool that he built it up and everything. But honestly, I really don't care much for people acting like an elitist asshole just because of what they have. I think myself and many others would have a lot more respect if he was slightly more humble instead of trying to think he's better than everyone becuase of a car. In my eyes, having a turbo S2K isn't an excuse to be a cocky fucker, sorry. But that's just me.

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

:stupid:

couldnt have said it better.http://www.puertoricodragracing.com/YaBBImages/huh.gif

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

umm wrong...a 900-1000 hp v8 run's well into the 8's....that is 6-5 seconds faster than stock...a huge gain.so you tell me how a 450-500 hp s2000 only getting a gain of 2 seconds over stock is the same?how about learn something before you post.and if you wanna talk about what i drive....i have 2 stangs...one is a extremely high hp car.that's how i know your little comparison doesn't work here bud.

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

And with that statement you've lost all credibility. Go drive a modded SRT4, and then drive a STOCK S2000. Drive them like real cars too. Hit the brakes, have some fun in the rain, put them through some autoX times....tell me which one is more fun and which one is a better car. I have...

If you'll read the rest of my posts you'll see where I said "just as every stock S2000 isn't a slow high 14 second car...every stock Mustang GT is NOT a mid 13 second car. I've seen plenty...in fact the vast majority of stock GTs run low 14s...even mid 14. I ran 14 flat and a best of 13.87. That will beat ALMOST every stock mustang GT I've ever seen.


Also, don't think that his S2000 is the fastest one around...there are a few in the 600hp range and I know of at least one thats in the 700 range. Will it run 6s? nope. Will it be incredibly fun to drive? Yep....what else matters? It's all about what you consider fun, S2000s are one of the funnest cars that money can buy. Thats the bottom line.

(on a side note) that guy is kind of arrogant and might have gotten a warmer welcome if he was a little more humble, I'm not saying I like the guy....just his car.

Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
 

Maybe you should learn to read the entire thread. Nic wasn't talking directly to you. He was talking about this comment.
he just used your comment about torque as well.

Not to mention a vast majority of them DO run 13's stock. Hate to break it to ya, but the average is 13.7-14.1 You will see a few mid 14's out of the autos. Then again I have also seen 14.2's in an auto as well.

As for the whole 436 whp running 11.9 w/ 2800 pounds, is really pathetic. There have been 3300 pound mustangs with less than 320 rwhp running 11.5's and Many other heavier cars running those times with less hp. He may be proud of his car and he should be. Lets not mistake this as him being God because that time,hp,weight excludes him from being anywhere close to that.