S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Pimpin is Easy
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,760
Likes: 0
From: Smithfield
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Jason300zxTT
Who runs 11.9?
Shaun "BLACKTURBOS2K" I dont belive has ever ran a 11.9 yet. the only person with a Turbo S2k I KNOW of that ran a 11.9 was the owner of inline pro a guy named Jon and he let off towards the end and trapped at 112 mph Shaun's black turbo s2k trapped at like 118 one time and i think 122 the next. So the speeds are more then enough to run mid to low 11's. But running on kumo ecsta tires dosent help a s2k to much and O yea the shitty axles and rear ends they run.
Shaun "BLACKTURBOS2K" I dont belive has ever ran a 11.9 yet. the only person with a Turbo S2k I KNOW of that ran a 11.9 was the owner of inline pro a guy named Jon and he let off towards the end and trapped at 112 mph Shaun's black turbo s2k trapped at like 118 one time and i think 122 the next. So the speeds are more then enough to run mid to low 11's. But running on kumo ecsta tires dosent help a s2k to much and O yea the shitty axles and rear ends they run.
Registered member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,972
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
his axles would snap.
His s2k is mainly a highway/race car because with any REAL traction the s2k wont hold up. There drive train wasent made to hold that kinda power.
His s2k is mainly a highway/race car because with any REAL traction the s2k wont hold up. There drive train wasent made to hold that kinda power.
Patron
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 0
From: Chesterfield
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Jason300zxTT
his axles would snap.
His s2k is mainly a highway/race car because with any REAL traction the s2k wont hold up. There drive train wasent made to hold that kinda power.
His s2k is mainly a highway/race car because with any REAL traction the s2k wont hold up. There drive train wasent made to hold that kinda power.
HHIC
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19,087
Likes: 0
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Nic
In other words, the S2000 is a flimsy piece of shit
In ANY race other than a 1/4 mile drag race your beloved Mustang wouldn't stand a chance against an S2000. Do you people seriously think that the only thing that matters is what kind of 1/4 mile times a car posts? I hate to brake it to you but Mustangs aren't God's gift to the car world. They're bloated, overweight, antiquated, poorly built cars that use a V8 and a strong rear end to consider themselves "sports cars". They aren't. They're modern day muscle cars (that don't have much muscle) that aren't good for anything but a 1/4 mile race. You obviously have approximatly fuck for S2000 experiance and yet you try to place your beloved Mustang in the same class....it's not.
Registered member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,972
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Nic
In other words, the S2000 is a flimsy piece of shit
NO i never said that. What i ment is this. Any car with the right support from the aftermarket can become anything the owner wants it to be. The S2K dosent have the support it needs to be able to hold the power his s2k is making now. Once a company comes out with a REAL good set of axles and and a rear to hold the power that inline pro is making with there turbo s2k's then they will be ok. Shauns car would tear a new ass to 9 out of 10 cars on the street with out any doubt. Here is a video I put together awile ago and his car is in it.
http://www.streetneeds.com/uploads/video/NovaVID02.wmv
RIGHT CLICK SAVE AS.
Jason
Patron
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 0
From: Chesterfield
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Flite
In ANY race other than a 1/4 mile drag race your beloved Mustang wouldn't stand a chance against an S2000.
Do you people seriously think that the only thing that matters is what kind of 1/4 mile times a car posts?
I hate to brake it to you but Mustangs aren't God's gift to the car world.
I'm going to go home and cry now.
They're bloated, overweight, antiquated, poorly built cars that use a V8 and a strong rear end to consider themselves "sports cars".
They're modern day muscle cars (that don't have much muscle) that aren't good for anything but a 1/4 mile race.
You obviously have approximatly fuck for S2000 experiance
and yet you try to place your beloved Mustang in the same class
Slow as Shit
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,172
Likes: 0
From: Short Pump
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
I love it when people who never even worked on a car apart talk smack to Nic. Let alone he prolly has more hours tearing down several models of cars, diagnosing them and repairing them than those clowns combined.....lol.
Kicking Ass
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 0
From: HAAF, GA/RVA
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I love it when people who never even worked on a car apart talk smack to Nic. Let alone he prolly has more hours tearing down several models of cars, diagnosing them and repairing them than those clowns combined.....lol.
HHIC
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19,087
Likes: 0
Re: S2K beat in hp/liter production engine = SSC AERO
I'm curious as to exactly what you consider your S2000 experiance. I've got 80K miles behind the wheel of one with a consideral amount of track time in that. I don't mean a 1/4 miles track either, Road Atlanta, and Laguna Seca to name a couple.
If the only thing you care about is in fact 1/4 mile times then I agree you should never even consider a S2000...thats not what they're about. That hardly makes them a piece of shit though...just as you said yourself, they are a different kind of car than a Mustang. While we are hating on each other cars (past or present)...if all you care about is 1/4 mile times why did you buy a Mustang? You could have spent far less money and gone far faster with an F-body. Honda is number one for small 4 cylinders and GM makes the best big V8s....what exactly is a Mustang good for?? I mean, I actually considered a Mustang for my S2000 replacement but I also care about stuff like comfort, build quality, class, refinement..... If all you care about is 1/4 mile times you wouldn't ever take any of that into consideration. So wouldn't an F-body be a better choice for you?
If the only thing you care about is in fact 1/4 mile times then I agree you should never even consider a S2000...thats not what they're about. That hardly makes them a piece of shit though...just as you said yourself, they are a different kind of car than a Mustang. While we are hating on each other cars (past or present)...if all you care about is 1/4 mile times why did you buy a Mustang? You could have spent far less money and gone far faster with an F-body. Honda is number one for small 4 cylinders and GM makes the best big V8s....what exactly is a Mustang good for?? I mean, I actually considered a Mustang for my S2000 replacement but I also care about stuff like comfort, build quality, class, refinement..... If all you care about is 1/4 mile times you wouldn't ever take any of that into consideration. So wouldn't an F-body be a better choice for you?