BLKWS.6

My first official race in the 5.0: Me VS. 04'? S2000 55-95 roll

We both pulled up even at 55, I dropped from OD to 4th gear and punched it. He anticipated, but I got about a 1-1.5 car jump (I didnt sucker punch him, we had been side by side for a while and he was nudging foreward). I pulled another 1-1.5 or so cars and maintained my lead until about 70mph where he pulled another car back off of my lead, then i maintained until about 90-95. He may have reeled me in at HIGH speed, but on that road, I was not going to break 100+.

Conclusion...3rd gear would have been a better choice, skinny guy in S2000, alone vs me and my gf and a full tank of gas. S2000 still got pulled/held off. PS. those cars trap pretty fast for their ET (14.2 @ 99.9) so im assuming they are wicked from a roll and this was a decent competitor for a roll race??

grey03mach1

iTrader: (3)

What kinda gears you running with? Mods? Hell what year car do you have? I am assuming it's a Stang (username). Anyway, congrats on the kill.

BLKWS.6

heads/cam/intake/4.10's/1988 5.0 GT sorry, didnt realize i had left it out

TransAm52804

Actually, trapping 100 MPH is normal for a 13.9-14.2 ET. 13.9 being a good launch, and 14.2 being a bad launch. They're nimble cars, but have NO *****. You holding him off with those mods shouldn't have be any kind of problem.

BLKWS.6

The S2000 trapped at exactly the same speed as the 05 GT but was .6 slower in the 1/4 as tested by Motortrend (or was it Roadand Track?) (I looked it up last night in the last issue of one or the other) and this would lead me to belive that the S2000 would beat the 05 GT from a roll soundly, as its trap speed was the same, even though its tqless *** took almost a second longer to do 0-60, once it GOT going, it made up for it in the acceleration dept. but as we all know, launch is the key to a good ET. Hence, I figure it superior FROM A ROLL to the new mustang GT's citing the above evidence, am I wrong, does anyone beg to differ?

ZFan88

iTrader: (4)

You are correct in that situation

grey03mach1

iTrader: (3)

As I try to make sense of it all...I mean as important as it is (this s2000 vs 05 Mustang vs 88 GT topic). I can not help but think how important it is to get outside every now and then. You should probably try it.

J/K Your interest and reasoning is well thought out which is somewhat unusual considering the topic.

Sukkoi19

Most S2000s Ive seen usually run in the 95-100 mph range at our track, while as the 05 GTs are pretty easily running 102-105 mph.

What H/C/I are you running? You should easily be trapping 105+ with even a mild H/C/I setup on a 5.0L.

Good kill btw.

BLKWS.6

I have not, as of yet taken my 5.0 to the track. It is a full weight 88 GT with a 302 crate motor from Central Coast mustang using GT40P heads (10.5:1 compression) forged pistons (probe) 16.RR's X303 cam (.542 @ .050 with 224/224 duration) 1500-6500rpm intake (typhoon by prof. products) Shorty headers, bbk X-pipe (no cats) flowmaster force 2 cat-back. 4.10 gears, TKO500 transmission. The engine according to CCM should put about 265-285 to the tires. I am expecting low 13's.

KB99WS6

iTrader: (6)

Wow, a H/C/I 5.0 losing ground to a stock S2000 after 70mph?? I'd say you should be trapping at least 107 with your mods unless your car is a pig. I would think you would pull good on a stock S2k. I do know they are much faster from a roll than from a dig, but still....

Darksol

quite the opposite. the s2000 needs to be reved high from a dig to get a good run. with only 162lb of torque the ned top end power sence they lack low end grunt need for a roll run.
HONDA S2000

Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster
Estimated price as tested: $34,000
Engine type: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection

Displacement: 132 cu in, 2157cc
Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 7800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 162 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 94.5 in
Length/width/height: 162.2/68.9/50.0 in
Curb weight: 2840 lb
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: .15.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.1 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 149 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 166 ft
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 20 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 23 mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2
notice the 5-60 time is way less than the dig.

BLKWS.6

You must still remember that I chose 4th gear at 55mph to start from...even with 4.10's thats only something like 3500 rpm or so instead of the 4500-5000 rpm that 3rd would have given me (max hp with my setup is at about 5500 or so) and so I did not get NEAR the jump I COULD have gotten on the guy (Just got the car finished up this last saturday night...still learning things)

KB99WS6

iTrader: (6)

Yeah I think my mindset was still with the supercharged ones, since I just raced one. The SC ones are known to be much faster from a roll, than from a dig. The guys over on S2k forums were saying from a roll the SC ones rip away from the stock bolt-on ones, but from a dig until about 60 they are about even.