^^^^^ don't forget the video camera, any race video is good video

 

you know full well a 4cyl is not **** in the 8th. I live near DC not NC. The best that I have ran in the 1/8 is a 7.2 @ 101 with stock tires from Honda. Im sure I can get into the 6s with some DR

 

Did anyone watch the vid where I ran the Stang? It has a built motor with 150+ shot. We went from a roll, good for me, and he did not spray and I was on low boost. Low boost = 13lbs. Thats about 425 rwhp

 

Where? I just saw the talon video

 

There are 2 vids, watch the 2nd vid. Its the one when we were at the track and at the very end I ran the stang from a roll.

 

actually I know 2 guy's that kill in the 8th WITH 4CYLS!! and guess what there both HONDAS one is a hatch and the other is a coupe so you tell me.... and by the way 7.2 on stock tires...go tell that **** to someone else

 

BlackturboS2k might or might not give a **** who you are, but what makes you think he'd be the only one if he didn't.

No matter what your car runs or what videos you have, you know some people really still might not give a ****. An 11 second timeslip is wonderful for his car, and it will spank quite a few bolt-on LS1's...

But this line is funny... First of all... :

Secondly, obviously the comment he made doesn't apply to you... Who cares if he generalized... What, you want him to backtrack and compile the user names to list them? Big deal, he generalized... to the cars here that he WOULD walk.

 

If you would watch the vid then you would see I was on stock tires. The vid also shows my time slip and the # on my car so no one will have any questions. Remember I am talking about the 1/8. I have a time slip right here in front of me

r/t -.565
60ft -1.989
330- 5.019
1/8- 7.464 @100.95
1000-9.551
1/4- 11.345 @126.64

Any more questions

 

The stock tires on the s2k are Bridgestone Potenza S02. They are very soft. I think the treadwear is 175

 

Not directly, but it does have a lot to do with the amount of torque the motor makes and the driveability of the car. Do you have any idea what a 5.7L 4 cylinder would run like?? It would be completely useless and sound like a garbage compactor.

Stock for stock?? Obviously the S2K is going to handle better, its built for that. With some aftermarket mods though an F-Body will handle just as good or better than an S2000.

Way to pull out the ricer math.

Who the hell cares what kind of torque an engine makes at 2RPM?? Engines don't freaking run at 2RPM, so its completely pointless. Of course its still funny though how the S2K engine has to turn quadruple the RPM's of the LS1 to make 1/3rd the amount of torque, thats just pathetic. I personally can't stand driving cars that don't have any torque, its just annoying as hell to start off and have the engine fall flat on its face until it gets into the powerband 6,000RPM later

 

Then, you mod the S2000 and it beats the F-body again.

This is ricer-ish, too. You could argue stock/stock... Arguing with mods? You can't. Any car can beat any car then.

"But if I mod this," or "When I get these parts..." Many a ricer spews these lame excuses when they lose to an LS1.

 

The stock for stock argument was put to bed. The SS in the Road and Track comparo was faster than the S2000. End of story.

Look at the results of any T2 SCCA race, the S2000's don't hold a candle to an F-body on a road course.

If "great in the twisties" or "on a road course" = parking lot slalom only, then maybe an S2000 can be faster, but no decent road course in this or any other country is as tight, short, and pointless as an AutoX.

The argument you S2000 handling guys should be making is, that while slower in corner exit, trap speed, and overall lap times...the S2000 will feel nicer, transition smoother, and have more direct steering input, but still be slower overall.

Moded cars are case by case and that is something that was not mentioned in the begininning of this argument.

 

^well said.............someone lock this thread already

 

When did I claim the S2000 was the better handler stock/stock?

I was making a valid counter to this comment, in case you didn't notice:

...I didn't say I agreed with it...

End of story? No ****.

Okay, sure.

I'm on your side...

 

PM the administrators for a moderator interview/application... Then you'll be able to do it yourself!!!

Good luck!

 

Hey I got an idea. Why don't you go suck his dick. I bet you'd like that.

 

You haven't finsished sucking mine, now get back to work!

 

Man I'm so sick and tired of you all v8 guys screaming about torque, when your car is 800lbs heavier. Of course you need more torque to hall around all that mass.

If you want an engine that produces 1000hp a@ 8,500rpm you will need 617ft/lbs of torque. The misunderstanding is that you are thinking that I'm saying you will never need torque at all. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that you can throw out your torque numbers, they are unimportant. Now for the car to make X amount of horsepower it will need Y amount of torque at Z rpm. So you will need torque to make horsepower. However the torque, as a number, is useless to brag about. It is useless to say "Oh yeah, well my car makes 400ft/lbs of torque. Now if that same person was to say "My car makes 400ft/lbs of torque at 8000rpm" its a different story. But thats only because that means he's making 609RWHP. Which is definitely a force to be reckoned with. So in the end I think we were arguing totally different points (atleast I hope I've caught the problem here). I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. Besides, your torque is only used within the first 60ft of the track anyways, so arguing about torque is useless.

 

Great arguement. You definately drive a ricer.

 

Ty TY Ty, I really feel sorry for you man!

Torque only measures where hp will end up. Horsepower is a measurement of work and torque is defined as being a rotational force. I would rather have torque in higher rpm's with a linear curve than peak hp down low. What if you had an engine that made 10,000ft/lbs of torque easily. But it ran at 1rpm. (10000ft/lbs * 1rpm) / 5252 = 1.904 hp. I would love to see you try and a tractor through the quarter mile

I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. You're saying that torque is necessary for an engine to make good horsepower. So in the end we're both correct. Obviously the better your torque, the better your horsepower. But high torque is nothing without a good amount of RPMs.

now please take your uninformed comments else where