LS1 vs S2000
#21
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well apparently he doesn't drive nearly as well as you give him credit for, unless the conditions at the track weren't very good at all. In the right hands a full bolt-on '00-'03 S2000 is a mid 13s car and the '04+ cars run mid-high 13s stock.
#23
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares? Really? This is ls1tech sir and the LS1 roasted the rice rather well. It's a slow car and was built for the track (which the ls1 ALSO beats it on). End of story.
Op, good kill sir
#24
good story & kill
i have to agree with lilbuddy1587 though. what are you guys doing talking about s2000 launching techniques ? the words "full bolt-on" and "s2000" in the same sentence really cracks me up.
i have to agree with lilbuddy1587 though. what are you guys doing talking about s2000 launching techniques ? the words "full bolt-on" and "s2000" in the same sentence really cracks me up.
#26
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly... do you people not realize how ignorant this place would be if the only people on here were Vette and F-body owners? There are tons of people on this site that know little about their own cars, let alone anything else. So if you claim to be "car enthusiasts," why not learn as much as possible about as much as possible?
#27
11 Second Club
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: north Carolina
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that Ls1 should easliy kill the S2000. I owned one for 6 months and the thing just needs more power. I raced one in my Lotus a couple of months ago and it was an easy kill (to my suprise actually) The Lotus does not feel any faster then the S2000 but I guess it is.
#28
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that Ls1 should easliy kill the S2000. I owned one for 6 months and the thing just needs more power. I raced one in my Lotus a couple of months ago and it was an easy kill (to my suprise actually) The Lotus does not feel any faster then the S2000 but I guess it is.
#29
11 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Round Lake, NY
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S2000's are slow, from every single one I have seen....So untill I see one pull some decent times, they are still a 14 second car to me..
to paint you a picture, I put a bus length on a full bolt on S2000 on the highway when I was on 4psi....and that was only about 220rwhp in a 3400lb car.
#30
I have to agree with the S2000 not being very fast without Forced Induction. My mom and dad have one and I have piddled with it a little bit and I assure you it don't want none of my car. I don't think you could ever get a stock one in the 13's and I have to question how much bolt ons would actually help. It needs a blower or turbo to be worthy of lining up with the LS1.
#31
10 Second Club
iTrader: (24)
Exactly... do you people not realize how ignorant this place would be if the only people on here were Vette and F-body owners? There are tons of people on this site that know little about their own cars, let alone anything else. So if you claim to be "car enthusiasts," why not learn as much as possible about as much as possible?
#32
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nazareth, PA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you want a race in PA, over here in Bethlehem we have a few decent runners.
1. Me- semi bolt-on t/a
2. Buddy- bolt-on '02, collector's editions t/a
3. Turbo s2000, i have seen the dyno, around 320 rwhp
4. Skittle, bigger turbo, cammed(sounds sick), claims 400hp, i doubt it
5. h/c lt1, 9",DR's camaro
6. 3-4 "built" mustangs
7. 97' GSX Huge turbo, claimed 640 hp, he raced #2 on low boost 12-14 psi, and only took 2 cars on the t/a
Should swing by some time
1. Me- semi bolt-on t/a
2. Buddy- bolt-on '02, collector's editions t/a
3. Turbo s2000, i have seen the dyno, around 320 rwhp
4. Skittle, bigger turbo, cammed(sounds sick), claims 400hp, i doubt it
5. h/c lt1, 9",DR's camaro
6. 3-4 "built" mustangs
7. 97' GSX Huge turbo, claimed 640 hp, he raced #2 on low boost 12-14 psi, and only took 2 cars on the t/a
Should swing by some time
Last edited by link138; 01-22-2008 at 01:44 AM.
#34
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the **** is it "off course?" This is a thread INVOLVING an S2000. And rocks, my mom also has a stock '03, and it is definitely a high 13/low 14s car. And the '04+ ones are a couple tenths quicker. If you don't believe me, check out . You don't have to take my word on it... the evidence is out there.
#35
Motor trend has the 2000 s2k at 14.2 and sport compact car has the 04 at 14.4 it reads as follows : Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
#36
11 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Round Lake, NY
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motor trend has the 2000 s2k at 14.2 and sport compact car has the 04 at 14.4 it reads as follows : Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
#37
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the **** is it "off course?" This is a thread INVOLVING an S2000. And rocks, my mom also has a stock '03, and it is definitely a high 13/low 14s car. And the '04+ ones are a couple tenths quicker. If you don't believe me, check out . You don't have to take my word on it... the evidence is out there.
This one isnt there, yet. Keep feeding the fire and it will be.
#38
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motor trend has the 2000 s2k at 14.2 and sport compact car has the 04 at 14.4 it reads as follows : Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
By this I guess they are saying it was faster than there 2 liter but any way you look at it its a 14 sec. car and it never broke 100 in the quarter mile for either crew. I just had a quad cab pickup that would have gave this car a scare. I follow all cars pretty well FYI. Not trying to give you a hard time but I'm ussually not guessing when I say something.
#39
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record...
There are also several magazines that have run 13.9 or better in stock S2000s, since you seem to want to use those. You just chose to only post those that weren't in the 13s. Car and Driver did 13.9 @ 102mph in an '04 . And here's 6 people on dragtimes.com that have posted up 13.99 or better slips for their stock S2000s http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes
#40
11 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Round Lake, NY
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also several magazines that have run 13.9 or better in stock S2000s, since you seem to want to use those. You just chose to only post those that weren't in the 13s. Car and Driver did 13.9 @ 102mph in an '04 . And here's 6 people on dragtimes.com that have posted up 13.99 or better slips for their stock S2000s http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes
also, this is LS1tech. Im not searching times for a Integra....sorry.