2.0

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 8:21 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 8:21:02 AM

^dammit man, you're better than that

Quote :

"I agree. The s2k doesnt have near enough torque to even be considered. It's just similiar shape/style/origin country. The s2k is actually painful to drive around town and I imagine something with some boost at 2krpm isnt (hell even a 1.6L T is better I'm sure a rotary isnt far off)."

Tell me about it! I hate having to rev an extra 1000rpm for a smooth launch when the AC is on Also, I said almost those exact words earlier...in my first post!

Quote :

"Best I can figure the S2000 comes closest, though given its torque shortcomings I wouldn't pick it to win any races."

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : d]

6/24/2009 9:13:16 AM

Quote :

"On paper the FD had a powerband of a modern DOHC V6 but was far smoother. The torque band was 2000-6000rpm and peak power was 6500. The engine feels nothing like an s2000 or say a C5 Z06 (duh), both of which I have driven."

so a 350z that you can see out of?

6/24/2009 9:46:21 AM

when I drive my friend's FD on stock turbos (when it's working) I am still amazed at how quickly it builds boost. It's like a VW 1.8T or an SRT-4. It's too bad all that sequential turbo stuff fails so frequently.

6/24/2009 10:07:54 AM

yeah new turbos and all new vacuum lines is the only way one can count on them...

6/24/2009 10:35:51 AM

Quote :

"so a 350z that you can see out of?"

Who says you can see out of it?

Quote :

"yeah new turbos and all new vacuum lines is the only way one can count on them..."

And check valves. And solenoids. Don't forget the pressure chamber and vacuum chamber too...

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Reason : the weight of an s2000, the noise of a prius, powerband of a 350Z, and reliability of a Triumph]

6/24/2009 12:05:42 PM

lol


and fuck a prius, keep that shit out of this lovely thread!

6/24/2009 12:24:26 PM

lol


and fuck a prius, keep that shit out of this lovely thread!

6/24/2009 12:24:26 PM

one of the cool things about the rotary engine is that it can be amazingly quiet and smooth like an electric motor or loud and harsh like a chainsaw, depending on the exhaust.

6/24/2009 2:10:37 PM

bridgeport! BRAP BRAP BRAP!

6/24/2009 3:26:37 PM

Ring-a-ding bing ding Pock bonnnnnnnnnnnnng.

BRAH BRAH BRAH BRAH BRAH

RIIIIIIEEEEENNNNNG!!!!

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 3:35:01 PM

How about the 2nd gen. turbo MR2? Sure, it had less power and weighed about the same as a RX-7, but it was about 10k cheaper.

6/24/2009 3:58:51 PM

to 60 its a full second behind the RX-7, and it cost around $30,000 so it wasn't much cheaper. And its handling pales in comparison with the RX-7.

dismissed!

6/24/2009 4:46:07 PM

I don't think there'd be that much of a difference between the RX-7 and S2k in any performance category. Both were low-to-mid 5 second cars in the 0-60. Both are low-to-mid 14 second cars in the quarter. Both have stellar handling.

Mazda may have made waves by doing it in 1993, but it took Honda to come in and do it reliably and with a NA motor nonetheless. Not to mention that you can add forced induction to the S2k for a hell of a lot less than it'll cost just to keep a FD running for a few years and it'll annihilate it in just about every way.

This fool is running a Honda 2000. I'll win. Then me and my dad can roll together when he gets out of prison. It's all good.
Jesse, don't do it. I bet you he's got more than a hundred grand under the hood of that car.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : l]

6/24/2009 5:17:15 PM

Quote :

"I don't think there'd be that much of a difference between the RX-7 and S2k in any performance category."

You have to drive both of them to understand the difference between the two cars; magazine articles and internet forum posts don't tell the whole story.

6/25/2009 1:36:42 AM

I owned an S2k, so I know all about it's shortcomings. I can appreciate similar performance in a smoother/shorter power curve, but the numbers don't lie.

6/25/2009 1:43:59 AM

that's the thing about an s2k. it puts out great numbers but its place is truly on a track and not a morning commute. ive never been in a functioning fd rx7. a room mate of mine had one for a solid year if that tells you anything .

6/25/2009 7:46:22 AM

i really don't find the S2000 to be bad, although yes--it's happiest when you're wringing it out.

6/25/2009 8:18:15 AM

i really don't find the S2000 to be bad, although yes--it's happiest when you're wringing it out.

6/25/2009 8:18:15 AM

The only FD I ever drove was an automatic that was lightly massaged (280hp or so). And I only drove it for a few auto-x fun runs. I was quite thrilled, it was pretty sweet.

I know you'll say automatics suck, but the owner of it also owned an R1 with 380whp that was claimed to be the fastest stock turbo FD in the country (it wasn't built by my friend, he just bought it after someone else was done with it). An 11.4 1/4 mile was pretty nasty though. I wish he hadn't flipped that car

6/25/2009 9:46:24 AM

Quote :

"that's the thing about an s2k. it puts out great numbers but its place is truly on a track and not a morning commute. "

Oh come on...It's not that bad. You know you love taching 9k on the on-ramp. And once you hit a commuting speed (55+) you don't need to downshift if you don't want to. I loved that 17 mile commute to RTP. I guess if your commute is from Off Kaplan to Downtown it might not be so great, but if your commute is 440->Wade Ave->I-40 it's a lot of fun.

6/25/2009 12:29:37 PM

I don't go on any road with a speed limit higher than 45mph and there are tons of hills. It's god awful.

If my civic had AC i would never even drive it to work.

6/25/2009 12:39:47 PM

Oh yeah, that would suck.

6/25/2009 1:05:47 PM

Anybody who complains about an S2k not having useable power simply isn't driving it properly. And that's all I have to say about that son.

It still pulls as well as a miata off VTEC and then of course it's a lot better when it's engaged son. Nothing wrong with having an engine that begs you to wring it out son.

6/25/2009 1:26:41 PM

I really want an FD with a peripheral ported quad-rotor

I'm pretty sure that's the sickest sounding setup ever built, and I love the look of the FD

6/25/2009 4:26:34 PM

"Anybody who complains about an S2k not having useable power simply isn't driving it properly. And that's all I have to say about that son."

Eh, I rev almost everything I drive to redline quite often and yet I find the S2k's lack of low/mid range torque annoying. It's not a great car to mess around town in for that reason, actually it's lack of power is apparent on track too, I don't understand why they wouldn't put a worked over V6 in that car...

6/25/2009 4:46:17 PM

True, there is enough space!

6/25/2009 6:16:24 PM

I'm sure if they put a V6 in it most people would be bitching about how the car is nose heavy and a 4 cylinder would be better

6/25/2009 9:05:16 PM

have to be a pretty damn heavy V6 to offset its current 49/51 weight distribution to something nose heavy, lol.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2009 10:31:43 PM

v6 bottom ends are weak sauce.

lol


i'd like to see more inline-5s

6/26/2009 8:48:17 AM

I WANT A V-5

6/26/2009 9:01:23 AM

6/26/2009 9:06:59 AM

Quote :

"I WANT A V-5"

I think most Ford 2.9 and Chevy 2.8 engines from the 80's could effectively be called a V-5 nowadays. They're sure to be misfiring on at least one cylinder the way people rag those things out.

6/26/2009 9:30:12 AM

damn the 2.8 sucked

i had dat 4.3 in my first vehicle and flogged that bad boy for 3 years and right on past 200k. loved it.

6/26/2009 9:39:26 AM

4.3 may be the best engine ever after the 350, from boats to forklifts, it runs forever

6/28/2009 8:44:14 PM