Discussion
9mm said:
Comparing bhp/torque is misleading. It's worth looking at weights of the cars at the same time, which helps to explain why the S2000 is sometimes closer to a more powerful car than you might expect.
or it's worth looking at first hand experience where a big ass monstrous M3 or TVR will decimate an s2000 on a straight very, very quickly. They are great cars but let's be realistic. Urban Sports said:
I love S2000 debates on here it really does divide people, many who own them are really blinkered about their performance, when really on it they are quite quick but not really as fast as some owners think they are.
Taking mine out on track very quickly disabused me of any notions of it being a "fast car". Its a nippy car, a well balanced car, a punchy car, a revvy car, a fun car. But is certainly isn't fast on a straight, by a very long way. It's a whizzy 4 pot with some additional Jap magic after 6000rpm. Enjoy it for that. krunchkin said:
Taking mine out on track very quickly disabused me of any notions of it being a "fast car". Its a nippy car, a well balanced car, a punchy car, a revvy car, a fun car. But is certainly isn't fast on a straight, by a very long way. It's a whizzy 4 pot with some additional Jap magic after 6000rpm. Enjoy it for that.
I'm now wondering if I'm imagining mine being faster than it is! It's certainly always "felt" fast.... However I've not got a great frame of reference to compare to, in the last 7 years I've had S8, A8, Mondeo and a couple of Tuscans..
obviously the Tuscans trounce it, but the others dont compare and the S8 was so comfy and quiet you'd have no sensation of speed or acceleration anyway.
I think I might have to pop out for a blast a little later tonight, who cares how quick it is, it'll certain be fun!
It's such a ball-ache to get the TVR out of the garage and get it warmed up properly for that quick, spur of the moment "sod it, I'm going for a spin" the S2000 is ace.
I'm really wanting a supercharged one for a track toy after seeing the 'ring lap too...
Bibbs said:
nottyash said:
An S2000 wont get near a Z4M 
I remember having a little play with a Z4M down a dual carridgeway.Almost had a big accident by plowing into the back of him his car was that slow accelerating.
Granted mine was tweaked.
How does the S2000 cope with a supercharger? Normally superchargers run out at higher revs, so I presume the Vtech helps it pick up? or was in linear?
krunchkin said:
or it's worth looking at first hand experience where a big ass monstrous M3 or TVR will decimate an s2000 on a straight very, very quickly. They are great cars but let's be realistic.
Well thats not surprising really when comparing a 2.0cc 4cyl engine against an engine twice the size in cubic capacity and cylinders in the M3 & we know some TVR's are supercar fast.Still, the S2000 is capable of 1/4 mile times between 13.9 & 14.2 which is not to sniffed at considering.
I personally love them having had one a good few years ago.
krunchkin said:
9mm said:
Comparing bhp/torque is misleading. It's worth looking at weights of the cars at the same time, which helps to explain why the S2000 is sometimes closer to a more powerful car than you might expect.
or it's worth looking at first hand experience where a big ass monstrous M3 or TVR will decimate an s2000 on a straight very, very quickly. They are great cars but let's be realistic. nottyash said:
But if the owner of a Z4m stuck a supercharger on that
How does the S2000 cope with a supercharger? Normally superchargers run out at higher revs, so I presume the Vtech helps it pick up? or was in linear?
Cant speak from experience, but I looked long and hard at charging the S2K before I got the TVR.How does the S2000 cope with a supercharger? Normally superchargers run out at higher revs, so I presume the Vtech helps it pick up? or was in linear?
Just seemed a lot to blow in one hit on a mod, and the supporting mods (clutch and brakes mainly) wouldnt bump it up even more.
Generally it's fairly linear turbo or super, there's loads of people on the s2ki forums who have done one or the other.
here's a comparison..
impressive "at the wheels" figures if you ask me, and minus a fatboy like me I think it only weighs 1250-ish kilos
It is a great car (the S2K) and I certainly miss it (currently have a 335i which is unquestionable quicker in a straigh line at least).
However the S2K is 10x more fun and rewarding to drive.
I am getting one next...
It copes great on track with some proper brakes... that is the real one modification it needs.
As for power of course, who wouldn't like more?
On that note anyone know who and how much is to fit a SC on one?
However the S2K is 10x more fun and rewarding to drive.
I am getting one next...
It copes great on track with some proper brakes... that is the real one modification it needs.
As for power of course, who wouldn't like more?
On that note anyone know who and how much is to fit a SC on one?
Bear Phils said:
The awkward moment when everyone realises what Bibbs meant by 'tweaked' 
TheJimi said:
Bloody hell.
Two things:
A) That must've been quick
B) At £6,200 someone got an absolute bargain!!
It wasn't bad, but there are a lot of quicker ones out there. I think mine was one of the lowest powered, FI'ed cars at the time .. I parted out some of the stuff before selling it. Got rid of the charger, and a few carbon goodies.Two things:
A) That must've been quick
B) At £6,200 someone got an absolute bargain!!
davidsc said:
In my experiance when the S2000 gets into its stride there is very little in it against an E46 M3 - the M3 is faster but not nearly as much as I thought it would be.
The problem with the S2000 is the power is not very accessable, so if you're in the wrong gear at the wrong time you will get shown up by most turbo cars or larger capacity engines.
This is where the SC really came into play. The stock peek torque figure was available before cam swap, around 4500rpm if i remember. So you had more torque and over 4500rpm on peak cam.The problem with the S2000 is the power is not very accessable, so if you're in the wrong gear at the wrong time you will get shown up by most turbo cars or larger capacity engines.
After the first proper set of tuning with the new ECU (at the wheels at Surrey Rolling Road). :-
Urban Sports said:
I think he parted it out and sold it without the SC but I might be wrong.
Yup. Was a sad day. The main park was i blew the engine up (it was sick, so i went to Nur for a long weekend). I sold the SC, put in a stock engine (myself) and it was never the same.The problem with mine was it was super obnoxious. 9200 redline. Carbon intakes, bonnet, mirrors, wing, bootlid, diffuser. It also had half a cage and a 3" straight through exhaust with a 5" exit.
Some pics (I'll only link them as they are a little large) :-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/Bibbs_1977/s...
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/Bibbs_1977/s...
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/Bibbs_1977/s...
ercr4cing said:
It copes great on track with some proper brakes... that is the real one modification it needs.
As for power of course, who wouldn't like more?
On that note anyone know who and how much is to fit a SC on one?
I spoke to the guys at Performance Friction, and they offered some pads (the same compound used in gt3 racing or something). They were awesome, but every time I braked hard it was like someone set off a sparkler in my wheel arch (I could see heaps of spark from the drivers seat).As for power of course, who wouldn't like more?
On that note anyone know who and how much is to fit a SC on one?
I don't remember the full cost of the SC, it was all from the US when the GDP was strong. But I think it was about 3k for the SC, 1k for the ECU and injectors, 1k on the clutch and flywheel, 1k on gauges, hoses, pipes etc.
I did the install myself over a long weekend.
ercr4cing said:
That is expensive... too expensive.
Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
I'm sure there are cheaper options, Rotrex got into it after I'd left ownership.Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
Mine was a JDM import (so slightly different engine). I now have 4 pistons as paper weights.
Others are still going well as far as I know.
ercr4cing said:
That is expensive... too expensive.
Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
Precisely why I went the "buy a faster car" route rather than an SC.Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
It was the resale thing that got me, essentially you'd have to remove all the fancy new bits and sell separately to stand any chance of getting some you the investment back
ILoveMondeo said:
ercr4cing said:
That is expensive... too expensive.
Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
Precisely why I went the "buy a faster car" route rather than an SC.Well I will start with the brakes and will take it from there.
How reliable was it?
It was the resale thing that got me, essentially you'd have to remove all the fancy new bits and sell separately to stand any chance of getting some you the investment back
9mm said:
You could buy a faster car then take the hit in depreciation. One way or the other you'll probably have to lose money, as anyone who bought an E46 M3 three or four years ago (and still has it will testify.
Oh yes, of course, Completely agree! all depends on what you buy! There was some serious man maths going on when I was trying to decide what to do, and I endlessly went around in circles for months!That's one of the reasons my short list included TVR, Elise, Exige, Caterham, Cayman, stronger residuals than most. Wildly different purchase prices though!
Then again, if you keep the thing it never depreciates! You only lose the money when you sell it!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff