View Poll Results: S2000 Vs. Ws6 T/A
S2000 will whoop the Domestic
4
6.78%
T/A will whoop the Honda
50
84.75%
Evil Jose is my favorite
5
8.47%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll
S2000 Vs. WS6 T/A
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: Staten Island, NY
Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Best I've seen out of a stock S2k was a 13.9. Boltons aren't gonna drop the time by 1.4 seconds, no way no how.
Best I've seen out of a stock S2k was a 13.9. Boltons aren't gonna drop the time by 1.4 seconds, no way no how.
90 accord h22a
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
From: huntsville, alabama
if it is a ws6, it would rape it top end too....raced one in my fd3s last year on the interstate and they don't slow down until 150-160.....and gettin mid 14's in the quarter with the s2k is more likely unless you're a hell of a driver.....and doing it a couple of times will make the clutch feel like mush...not what it was built for.....why doesn't he challenge him to a race where there are a bunch of curves....prolly cuz the guy can talk a lot better than he can drive
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: Sacramelto, home after 10 years in Texas
Integrity, that is the best quote I have read in a while.
Drag race the T/A, on a track with turns, probably the S2K, tough to over come lots of power, even if you handle well.
Drag race the T/A, on a track with turns, probably the S2K, tough to over come lots of power, even if you handle well.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
ATP ran a 12.9 @ 103 w/ an SRT4 w/ a couple bolt-ons. That particular car probably puts down close to 230 @ the wheels and weighs about the same (in stock form) as the S2K. So w/ drastic weight reduction and an absolutely wicked 60ft (like 1.8 or so), 12's are possible for the S2K if it puts down what he says. The T/A will have a much easier time of it though, and like everyone already said, it would absolutely rape the S2K from a roll.
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: gainesville
The WS6 will beat him hands down. Not trying to be biased (because i own one), but i have never seen a stock S2000 run better than a 13.8 at the track...i have seen an s2000 spraying and ran 13.9 on moderate traction. On the other hand i have personally run 13.02 bone stock - i have seen stock WS6 M6s run high 12s - especially here in florida. The t/a has the torque and will most likely leave him fairly easily....those S2000's may have some Hp, but they have to get way into the power band to start making it to the wheels.
S2000 Pilot
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,457
Likes: 0
From: 9000 RPMS
Originally posted by Jay24
ATP ran a 12.9 @ 103 w/ an SRT4 w/ a couple bolt-ons. That particular car probably puts down close to 230 @ the wheels and weighs about the same (in stock form) as the S2K. So w/ drastic weight reduction and an absolutely wicked 60ft (like 1.8 or so), 12's are possible for the S2K if it puts down what he says. The T/A will have a much easier time of it though, and like everyone already said, it would absolutely rape the S2K from a roll.
ATP ran a 12.9 @ 103 w/ an SRT4 w/ a couple bolt-ons. That particular car probably puts down close to 230 @ the wheels and weighs about the same (in stock form) as the S2K. So w/ drastic weight reduction and an absolutely wicked 60ft (like 1.8 or so), 12's are possible for the S2K if it puts down what he says. The T/A will have a much easier time of it though, and like everyone already said, it would absolutely rape the S2K from a roll.
yeah but you forget that SRT4 was putting out MORE wheel torque than WHP. A 230 whp S2000 isn't gonna be putting out ANYWHERE near 230+ torque to the wheel.
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
If the dyno numbers from SCC are to be believed, they tested a totally stock SRT-4 that put down 223 to the wheel.
Comparing an SRT-4 to an S2000 is pointless. The SRT-4 is fwd with a turbocharged motor that makes gobs of torque and the S2000 is rwd with a normally aspirated motor that needs to be revved to all shit.
Comparing an SRT-4 to an S2000 is pointless. The SRT-4 is fwd with a turbocharged motor that makes gobs of torque and the S2000 is rwd with a normally aspirated motor that needs to be revved to all shit.
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Road and Track had a comparison of cars in "Sibling Rivalry" a few years back.. they had a Camaro SS, Z06, S2000, NSX etc..
figures for the Camaro SS
325 hp/345 ft lbs torque
0-60 5.5 sec
60-0 129 ft
Lap time (around Thunderhill) 2 min 16.46 sec
slalom 60.0 mph
skidpad .87g
S2000
240 hp/153 ft lbs torque
0-60 4.9(actually time for the NSX, but it's what's posted for the S2000)
60-0 134 ft
Lap Time 2 min 17.66 sec
slalom 65.9 mph
skidpad .90 g
The Camaro SS is the same vehicle as the WS6 TA, same power etc..
you do the math..
figures for the Camaro SS
325 hp/345 ft lbs torque
0-60 5.5 sec
60-0 129 ft
Lap time (around Thunderhill) 2 min 16.46 sec
slalom 60.0 mph
skidpad .87g
S2000
240 hp/153 ft lbs torque
0-60 4.9(actually time for the NSX, but it's what's posted for the S2000)
60-0 134 ft
Lap Time 2 min 17.66 sec
slalom 65.9 mph
skidpad .90 g
The Camaro SS is the same vehicle as the WS6 TA, same power etc..
you do the math..