Loaded

Wow that was fun. I really thought S2000 were faster.
Happened this evening on the George Bush Cruising at 70mph and ricer boy pull up wanting to play. One thing led to another and I pulled him. wasnt very hard but was very obvious. Two thumbs up and we went on our way.

fixnprsh

You act so surprised................................my daily driver 2.0 8V VW GTI with a cam, exhaust and chip (whopping 115HP at the wheels) with 150K on the clock will whip an S2000. My Lawn mower has more torque than that car.

VTEC, all the lag with none of the boost

DARISC

I'd think an S2000 properly driven (on the cam) would wax daboda youse guys. Doesn't the S2000 wind to nine grand with peak power/torque not much below that number?

theiceman

Yeah I am struggling with that too.... sorry guys...

Ed Hughes

I agree, this one seems like something wasn't right. I had an S2000 behind me at a stoplight one time. He was on my bumper up thru the gears-couldn''t shake him.

zorro1car

Yea, but you guys forgot that Loaded has 500 RWHP and 600 ft lbs...(:-)

VA911

HEHEHEHEHE
yeah the S2000 driven and i mean driven like you stole it (the way we drive our cars) will beat us.
I ran a Ford lightening a few months ago and got waxed (the shame of it ) but they are quick for a truck!!!!!

kick7ca

easy now....

andrew911

I wasted two guidos in a new boxsterS this past summer in my 540 6-speed sedan...roughly 40-120mph. I would have thought the boxsterS would have been faster, or at best even if not properly driven, but I guess this guy was in the wrong gear/gears at the wrong time. Car had dealership plates- probably some salesman that took the car for the weekend and tried to show off to his friend on the parkway by driving like an *** (I saw him weaving beind me), and then after a toll we both leave at the same time with him acting like an ***, and I let her rip. Pretty funny really, a 6 year old grey sedan blowing away a sports car with an agressive driver who wasn't a good driver at all.

My guess is the S2000 driver didn't wind it up right, as I beleive the S2000 would beat a 3.2 cab and probably a 3.6 964 cab as well if properly driven.

fixnprsh

2005 S2000

- Weights: curb weight (lbs) 2,835

- 2,157 cc 2.2 liters in-line 4 front engine with 87 mm bore, 90.7 mm stroke, 11.1 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
- Premium unleaded fuel 91
- Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 25 and EPA city (mpg): 20
- Multi-point injection fuel system
- 13.2 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank
- Power: 179 kW , 240 HP SAE @ 7,800 rpm; 162 ft lb , 220 Nm @ 6,500 rpm

The S2000 weighs close to the same, maybe a little more than an 3.2, has more HP than a stock 3.2, but Loaded's car has a chip, by poas and exhaust, so its no too far behind, but in the aftermath, the 3.2 has atleast 80ftbls of torque on it, better gearing, and a FAR less high strung power band. S2000's aren't that fast. Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

As far as a E39 540 sport package 6 spd beating a boxster S, I'm not surprised by that one either. I love getting those in the shop, they are my all time favorite non M series 5, and the last, best BMW built in my, and alot of other technicians opinion.

andrew911

My opinion too- I only want to get rid of the car in a couple of years if I can find a clean 2003 or before (e39) M5 with low miles and stock. Currently, with 71K miles on her she still runs great. The 540 has torque all around the rev band so easier to be "in the right gear" vs. the s2000 which is very peaky towards the top end, or even a boxsterS which is a high revving motor.

I didn't realize the similarities when factoring in loaded's mods vs. an S2000- for some reason I thought his car was stock...didn't read his tag. A stock 3.2 puts out about 195 fl/lbs if my memory is correct...but either way, I could see him beating the S2000 if that car wasn't driven to the max, and that's what happened as he whopped his butt!

Jay H

I agree. Honda knows what they are doing and if this V-Tec motor wasn't spinning in the upper range, he wasn't making good use of that motor. Fully wound out, and the S2000 is pretty quick... Don't misjudge those little motors. They're a hoot to drive when you're floggin' 'em.

DARISC

One's a function of the other. I think the bottom line is how many pounds the horses have to push, along with the trans. gear ratios being properly chosen to utilize the max. torque available, which in an S2000 is developed at higher rpm than the average, uninformed driver is comfortable pushing the engine to.

Loaded

well anyways it was fun. it was all highway land no speeds below 70mph.........

Jay H

That's all that counts!