67rschev

................. Ummm the sound of full roller rockers and a solid lifter cam at 7000 rpm ......... s2000 who ?

teamking

Did I say 944 Turbo or did I say 944 Turbo S?

As for comparing a 21 year old car to a relatively newer car... I didn't start the comparison! The original poster did!

I just think it's crap to say "car x sucks because my heavily modded 951 beat it in a street racing situation where the other driver may or may not be capable of driving and may or may not have been trying". I was trying to be a little more subtle. I won't make the mistake again.

SoloRacer

There really isn't much difference between a Turbo S and a regular Turbo - nothing that a change in chips wouldn't fix in 10 minutes any way. Do you consider chips to be a "heavy" upgrade? They cost like $400 and work by upping the boost a little. Most of us would say that is "mild" for 951 modifications and very much capable of dusting off a stock S2000. By your original statement you made it seem that there was no comparison between an S2000 and a 951 and that an S2000 would cake walk over one. That was incorrect and I thought it should be pointed out. I have no problem believing that a relatively stock 951 would wipe up an S2000 on the highway - I've seen it done.

P.S. Don't think that I am bashing an S2000 by any means. It's engine is quite a piece of engineering. On a tight autocross track it would surely dominate the 951. But on a straight highway pull the balance of power changes to the 951's advantage and that is what everyone is tallking about.

teamking

OK, with your Turbo S (the original poster was talking Turbo) or $400 "mild" Turbo mod, you've got a car that does the 1/4 in 13.9 seconds (to use your figure), which is roughly equivalent to a bone stock S2000. For less than that $400, you can put a new air filter and a test pipe on an S2000 and do the 1/4 in 13.5 seconds.

And none of this to say that the 944 isn't a great car. It is. But I think it is unfair to compare apples to oranges by comparing a modded car to a non-modded car.

Fishey

No, A chipped 951 is faster then a non-chipped 951S...

Anyways, a S2000 with test pipe and air filter isn't going to run 13.5 and its not going to outrun a properly running 951 with a chip. So, we already know the 951 S is as fast as a S2000 in a 1/4mile but lets continue this race past 100mph and we quickly find 2 things...

1. S2000 has aerodynamics worse then a BRICK (.36 Top up)
2. S2000 has no TQ and its gearing advantage goes away.

Don't race from a roll its not going to end well for S2000.

Anyways, if you want to make an argument against a 951S in a S2000 just mention AutoX as its the only type of racing that it has a clear advantage.

-KTHXBYE Fishey.

storkman

ha yea i test drove S2000 once in CO & had to rev the flippin thing up real high for it to move, cant remember what redline was but it was up there quite a bit. its a quick car dont get me wrong but i def think the 944T shouldnt have a prob taking it from stop/roll. Honda had these stupid advertisements/flyers showing the S2000 was quicker supposedly on 0-60 then some porsche, dont remember now which one they were comparing it to as this was several years back.

SamGrant951

Prob a boxster

teamking

S2000 in this thread is claimed to do a 13.87 stock and 13.4 with air filter and test pipe:

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=536024

I agree on point 1, the S2000 does suffer from poor aerodynamics at higher speed. In point 2, what difference does the lack of torque make? It's hp that matters, and presumably one would be shifting at redline. Does the gearing advantage exist? And if so, why does it end at high speed? Off the top of my head, shift points in the S2000 are approximately:
1-2: ~42
2-3: ~63
3-4: ~90
4-5: ~120
5-6: ?

pjburges

Torque is a huge advantage. I will state my dads unfortunate case. He has a nicely maintained and modded Z31 Turbo with limited slip and around 400hp and a little more torque. He used to encounter a very nicely maintained V12 Ferrari everyday on his drive into Austin on Highway 71. No matter how hard he tried, that Ferrari could always get him in a roll on, in which the two of them would zip up to 110 mph or so. The V12 just had such phenomenal torque characteritics that the V6 turbo couldnt spool up and build enough torque quick enough to get away. Im sure my old man's Z-car had more Hp, but it didnt have that roll on torque advantage of the V12 Ferrari.

Such is the case between the S2000 and the 944 Turbo. Despite the turbocharger the 944 still builds more torque earlier and will outrun the S2000 easily in a power roll on, even if the S2000 is down in 4th in its powerband, much as my dads Z car was when he'd run that Ferrari.

To bust another myth, the 944Turbo S uses a KKK 26/8 turbocharger which has more flow than the 26/6 as most on this forum know. Therefore much more power is easily attained through the Turbo S than the Turbo with the 26/6

Finally, we can conclude from evidence and past experiences that we all know that whoever that is with the old Camaro in there sig that can turn 7K with roller rockers and a solid lifter valve setup would most likely destroy a 944 Turbo S in a roll on below 100mph because he MOST CERTAINLY has a torque advantage despite the fact that his Camaro may have slightly less horsepower than a modified TurboS!!

pjburges

And another thing:

In my opinion, the two biggest reasons Audi's R10 won LeMans were that A.)It had increased effeciency resulting in less pit time fueling up, and B.)It had superior torque characteristics to it's competitors and that made corner exit a whole lot better and easier for the R10. I believe their redline was not over 6K and they had nearly full torque capacity at around 1.8K!!!!!! ****ing awesome. diesels are the future...ok thats off topic but torque torque torque is my point.

MPD47

I'd rather an MKI Elise with a K20, but that's me.

pjburges

AND ANOTHER THING!

Notice at no point did I blast the S2000, or its owners. Its got a nice high rev-limit, which is nice at an Auto-X because you dont have to switch gears. Certainly better than my aging piece that has blown syncros, so you know that if you grab for that next gear you're just gonna grind it. Really the S2000 is great for a nice cruise with your girlfriend, and it can really put the muscle down and show it's stuff at an autocross event. We all know, we've all seen some S2000's post some pretty awesome times. Whats the point of this thread? If its to establish that the engine of the S2000 is superior to the 951's I suggest us Porschefiles shutup, because IMO that VTEC motor is the most advanced straight four production engine in the world right now, and yes, it puts down great power N/A and insane power with forced induction and it has this inherant advantage with that name "Honda." Its still pretty reliable when compared to a high output 951 engine!!

Mighty Shilling

I get bothered by Evos and WRX STi

I've not yet lost to one....

Fishey

Wind Resistance plays a large part in top end performance, The reason TQ is important is because of this Wind Resistance. Regardless of weight of the car (S2000 is lighter but the 951tq can overcome the weight disadvantage) So, as you start to add this wind resistance the TQ of the 951 will start to have an advantage as you start to stack weight (resistance) at a equal rate (Note, S200 Stacks Drag faster due to worse aerodynamics but we will leave this out just to focus on TQ)..

S2000 2700 951 2900 (Est)
S2000 weights 93% as much as a 951.
Add 1000lbs of drag (Note! A S2000 would Produce 1000lbs of drag at like 200mph but I am just showing this to show the difference)
S2000 3700 951 3900
S2000 now weights 95% as much as a 951.

As far as gearing I guess it depends on the S2000 between the 2.2L and 2.0L due to red line.

MyBlackCar

HP matters at higher speeds. The S2000 can match a 951 in that respect. However, from the starting line, it would be left behind.

If the aerodynamics on the ragtop causes the S2000 to suffer, what would the result be if it had the optional hardtop?