Yeah, it's funny; once upon a time, every other car you saw in the UK was a Ford, but at the time they were also notoriously poor cars. But over the last, what, decade and a half or so (edit: roughly as the Escort was killed off and replaced by the Focus), they're really putting out some pretty great vehicles, and even screwing them together properly too!
It's weird reading about vehicle inspections that actually...inspect the car. Most US states do emissions testing, but as long as that passes they don't care that you are driving a rusted to hell POS with bald tires, no suspension and shot breaks.
It's weird reading about vehicle inspections that actually...inspect the car. Most US states do emissions testing, but as long as that passes they don't care that you are driving a rusted to hell POS with bald tires, no suspension and shot breaks.
It varies a bit, including based on how old the car is in some places. After a certain point, my state starts to require more thorough testing after something like the 10 year mark.
There's a big thick book of the actual technical detail of the tests, but this is the general gist.
According to VOSA the most common failures are lights (blown bulbs, poor headlamp aim), tyres, brake issues, and inadequate view of the road from the driver's seat.
It's also what tends to kill older cars, because body corrosion beyond the trivial will fail the car.
NH definitely tests everything. I think it's for the best
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
NH definitely tests everything. I think it's for the best
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
Why would your GTi have failed?
I'm curious because mods won't fail a car here, unless they make the car unroadworthy in the terms of the test. Stanced cars sometimes run into problems because of the rule against wheels fouling bodywork, but generally mods are ok.
NH definitely tests everything. I think it's for the best
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
Why would your GTi have failed?
I'm curious because mods won't fail a car here, unless they make the car unroadworthy in the terms of the test. Stanced cars sometimes run into problems because of the rule against wheels fouling bodywork, but generally mods are ok.
Bumper height was lower than the minimum allowed, exhaust was louder than the maximum allowed, and no catalytic converter.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Interesting. Cats are only required in some circumstances here, I think the car has to be newer than a certain year and have been fitted with one at time of manufacture (so imports are exempted unless the tester can prove there was one there). It's a visual inspection only, though, so a lot of aftermarket exhausts sold here have a "cat bulge" that doesn't do anything.
There is an emissions test, but it just checks %age CO and unburnt hydrocarbons, so should be passable as long as the car is in reasonable repair, even absent the cat.
There's no minimum ride height, but any grounding the testers encounter will fail it, and they need to be able to get the car onto their equipment to test it in the first place.
No noise limits, either. Weirdly this is actually more of an issue for track cars (because tracks do have noise limits) than street cars.
NH definitely tests everything. I think it's for the best
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
Why would your GTi have failed?
I'm curious because mods won't fail a car here, unless they make the car unroadworthy in the terms of the test. Stanced cars sometimes run into problems because of the rule against wheels fouling bodywork, but generally mods are ok.
Bumper height was lower than the minimum allowed, exhaust was louder than the maximum allowed, and no catalytic converter.
Are high end sports cars exempt from the height requirement? Quite a few have really low ground clearance and don't exactly have high bumpers. Also, you are a goose for cheating emissions.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
NH definitely tests everything. I think it's for the best
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
Why would your GTi have failed?
I'm curious because mods won't fail a car here, unless they make the car unroadworthy in the terms of the test. Stanced cars sometimes run into problems because of the rule against wheels fouling bodywork, but generally mods are ok.
Bumper height was lower than the minimum allowed, exhaust was louder than the maximum allowed, and no catalytic converter.
Are high end sports cars exempt from the height requirement? Quite a few have really low ground clearance and don't exactly have high bumpers. Also, you are a goose for cheating emissions.
My understanding is that the feds set a minimum height and anything under that will fail, but then each state can set their own rules. In California there are laws governing minimum height, but I really doubt you'd run into trouble for it (it'd probably be added to whatever crime they're actually citing you for, or possibly used as a reason to pull you over). You wont fail emissions testing because of it though.
There's no reason for any car in the last 30 years to be missing catalytic converters. Cat efficiency hasn't been a performance bottleneck in a long time.
Let's try not to get bogged down over something I did over 13 years ago huh? But catalytic converters can fail and become clogged. At that point your options are replace, which at the time was over $1k, or remove. Now a days you can order a universal fit for a little over $100 online, but that is a pretty recent development. And I certainly couldn't afford a new cat or a new car at the time, so I had to make due.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
There's no reason for any car in the last 30 years to be missing catalytic converters. Cat efficiency hasn't been a performance bottleneck in a long time.
A lot of the time I think it's just a cost thing.
It's unlikely that you can reuse your existing cat on fitting an aftermarket exhaust, and cats are really expensive parts. Plus they get stolen a lot.
It's the same motivation that sees people just removing rather than replacing DPFs (also an MOT requirement where originally fitted, also an external visual inspection only) when they fail.
Let's try not to get bogged down over something I did over 13 years ago huh? But catalytic converters can fail and become clogged. At that point your options are replace, which at the time was over $1k, or remove. Now a days you can order a universal fit for a little over $100 online, but that is a pretty recent development. And I certainly couldn't afford a new cat or a new car at the time, so I had to make due.
I just didn't want other people who read this thread to assume that was a tacit suggestion to cheat emissions. I would like this thread to be good citizens of the car world.
Like banning whatshisface for continually driving over 100mph on regular streets in his corvette and then posting about it in here.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
I just got home from a short trip down to Calgary to attend a wedding. I was down there for four days and instead of driving like I usually do, I flew. I'll probably fly more often - I've done the round trip from Yellowknife to Calgary and back by car six times now and it's just too long.
Anyway, I rented a Jetta TDI while I was down there. That is a p good car. I was excited to try out the automatic on it because I've heard people around here say good things about VW's DSG, but I was thoroughly disappointed in the transmission. As an automatic, it's not bad, but even when in manual mode, the delay from clicking the column to shift, and the shift taking place, was far too long.
Sport mode was all right, but there were still massive delays in power delivery.
Manual for life.
Anyway, I think it had 210 horsepower, which was nice. I'm used to my Impreza's 170 and it was a significant difference. It's made me a lot more likely to back off my 300 hp desire for my next car.
Yeah, DSG and Automatic are two different kinds of transmission. You used to be able to tell because DSG had paddles, but even those waters have been muddled in the past half-decade.
Just to give people a heads up, Motor Trend has started putting up it's Best Drivers Car quick laps at Laguna Seca. So far, it's been the bottom six finishers in the competition, not necessarily track times.
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I just got home from a short trip down to Calgary to attend a wedding. I was down there for four days and instead of driving like I usually do, I flew. I'll probably fly more often - I've done the round trip from Yellowknife to Calgary and back by car six times now and it's just too long.
Anyway, I rented a Jetta TDI while I was down there. That is a p good car. I was excited to try out the automatic on it because I've heard people around here say good things about VW's DSG, but I was thoroughly disappointed in the transmission. As an automatic, it's not bad, but even when in manual mode, the delay from clicking the column to shift, and the shift taking place, was far too long.
Sport mode was all right, but there were still massive delays in power delivery.
Manual for life.
Anyway, I think it had 210 horsepower, which was nice. I'm used to my Impreza's 170 and it was a significant difference. It's made me a lot more likely to back off my 300 hp desire for my next car.
The big thing about turbodiesel engines is that maximum horsepower doesn't really matter anywhere NEAR as much as that fat deep torque curve. My partner's Mk5 Golf GT Sport TDI only makes ~170 horsepower but it'll happily smoke the tyres through second gear and chirp them into third if I turn the traction control off. I use it to tow my trailer around for my gardening and lawnmowing company.
There's far too much focus on horsepower in the car industry, when the thing that makes a car an acceleration MACHINE is torque, and as much of it as possible everywhere in the rev range. It's why the Honda S2000 really isn't very fast at all, despite the 240+ horsepower from its engine. It makes fuck-all torque and the peak is at stratospheric revs, which lets a shitty old Corvette with about the same horsepower and weight walk it off the line with the gobs of torque the Chevy 350 V8 makes just off idle. When your torque peak is 150 ft/lbs at 7500 rpm, the car with 345 ft/lb at ~3500 rpm is going to chop the shit out of you every single time without raising a sweat.
The s2000 was never meant to be an "off the line" sports car.
Its a momentum drivers car.
Put it against that old 'vette on a track or canyon road and the 'vette will never catch the s2k. *
*given equal driver talent
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
To see how well the cars do, I turn to THE AUTHORITY, which is SCCA car classes. http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2011/stockc.html#BS
Looks like the S2000 is considered the same as the C4 Corvette, and the new Vettes being in higher classes.
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Basically, I'm saying Chris is right.
The older Corvettes should, in theory and all that, keep up with the S2000, on curves and whatnot. Individual courses can, of course, be tuned to favor the S2000 or the Corvette, but they're relatively close to the same performance. That's the idea behind their classing them the same.
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
The s2000 was never meant to be an "off the line" sports car.
Its a momentum drivers car.
Put it against that old 'vette on a track or canyon road and the 'vette will never catch the s2k. *
*given equal driver talent
Good to know that a Corvette from 1984 is outclassed by a Honda from 2004 around a tight circuit. Except that the Honda is renowned for sketchy handling on the limit, and is likely to spit you backwards off the track if you don't know what you're doing, whereas the 'Vette will likely just run out of brakes or push understeer thanks to the cast iron boat anchor up front.
I'm not a fan of Corvettes, don't get me wrong here.
My point was that horsepower doesn't really mean shit until you're chasing top speed numbers, torque is what makes a car feel (and actually be) fast.
To see how well the cars do, I turn to THE AUTHORITY, which is SCCA car classes. http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2011/stockc.html#BS
Looks like the S2000 is considered the same as the C4 Corvette, and the new Vettes being in higher classes.
Yeah, both are thoroughly outclassed by basically any recent hot hatch.
I really like the S2000, but I looked at the prices for a clean S2000... and I looked at the prices of a Z06... and realized that for $5k less, I could have a faster, better handling, better braking Vette. It was a no-brainer.
For me, the big draw to power in a street car is freedom of movement. Smoky burnouts are fun but that's not what I'm interested in for an everyday car. With the Camaro, the Vette, and now the SS, you have more options to escape bad situations: you have the ability to accelerate. Merging onto a freeway in rush hour? You can pick out an empty spot and just be there, instantly. Stuck behind a gravel truck doing 5mph under the limit on a 2 lane road? No second guessing about your ability to pass before another car comes along. Distracted driver wandering between the lane markings on the highway? Your options are no longer limited to "change lanes" and "brake" - you can put 10 car lengths on him in the space of seconds and then resume driving normally with some distance between you.
Sometimes speed is the safest way out of a bad situation.
I really like the S2000, but I looked at the prices for a clean S2000... and I looked at the prices of a Z06... and realized that for $5k less, I could have a faster, better handling, better braking Vette. It was a no-brainer.
For me, the big draw to power in a street car is freedom of movement. Smoky burnouts are fun but that's not what I'm interested in for an everyday car. With the Camaro, the Vette, and now the SS, you have more options to escape bad situations: you have the ability to accelerate. Merging onto a freeway in rush hour? You can pick out an empty spot and just be there, instantly. Stuck behind a gravel truck doing 5mph under the limit on a 2 lane road? No second guessing about your ability to pass before another car comes along. Distracted driver wandering between the lane markings on the highway? Your options are no longer limited to "change lanes" and "brake" - you can put 10 car lengths on him in the space of seconds and then resume driving normally with some distance between you.
Sometimes speed is the safest way out of a bad situation.
I completely agree with you, however, that's how I got my last speeding ticket years ago. Highway Patrol caught me in my safely coasting back to regular speeds after having passed terribly wobbly semi-truck on a super windy interstate. I mean, yes, I was doing the 90 in a 75 at the time he saw me, but he didn't see the truck that I passed that couldn't stay in his lane for the life of him.
Basically, I'm saying Chris is right.
The older Corvettes should, in theory and all that, keep up with the S2000, on curves and whatnot. Individual courses can, of course, be tuned to favor the S2000 or the Corvette, but they're relatively close to the same performance. That's the idea behind their classing them the same.
Point 1: I agree torque is the more important "everyday" metric of how fast a car feels.
Point 2: I feel like if we are going to get into a Corvette vs S2000 discussion i need some clarification. Are we talking equal years? Like, an 04 s2000 and 04 corvette?
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Basically, I'm saying Chris is right.
The older Corvettes should, in theory and all that, keep up with the S2000, on curves and whatnot. Individual courses can, of course, be tuned to favor the S2000 or the Corvette, but they're relatively close to the same performance. That's the idea behind their classing them the same.
Point 1: I agree torque is the more important "everyday" metric of how fast a car feels.
Point 2: I feel like if we are going to get into a Corvette vs S2000 discussion i need some clarification. Are we talking equal years? Like, an 04 s2000 and 04 corvette?
Basically, I'm saying Chris is right.
The older Corvettes should, in theory and all that, keep up with the S2000, on curves and whatnot. Individual courses can, of course, be tuned to favor the S2000 or the Corvette, but they're relatively close to the same performance. That's the idea behind their classing them the same.
Point 1: I agree torque is the more important "everyday" metric of how fast a car feels.
Point 2: I feel like if we are going to get into a Corvette vs S2000 discussion i need some clarification. Are we talking equal years? Like, an 04 s2000 and 04 corvette?
Yeah, I was specifically comparing my 2002 Corvette Z06 (Car and Driver review) versus similar year and mileage Honda S2000s (Car and Driver review). The Vette ran me $15,000 with 105,000 miles. Similar year and mileage S2000s are about the same price right now according to Autotrader.
For some reason in my head when he said "old vette" my brain went to an 80s era corvette and new s2000 my brain went to a 04ish.
Because, when you get old, "old" cars are still the ones from before your license time, and new cars are not. LOL. My brain went "oh new s2000! that's like a 2004. That's really new"
Forgetting that was 13 years ago.
ANNNNYWAY
yea the same year 'vette should outperform same year s2000.
Although the s2000 will be worth more as time goes on. And i'd argue are prettier.
New corvettes (current gen) are just extremely well designed sports cars so that isn't even a thing worth talking about. I don't know much that can beat a new Corvette in its price bracket.
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Looking at Autotrader for prices of all Honda S2000s, and comparing them to Chevrolet Corvettes from 2000-2007, the prices kinda tell the story. I think you're correct, mRahmani.
And there are a lot more Corvettes. Convertible ones are priced higher than almost all of the S2000s. The highest priced Honda is one with less than 2000 miles on it, bone stock, never driven according to its details. The highest priced Corvette is the Z06 and/or convertible. The Corvettes are just worth more, even if the S2000s are going to be rarer.
I'm not a fan at all of Corvettes, but everything says that you have to go back 20+ year models in Corvettes to get the same performance as the S2000. Newer ones completely destroy S2000s.
I always regretted not being in a position to grab an early '70s C3 Corvette during the mid '00s when a reasonably decent one could be had for about $5,000.
I still think it's one of the best looking cars ever made.
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
My whole point was that two cars of a similar platform (front engine, rear wheel drive convertible) with similar weight and horsepower outputs should theoretically be comparable in straight line performance, no?
So I picked an S2000 and a Corvette with a similar horsepower output (~240), that being a shitty old Corvette from 1984, 20 years older than the S2000.
Thanks to the 'Vette making at least double the S2000s torque, and at less than half the revs, the Corvette will walk the Honda every single time, it's not even close.
Ergo, lots of torque down low in the rev range is what you want in a daily driver (buy a BMW 5 series diesel).
Not a lot of Honda love in here eh? Lol.
I maintain the S2000 will out price same era corvettes the longer we go. Hard to prove i suppose, but the S2000 has collector written all over it, and that era corvette, not so much.
Regardless of "who wins" i still think you can't compare the two directly, as they are very opposite engineering styles.
I also maintain that i don't see any way an 84 vette beats an s2000 on a track given equal drivers, but...that's just me. Race track, not a drag strip.
BuuuuUUuuUuuuut for every day use, torque is more important than horsepower to the daily driver.
That i agree on.
Posts
Steam | XBL
It varies a bit, including based on how old the car is in some places. After a certain point, my state starts to require more thorough testing after something like the 10 year mark.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
http://www.saimot.com/MOT-test-check-list
There's a big thick book of the actual technical detail of the tests, but this is the general gist.
According to VOSA the most common failures are lights (blown bulbs, poor headlamp aim), tyres, brake issues, and inadequate view of the road from the driver's seat.
It's also what tends to kill older cars, because body corrosion beyond the trivial will fail the car.
0-400-0 in 41.96 seconds.
0-249-0 mph
in 7.783977916E+44 Planck Units.
Ha, when I saw 400 my first thought was those Volkswagen software engineers are at it again!
depends on where you go. Back when I was up there, I brought my lowered GTI with test pipe and Borla exhaust in to this shop outside of Manchester, slipped the guy a $20 and passed.
Now Florida, nothing. Not even emissions. They used to test emissions, but it was a county by county thing. So since I was in Pasco, no testing, but Hillsborough just south, tested.
Why would your GTi have failed?
I'm curious because mods won't fail a car here, unless they make the car unroadworthy in the terms of the test. Stanced cars sometimes run into problems because of the rule against wheels fouling bodywork, but generally mods are ok.
Bumper height was lower than the minimum allowed, exhaust was louder than the maximum allowed, and no catalytic converter.
There is an emissions test, but it just checks %age CO and unburnt hydrocarbons, so should be passable as long as the car is in reasonable repair, even absent the cat.
There's no minimum ride height, but any grounding the testers encounter will fail it, and they need to be able to get the car onto their equipment to test it in the first place.
No noise limits, either. Weirdly this is actually more of an issue for track cars (because tracks do have noise limits) than street cars.
Are high end sports cars exempt from the height requirement? Quite a few have really low ground clearance and don't exactly have high bumpers. Also, you are a goose for cheating emissions.
My understanding is that the feds set a minimum height and anything under that will fail, but then each state can set their own rules. In California there are laws governing minimum height, but I really doubt you'd run into trouble for it (it'd probably be added to whatever crime they're actually citing you for, or possibly used as a reason to pull you over). You wont fail emissions testing because of it though.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
A lot of the time I think it's just a cost thing.
It's unlikely that you can reuse your existing cat on fitting an aftermarket exhaust, and cats are really expensive parts. Plus they get stolen a lot.
It's the same motivation that sees people just removing rather than replacing DPFs (also an MOT requirement where originally fitted, also an external visual inspection only) when they fail.
I just didn't want other people who read this thread to assume that was a tacit suggestion to cheat emissions. I would like this thread to be good citizens of the car world.
Anyway, I rented a Jetta TDI while I was down there. That is a p good car. I was excited to try out the automatic on it because I've heard people around here say good things about VW's DSG, but I was thoroughly disappointed in the transmission. As an automatic, it's not bad, but even when in manual mode, the delay from clicking the column to shift, and the shift taking place, was far too long.
Sport mode was all right, but there were still massive delays in power delivery.
Manual for life.
Anyway, I think it had 210 horsepower, which was nice. I'm used to my Impreza's 170 and it was a significant difference. It's made me a lot more likely to back off my 300 hp desire for my next car.
Bleh, I really want to try it out someday.
I never finish anyth
The big thing about turbodiesel engines is that maximum horsepower doesn't really matter anywhere NEAR as much as that fat deep torque curve. My partner's Mk5 Golf GT Sport TDI only makes ~170 horsepower but it'll happily smoke the tyres through second gear and chirp them into third if I turn the traction control off. I use it to tow my trailer around for my gardening and lawnmowing company.
There's far too much focus on horsepower in the car industry, when the thing that makes a car an acceleration MACHINE is torque, and as much of it as possible everywhere in the rev range. It's why the Honda S2000 really isn't very fast at all, despite the 240+ horsepower from its engine. It makes fuck-all torque and the peak is at stratospheric revs, which lets a shitty old Corvette with about the same horsepower and weight walk it off the line with the gobs of torque the Chevy 350 V8 makes just off idle. When your torque peak is 150 ft/lbs at 7500 rpm, the car with 345 ft/lb at ~3500 rpm is going to chop the shit out of you every single time without raising a sweat.
Its a momentum drivers car.
Put it against that old 'vette on a track or canyon road and the 'vette will never catch the s2k. *
*given equal driver talent
http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2011/stockc.html#BS
Looks like the S2000 is considered the same as the C4 Corvette, and the new Vettes being in higher classes.
The older Corvettes should, in theory and all that, keep up with the S2000, on curves and whatnot. Individual courses can, of course, be tuned to favor the S2000 or the Corvette, but they're relatively close to the same performance. That's the idea behind their classing them the same.
Good to know that a Corvette from 1984 is outclassed by a Honda from 2004 around a tight circuit. Except that the Honda is renowned for sketchy handling on the limit, and is likely to spit you backwards off the track if you don't know what you're doing, whereas the 'Vette will likely just run out of brakes or push understeer thanks to the cast iron boat anchor up front.
I'm not a fan of Corvettes, don't get me wrong here.
My point was that horsepower doesn't really mean shit until you're chasing top speed numbers, torque is what makes a car feel (and actually be) fast.
Yeah, both are thoroughly outclassed by basically any recent hot hatch.
For me, the big draw to power in a street car is freedom of movement. Smoky burnouts are fun but that's not what I'm interested in for an everyday car. With the Camaro, the Vette, and now the SS, you have more options to escape bad situations: you have the ability to accelerate. Merging onto a freeway in rush hour? You can pick out an empty spot and just be there, instantly. Stuck behind a gravel truck doing 5mph under the limit on a 2 lane road? No second guessing about your ability to pass before another car comes along. Distracted driver wandering between the lane markings on the highway? Your options are no longer limited to "change lanes" and "brake" - you can put 10 car lengths on him in the space of seconds and then resume driving normally with some distance between you.
Sometimes speed is the safest way out of a bad situation.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
I completely agree with you, however, that's how I got my last speeding ticket years ago. Highway Patrol caught me in my safely coasting back to regular speeds after having passed terribly wobbly semi-truck on a super windy interstate. I mean, yes, I was doing the 90 in a 75 at the time he saw me, but he didn't see the truck that I passed that couldn't stay in his lane for the life of him.
Point 1: I agree torque is the more important "everyday" metric of how fast a car feels.
Point 2: I feel like if we are going to get into a Corvette vs S2000 discussion i need some clarification. Are we talking equal years? Like, an 04 s2000 and 04 corvette?
For the second point, that's why I linked to the SCCA classes. Here's the link again: http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2011/stockc.html#BS
Both the 1980s C4 Corvette and any S2000 are similarly performing cars. The C5s and beyond outclass the S2000, not just in a straight line.
Yeah, I was specifically comparing my 2002 Corvette Z06 (Car and Driver review) versus similar year and mileage Honda S2000s (Car and Driver review). The Vette ran me $15,000 with 105,000 miles. Similar year and mileage S2000s are about the same price right now according to Autotrader.
Head to head:
0-60: Corvette: 4.0s, S2000: 6.8s
Skidpad: Corvette: 0.96g, S2000: 0.90g
Braking, 70-0: Corvette: 160ft, S2000: 159ft
They are not in the same performance league, whether in the straights or the twisties.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Because, when you get old, "old" cars are still the ones from before your license time, and new cars are not. LOL. My brain went "oh new s2000! that's like a 2004. That's really new"
Forgetting that was 13 years ago.
ANNNNYWAY
yea the same year 'vette should outperform same year s2000.
Although the s2000 will be worth more as time goes on. And i'd argue are prettier.
New corvettes (current gen) are just extremely well designed sports cars so that isn't even a thing worth talking about. I don't know much that can beat a new Corvette in its price bracket.
The S2000s are priced from $7000 to $38000
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/Honda/S2000/Saint+Paul+MN-55107?zip=55107&startYear=1981&numRecords=25&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&firstRecord=0&endYear=2018&modelCodeList=S2000&makeCodeList=HONDA&searchRadius=0
The Corvettes are priced from $8000 to $55000
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/Chevrolet/Corvette/Saint+Paul+MN-55107?zip=55107&startYear=2000&numRecords=25&sortBy=derivedpriceDESC&firstRecord=0&endYear=2007&modelCodeList=CORV&makeCodeList=CHEV&searchRadius=0
And there are a lot more Corvettes. Convertible ones are priced higher than almost all of the S2000s. The highest priced Honda is one with less than 2000 miles on it, bone stock, never driven according to its details. The highest priced Corvette is the Z06 and/or convertible. The Corvettes are just worth more, even if the S2000s are going to be rarer.
I'm not a fan at all of Corvettes, but everything says that you have to go back 20+ year models in Corvettes to get the same performance as the S2000. Newer ones completely destroy S2000s.
I still think it's one of the best looking cars ever made.
Steam | XBL
So I picked an S2000 and a Corvette with a similar horsepower output (~240), that being a shitty old Corvette from 1984, 20 years older than the S2000.
Thanks to the 'Vette making at least double the S2000s torque, and at less than half the revs, the Corvette will walk the Honda every single time, it's not even close.
Ergo, lots of torque down low in the rev range is what you want in a daily driver (buy a BMW 5 series diesel).
I maintain the S2000 will out price same era corvettes the longer we go. Hard to prove i suppose, but the S2000 has collector written all over it, and that era corvette, not so much.
Regardless of "who wins" i still think you can't compare the two directly, as they are very opposite engineering styles.
I also maintain that i don't see any way an 84 vette beats an s2000 on a track given equal drivers, but...that's just me. Race track, not a drag strip.
BuuuuUUuuUuuuut for every day use, torque is more important than horsepower to the daily driver.
That i agree on.