Your srt divers are all the same

For the past year ive been hearing about the dimond in the rough, the srt-4. The 240 hp motor was impressive and the body looked ok(by "ok" I mean better than a 1986 ford tempo) Then i had a chance to get inside one...thats when I relized why the car was so cheap, bad interior, poor and uncomfortable seats, undeatailed design to name a few things. But i didnt mid that too much. What really turned me off to the car was people like you. Every time i go to one of these forums I see the same thing. Divers diafying there cars. Talking about how there awesome NEON kills corvettes and STIs. The only reason that could possiblly be true is YOUR NOT RACING ON A REAL TRACK/DRAG STRIP. Classic punk style. Red lighting and racing people who really dont feel like racing a turbocharged grocery-getter. In every review/comparison ive read(and there have been many) by a credited news/mag all the cars you claim to kill (s2000, vette, evo, sti, wrx, ss camaro, etc) has better: 0-60, 1/4 mile, egronomics, interior design, and overall reliability.Hell, why not race the srt-4 in la mans. it goes like 250 mph right?

PERSONAL BONE TO PICK: it seems like the most popular "kill" is the s2000. i happen to admire the enginering(interior and exterior), body style and importantly the relitivly cheap price tag.(note: the s2000 pushes 240 ON A SMALLER NON-TURBO ENGINE) Yet the "almighty" srt-4 seems to kill it everytime.

heres the facts:s2000
Price as tested $32,477
Engine type 2.0-liter dohc 16V inline-4
Horsepower 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza S-02; 205/55R-16 89W f, 225/50R-16 92W r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec
Slalom 65.9 mph
Skidpad 0.90g

srt-4:
60 mph in 5.6 seconds
quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds
70 mph brake 167 feet

Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys.

by the way the stats are from www.roadandtrack.com and www.caranddriver.com

You like what you want, let others like what they want. Also I don't think turbocharging a stock S2000 engine would go over too well. Yes, the S2000 engine pushes 240 hp but only 153 torque, which is where the SRT-4 is superior, it has what? like 260-270 torque? I'm not actually sure but its somewhere up in mid 200 range.

you call $32,000 some odd dollars a "cheap" price tag? Im sorry but I could find quite a few ways to better spend that much money.

Besides, if you put an extra $12,000 into an SRT-4, mainly areas that you say need work (interior, seats, etc..) it would definitly be money better spent than on an S2000. I agree, the exterior/ interior styling of the S2000 is very cool, I like the way it looks, but its so much more expensive than an SRT-4.

How many cars can you name that do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, that cost about $20,000 (give or take $2000)? i cant name very many.

I understand that you have your opinion and i respect that, so this is just my opinion of your opinion.

the s2000 is to expensive.. beside srt4 is made to be use day by day ..
and if there are srt4 forums there might be s2000 forums, so go and tell your folks what you like about that car! and let us enjoy our car ;) thats why we bought it ..

s2kfan01: You are one of those people that gives Honda lovers a bad rap. You have no arguement saying "Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys."You might as well say"I have to put 3k(just and example) to beat your cheaper car" Yay!!! Srt-4's are super performers for the price...s2000 is nice as well. Don't get mad if a cheaper car eats a much more expensive car(it happens). Anyway have fun with your cars. :iceslolan

Don't get mad at s2kfan01, he rides the short bus to school!

hahaha anyway! everyone was different likes!

C'mon, guys! Why waste your time on trolls? We all know that the SRT-4 can't be touched FOR THE PRICE. Now, if someone told me that they beat an S2000 with a stock SRT-4, I'd laugh right in their face. But I don't expect a $20-21K sedan to beat a $32K purpose-built sport roadster...

I want to know where that 167 foot 70-0 test was done. I've never seen an SRT-4 test that poorly.

the s2000 is cheap BECAUSE it out performs 50-60 grand roadsters on all points. You people have still said nothing about the crappy interior and shitty design...tools

of the srt 4 that is

one more thing, why is turbo/super charging the s2000 a bad idea, its been done with amazing results, as seen in some racing mag my brother subscribes to. the brake test is from road and track.

P.S. Dodge suck balls!

sakio is a dumb ass, the point is that a neon has to use a turbo to get the power a s2000 already has naturaly asperated. anyway the s2000 doesnt need ANY MOD to beat the srt 4, proven by the facts at the top of the thread

you know whats funny i saw a stock miata and a stock s2000 run and the suto miata whooped tha a$$ hahaha

hey s2k where you from ill run my 2000 ACR Neon against your rice rocket any day of the week..what you wanna make it fun well run for pinks..sound good??

And jsut to let you know thats a 13.2 with a new blow off valve and minor bolt ons its 11.1 so go have fun with your slow ass toys

sakio is a dumb ass, the point is that a neon has to use a turbo to get the power a s2000 already has naturaly asperated. anyway the s2000 doesnt need ANY MOD to beat the srt 4, proven by the facts at the top of the thread

The point is that cars use different methods to make power. No method is better than the other(s), just a matter of preference. Take care dumb ass.

Obviously all you want is attention and you certainly got it, but continue your attitude and you won't be staying here long.

The SRT-4 is made to target ricers and Honda lovers. Why do people want to race cars likes Civics and Integras? Because you can find old Honda's for dirty cheap prices, turbocharge them, and have a pretty quick car. Dodge knows this so they did all that from the factory, they also added some things to give it that custom look that most people do to their Honda's. For instance the boost guage, it sits out there like an aftermarket guage on purpose, it's supposed to look "aftermarket". The higher spoiler, you see plenty of ricers out there with the 10 foot wings, Dodge knew the standard one wouldn't be good enough, so they made it bigger but tasteful enough that you don't have retards putting those giant aluminum wings. The dual exhaust I think Dodge was targetting more of a mini-muscle car look but even some ricers put dual mufflers on their Hondas. I could go on, the shift knob, aluminum interior pieces, hood scoop, all is an attempt to target the people that customize Hondas, because thats all the same stuff they do.

Now I've been in an SRT-4 and I don't agree at all that it looks cheap. It looks like a typical Neon, but the fit and finish is of great quality, nothing looks like its going to fall off after you drive it a few miles. The Viper seats do bother me though, if you aren't some skinny little 100 pound kid, they stab at your sides, very uncomfortable. However as far as quality that is some very nice leather used, which also fits very well.

Now this is a quality pic...

http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/9/web/369000-369999/369569_47_full.jpg
http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/9/web/369000-369999/369569_54_full.jpg

hey neon...GET A CLUE you saw a stock miata beat a s2000? if you did you were watching a crap driver; and your only helping my point, you neon driver dont get it, just cause you saw or heard that a certain car beat anouther doesnt make it truth ie this retard that thinks a miata is better than an s2000. as for neons challenge, i dont drive an s2000
im only 16. but regardless my age ive seen, read and felt the differences and for any one to say the neon is better than the s2000 is fooling themselves

the s2000 is cheap BECAUSE it out performs 50-60 grand roadsters on all points. You people have still said nothing about the crappy interior and shitty design...tools


I don't see any point comparing a SRT-4 (4 door sedan) to a Honda S2000 (convertible)
try comapring any honda / acura 4 door sedans, which one will out perform the SRT-4??

this thread has to point or makes any sense.....

http://members.lycos.nl/whellup/temp/images/afzeik_121.jpg

For the past year ive been hearing about the dimond in the rough, the srt-4. The 240 hp motor was impressive and the body looked ok(by "ok" I mean better than a 1986 ford tempo) Then i had a chance to get inside one...thats when I relized why the car was so cheap, bad interior, poor and uncomfortable seats, undeatailed design to name a few things. But i didnt mid that too much. What really turned me off to the car was people like you. Every time i go to one of these forums I see the same thing. Divers diafying there cars. Talking about how there awesome NEON kills corvettes and STIs. The only reason that could possiblly be true is YOUR NOT RACING ON A REAL TRACK/DRAG STRIP. Classic punk style. Red lighting and racing people who really dont feel like racing a turbocharged grocery-getter. In every review/comparison ive read(and there have been many) by a credited news/mag all the cars you claim to kill (s2000, vette, evo, sti, wrx, ss camaro, etc) has better: 0-60, 1/4 mile, egronomics, interior design, and overall reliability.Hell, why not race the srt-4 in la mans. it goes like 250 mph right?

PERSONAL BONE TO PICK: it seems like the most popular "kill" is the s2000. i happen to admire the enginering(interior and exterior), body style and importantly the relitivly cheap price tag.(note: the s2000 pushes 240 ON A SMALLER NON-TURBO ENGINE) Yet the "almighty" srt-4 seems to kill it everytime.

heres the facts:s2000
Price as tested $32,477
Engine type 2.0-liter dohc 16V inline-4
Horsepower 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza S-02; 205/55R-16 89W f, 225/50R-16 92W r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec
Slalom 65.9 mph
Skidpad 0.90g

srt-4:
60 mph in 5.6 seconds
quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds
70 mph brake 167 feet

Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys.


Which issues of Car and Driver and Road & Track were those numbers published in ?

here is what i found in the back of both magazines

Car and Driver (8/03)
Honda S2000
0-60mph 5.4sec
1/4mile 14.1sec
70-0mph 161 ft
skidpag 0.92g

Car and Driver (5/03)
Dodge SRT-4
0-60mph 5.6sec
1/4mile 14.1sec
70-0mph 167ft
skidpad 0.85g

Road & Track (8/03)
Honda S2000
0-60mph 5.5sec
0-100mph 14.3sec
1/4mile 14.1sec
60-0mph 117ft
80-0mph 207ft
skidpad 0.88g
slalom 69.3mph

Road & Track (6/03)
Dodge SRT-4
0-60mph 5.6sec
0-100mph 13.9sec
1/4mile 14.2sec
60-0mph 122ft
80-0mph 203ft
skidpad 0.84g
slalom 64.8mph

one more thing, why is turbo/super charging the s2000 a bad idea, its been done with amazing results, as seen in some racing mag my brother subscribes to. the brake test is from road and track.

P.S. Dodge suck balls!


Road & Track doesn't do 70-0mph brake tests, they do both 60-0mph and 80-0mph.

Car and Driver is the one that performs brake tests stopping from 70mph.

The SRT-4 result of 167ft from 70-0mph was a result tested by Car and Driver, published in the May, 2003 issue. NOT from Road & Track.

ok what diffenrnce does it make both are good mags and you still suck

So what you are basically saying, is that a smaller displacement engine with more power is better than a larger displacement engine with less?

Its not, to get much more power, you need to turbocharge the engine, and a car thats already making 120hp per liter, now turbocharged might be, no WILL be pretty powerful, but you obviously dont know how much wear a turbo puts on an engine. The S2000 engine already gets alot of wear from making that much power. You would have to drive pretty damn conservative in order to get your car over 100k miles.

Your smaller displacement engine might make more power now, but the larger displacement has much more potential. There is a saying, you know and it goes something like:

"There's no replacement for displacement."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=155&page_number=5
thats the r&t article where i got facts for the s2000

o yea, this is where i get the "cheap price tag comment" read em and weep http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6846

Alright I just started to read this thread and I gotta say S2Kfan you are obviously very insercure about your car. You come in here saying that SRT-4's are such pieces of shit and they can't ever beat your honda, etc. That was totally out of nowhere. If somebody sais anything like my SRT-4 can beat any S2000 on the road than I could understand it a little better but you just come in here talkin shit about other peoples cars. Everyone has a different preference in cars. I myself drive an Integra and love it but I still have a lot of respect for SRT-4's because they're damn fast cars. You're S2000 isn't gonna beat one everytime either. I know you won't believe this....(it's a thing called denyal) but next time you try to race a SRT-4 (which you probably won't cause you'll puss out just in case he beats you) and you start crying because you lost you might wanna rethink all those stupid comments you made on here. In my opinion you are a pathetic loser and aren't even a respectable member of AF. You have 10 posts and all are in this forum so if you just come on here to talk shit and try to make other people feel shitty about what they drive then get the hell out!

For the past year ive been hearing about the dimond in the rough, the srt-4. The 240 hp motor was impressive and the body looked ok(by "ok" I mean better than a 1986 ford tempo) Then i had a chance to get inside one...thats when I relized why the car was so cheap, bad interior, poor and uncomfortable seats, undeatailed design to name a few things. But i didnt mid that too much. What really turned me off to the car was people like you. Every time i go to one of these forums I see the same thing. Divers diafying there cars. Talking about how there awesome NEON kills corvettes and STIs. The only reason that could possiblly be true is YOUR NOT RACING ON A REAL TRACK/DRAG STRIP. Classic punk style. Red lighting and racing people who really dont feel like racing a turbocharged grocery-getter. In every review/comparison ive read(and there have been many) by a credited news/mag all the cars you claim to kill (s2000, vette, evo, sti, wrx, ss camaro, etc) has better: 0-60, 1/4 mile, egronomics, interior design, and overall reliability.Hell, why not race the srt-4 in la mans. it goes like 250 mph right?

PERSONAL BONE TO PICK: it seems like the most popular "kill" is the s2000. i happen to admire the enginering(interior and exterior), body style and importantly the relitivly cheap price tag.(note: the s2000 pushes 240 ON A SMALLER NON-TURBO ENGINE) Yet the "almighty" srt-4 seems to kill it everytime.

heres the facts:s2000
Price as tested $32,477
Engine type 2.0-liter dohc 16V inline-4
Horsepower 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza S-02; 205/55R-16 89W f, 225/50R-16 92W r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec
Slalom 65.9 mph
Skidpad 0.90g

srt-4:
60 mph in 5.6 seconds
quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds
70 mph brake 167 feet

Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys.


You're just another fan boy that probably hasn't even sat in an SRT-4. Let me start off by saying that you can't generalize and say that all the SRT-4 drivers a lying pricks. Though I will agree that there are a lot of punks giving SRT-4 drivers a bad name. There is no way a stock SRT-4 will beat an STi or a Corvette. However it will give them a damn good run for the money. With the upgrade kits you will be beating cars like that. I can't believe that you would say the seats suck since they are same ones out of the Viper and nobody is complaining about those. It must the damn placebo effect. You think it is shit therefore it must be shit. While I will say the fit and finish of the SRT-4 is lacking compared to the S2000, I must say it better since it is over $10,000 less! What do you people expect for $20,000 freaking grand? You can't be fucking pleased!!!

Let me also say that the SRT-4 has NO reliability issues. In fact Sport Compact Car got to rip all the mechanical bits apart and look at them. What they said they found was an overly built drive train able to handle around 1,000HP on the stock bottom end. Go ahead and throw a turbo on the S2000. It will still have a shitty amount of torque and you will have to replace the internals and lower the compression and spend over $6,000 to do it. Ending up spending over $40,000 for your S2000 and the engine will still have no where near the potential of the SRT-4s and the SRT-4 will be far more reliable. Also I would love to see you jump in an S2000 and run a 4.9 0-60. That is quite hard since you have to rev the hell out of the engine to get the damn car to move and you have to launch it just right. They use a pro to get that time and it probably took him a lot of runs to get that good of a time. I hate to break it to you, but the SRT-4 won't have too much trouble beating an S2000 both being average drivers.

You need to stop generalizing and spewing out useless bullshit. Go troll somewhere else.

let me add that they fixed that reving problem on the s2000....there were a lot of complaints about high reving the engine to get any kinda performance out of it and they kinda sorta fixed that on the new s2000.....not sure what i was readin

I would like to say this the numbers that Road and track, Car and driver are giving is info from manufacture. Not dynoed. Its been proven time and time again that srt-4 was way under rated. SRT-4's put down the manufactures numbers on the ground there have been many tests showing 210hp-225hp at the wheels. Usually in a finely tuned car 10% of the power is lost in drive train so your 240BHP (brake hp not at the wheel) = 216hp at the wheels in best scenario. I have Dyno showing 212hp at the wheel with a faulty plug and wire. So when you get old enough to drive or afford your $30,000 dream car come back and tell us how disappointed you are.

ok what diffenrnce does it make both are good mags and you still suck


You will know how much you suck for not giving out the correct source as you GROW UP.

The S2000's 9000rpm redline is great for the track, but not on public roads. It is no fun revving up to over 7000rpm juts to get that small 153lb-ft of torque, guess why they bumped up the displacement and lowered the redline this year??
Because the lack or torque, the S2000 is 0.4sec slower to 100mph than the SRT-4 according to Road & Track.
And the S2000 has poor gas mileage.
The S2000 2.0L n/a engine needs more gas than the SRT-4 2.4L turbo.

in all truth and honesty.....why are the s2000 and the srt-4 being compared....2 totally different cars that IMO can't be compared to each other

Listen, i started this thread to address the srt4s community lack of truth on forums, instead you tools change the argument saying that the almighty srt 4 can beat the s2000. your just proving my points. i put the stats there to prove that the s2000 is faster. if you dolts would accutually read the start post youd see i DIDNT MIND THE SRT4 BUT MORE THAT I HATED HOW EVERYTHING WAS EXAGERATED. but no..we have to make this about how a grocery getter is soo awesome. also someone said the srt seats come from the viper...THATS THE PROBLEM even srt drivers will admit that the seats are only good for 90lb girls.
regardless the point of the thread was to point out how much crap goes on with these forums, truth wise.

You need to get your story straight kid. You want to complain about people on here that are disrespectful, not truthful, and arrogant little snot-nosed kids? If i'm not mistaken, that's exactly what YOU are. TRUTH be told, the large, LARGE majority of SRT-4 owners are much more respectful of other people and their cars, unlike most ricers who believe their hondas with light-up 5-foot exhaust tips that stick out 5 feet from the rear bumper and chrome plastic hubcaps are better than any other car on the street. Personally, i think you need to go back to whatever honda-rules-everything-else-druels forum you came from, and leave the Neon guys alone. They deal with enough stupid, arrogant hondaphiles as it is, the last thing they need is you trying to stir up more trouble. So why don't you go out, get a job like the rest of us, buy your own car, and try to grow up. :loser:

Oh, and since pretty much everybody here has posted some sort of 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, allow me to add my own. The first is from my December issue of Motor Trend, who tested the 2004 SRT-4, which adds more horsepower, a Quaife LSD, new BFG tires, and a cool new color, electric blue.

0-60mph: 5.5 seconds
1/4 mile: [email protected]
mpg(important for those of us who actually have cars): 22/30

The S2000's numbers from my August issue of Car & Driver.
0-60mph: 5.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.1@99mph
mpg: 20/26

As you can see, the only thing the S2000 bests the SRT-4 in, besides handling as the S2000 handles very well, is 0-60 times. And of course, anybody who knows anything about cars knows that these magazines have professionals who test these cars, and that in the real world with amatuer drivers, the SRT-4 would have the S2000 even in 0-60, since the SRT-4 is a much easier car to launch than the S2000. In the quarter, the SRT-4 is ahead of the S2000 by .1 second and 3.72mph faster. It also gets better gas mileage and has a faster top speed, which can be even faster if the governor is removed. So you can go farther faster than the S2000 as well. Face it, your beloved S2000 is outperformed by the SRT-4, a car that costs 12 grand less. And if you really wanted to beat an S2000 down into the ground, you could spend a total of around 2 grand, taken from the 12 grand that you saved in buying the SRT-4, and put 500 into the Stage 1 upgrade from Mopar to raise your horsepower and torque, effectively making it that much more faster than the S2000, and spend the remaining on a very good aftermarket performance suspension to make it handle as well if not better than the S2000. And you're still 10 grand cheaper than the S2000. And you can still haul 4 people and their luggage, too. My job is done here.

Listen, i started this thread to address the srt4s community lack of truth on forums, instead you tools change the argument saying that the almighty srt 4 can beat the s2000. your just proving my points. i put the stats there to prove that the s2000 is faster. if you dolts would accutually read the start post youd see i DIDNT MIND THE SRT4 BUT MORE THAT I HATED HOW EVERYTHING WAS EXAGERATED. but no..we have to make this about how a grocery getter is soo awesome. also someone said the srt seats come from the viper...THATS THE PROBLEM even srt drivers will admit that the seats are only good for 90lb girls.
regardless the point of the thread was to point out how much crap goes on with these forums, truth wise.

No. Actually you didn't address anything. You jumped in here talking shit before anyone said anything and you were talking about the S2k beating and SRT-4 before anyone else too. You say you hate how everything is exagerated but you're the one posting 0-60 times of 4.9 seconds for an S2k which isn't gonna happen. All the facts that were posted by the SRT-4 guys are actually truthful and from a respectable magazine. You have to face the facts here. It's a drivers race. Either car could win.
Also I know for a fact that if someone came to the S2k forum and even mentioned the word Neon you'd jump on them right away and start talking shit about them. The only guy that's been talking shit in here is you.
As far as the seats go. I am 6'1" and 170lbs and I've sat in one and happen to think that the seats are awesome. I know too that a ton of people can back me up on that.
If some neon guy posted a thread in the S2k forum titled "You S2000 owners are all the same" and started off talking shit the exact same thing would happen there as it did here.
Here's my piece of advice for you. Get a life, get a job, save some money, buy your precious S2000 and get the hell out of these forums!

No. Actually you didn't address anything. You jumped in here talking shit before anyone said anything and you were talking about the S2k beating and SRT-4 before anyone else too. You say you hate how everything is exagerated but you're the one posting 0-60 times of 4.9 seconds for an S2k which isn't gonna happen. All the facts that were posted by the SRT-4 guys are actually truthful and from a respectable magazine. You have to face the facts here. It's a drivers race. Either car could win.
Also I know for a fact that if someone came to the S2k forum and even mentioned the word Neon you'd jump on them right away and start talking shit about them. The only guy that's been talking shit in here is you.
As far as the seats go. I am 6'1" and 170lbs and I've sat in one and happen to think that the seats are awesome. I know too that a ton of people can back me up on that.
If some neon guy posted a thread in the S2k forum titled "You S2000 owners are all the same" and started off talking shit the exact same thing would happen there as it did here.
Here's my piece of advice for you. Get a life, get a job, save some money, buy your precious S2000 and get the hell out of these forums!
ha...fag

ha...fag

Thanks for proving my point that you just came here to talk shit....fag.

LOL! Why are you guys even bothering with this MORON? This individual is sixteen years old, and doesn't even own an S2000. You all have ripped him (?) a new asshole time and time again, and he just doesn't get it. Case in point, 92teggsr TOTALLY trashed this guy, and all s2kfan01 could come up with was, "ha...fag". ROFLMAO

Maybe you guys just like messing with idiot trolls. In that case, carry on! :D

92teggsr TOTALLY trashed this guy

thank you,thank you......I do my best.

A: the reason the s2k puts out 240hp on a 2.0 is becsue it has high compression. do that with a neon and you'll get about the same thing. Put a turbo on an engine made for high compression n/a and your tost.

And about that ''dodge sucks balls''. Go race a charger or viper and see who wins. Dodge has made some great cars that will womp honda a$$ any day of the week.

Dodge has made some great cars that will womp honda a$$ any day of the week.



that's is a true statement.....but ca't forget about that race between hybridsol's CRX and that guy....can't remember his car, but i think it had a HEMI in it.....that was a good read....think they raced 3 times and hybridsol beat him every time

I stand corrected. sorry about that.

I believe someone said it earlier that ''the srt-4 and s2000 can't be compared to one another.'' Ok fine then lets compare the viper to the s2k. Both are 2 seater convertables. someone want to put the specks up for me?

that was me that said that....can't compare the viper and the s2000....totally different classes....

the s2000's competitors are the porsche and bmw convertible....but that's not to say that u can't race and/ or compare it to any car u want

that was me that said that....can't compare the viper and the s2000....totally different classes....

the s2000's competitors are the porsche and bmw convertible....but that's not to say that u can't race and/ or compare it to any car u want


true. s2000's engine is less than half of that of a viper...two very different classes.

i did see a street legal 500hp s2000 though....that'd be a good race....but the viper would win...a lot of tq movin that car....but i'm not sure what the tq was on that s2000

i did see a street legal 500hp s2000 though....that'd be a good race....but the viper would win...a lot of tq movin that car....but i'm not sure what the tq was on that s2000

street legal?!?! :eek7: how do they do that...that much hp and its street legal? thats something i gota see. :) i think it would be more or less an even match coz of s2000's lighter weight...i dunno.

http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/showt...threadid=164434

http://www.evolutionautosports.com/images/evocars/s2000_alex/s2000alex1.jpg
http://www.evolutionautosports.com/images/evocars/s2000_alex/s2000alex3.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid89/p3caae2cdba3db348633da66c93afd3de/fa81154e.jpg

ey blu civic...links dead or is it just me? but daaaaang...thats probably one fast mother F@#$%&!!!

wow i love this, got all you fags hot and botherd. well my question is, how did that dude with the 95 integrea "rip" me, going on about all i did was come here and talk shit, dude read the thread man, i was adressing how neon drivers exadurate wins alot, you guys are the fags that made this simply about neon vs s2000.THAT WASNT THE POINT OF THE THREAD. but regardless you dolts will ignore this reply and go on about the s2000vsneon o well, i cant expect you to understand, afterall, you did buy a neon.

p.s. how is the viper an amazing car, it gets its ass wooped in every comparison test outthere by the vette every year and the vette is 30 grand less...im not saying the viper isnt a cool car(which im sure most of you dumbasses will acuse me of) but i dont think it should be considerd a good car compared to others

o yea how did i exagerate 0-60 times...i mean i did provide the link that proved it, or can you not read.
ha

actual post on a forum:
Originally posted by myfault
i beat a lingenfelter tt vetter in my yellow srt before i wrecked it. he was faster than i expected... but once my tires gripped in 2nd, i pulled about 1/2 a car on him.. and we stayed that way till about 140 then we let off because of cars ahead. afterwards we pulled over and he was impressed with my car. i told him his was cool too.

WOW I THINK THAT A NEON CAN ACUALLY BEAT A 600 HP VETTE

s2kfan01-

I've been reading this thread and it seems to be that you are basicaly calling SRT drivers posers. You are obviously a Honda fan. Are you completely unaware that Honda fans are the laughing joke of the automotive industry? Honda (import tuner) drivers are known around the car world as the biggest posers out there. C'mon dude, before calling SRT drivers morons, take a look at what people really think of you Honda guys.

s2kfan01, you still here? I knew you were stupid, but had no idea that you were THAT stupid. Hey, I got a game for you... you're a kid, so you probably like games... go play in traffic, K?

P.S. A great deal of the people replying to you are NOT Neon owners.

P.P.S. Lern 2 spel.

s2kfan01-

I've been reading this thread and it seems to be that you are basicaly calling SRT drivers posers. You are obviously a Honda fan. Are you completely unaware that Honda fans are the laughing joke of the automotive industry? Honda (import tuner) drivers are known around the car world as the biggest posers out there. C'mon dude, before calling SRT drivers morons, take a look at what people really think of you Honda guys.


id have to agree with blindside.amg. i drive a honda but RESPECT all makes of vehicles may it be imports or domestics. its people like you (s2kfan01...yes you) that give the honda people bad names and reputations. why would you go into other peoples forums and start making criticisms about what they drive. if you dont have any good to say about what other people drive...id suggest you keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself. theres no point in doing what you are doing...i think everybody is already against you. so shut the fuck up.

s2kfan01-
Honda (import tuner) drivers are known around the car world as the biggest posers out there.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree. While there ARE some real poseurs out there, I think it comes with the territory. As cars get easier to build up, (like the Civic... or the Mustang... or even a '32 Ford street rod) some folks jump on the bandwagon and give the real racers a bad name because they really don't "get it" like real car people.

I've met some extremely knowledgable Honda folks, and to lump them all together is unfair. It's what our "friend" s2kfan01 has done with SRT-4/Neon fans.

so? is s2kfan01 coming back yet? doesent he get the point yet?

wow i love this, got all you fags hot and botherd. well my question is, how did that dude with the 95 integrea "rip" me, going on about all i did was come here and talk shit, dude read the thread man, i was adressing how neon drivers exadurate wins alot, you guys are the fags that made this simply about neon vs s2000.THAT WASNT THE POINT OF THE THREAD. but regardless you dolts will ignore this reply and go on about the s2000vsneon o well, i cant expect you to understand, afterall, you did buy a neon.

p.s. how is the viper an amazing car, it gets its ass wooped in every comparison test outthere by the vette every year and the vette is 30 grand less...im not saying the viper isnt a cool car(which im sure most of you dumbasses will acuse me of) but i dont think it should be considerd a good car compared to others

Read the thread....good idea...why don't you start doing that since obviously you are completely retarded. About your coming here to "address" neon driver exadurating wins is total bull. You didn't address nothing. I call your kind of "addressing" "talking shit" which is exactly what you did and I bet money that you're the only guy in here that denies that. In your very first thread post you said that a honda S2k can beat a Neon any day....I wonder who started to make this a S2k VS. Neon thread....
About the Viper getting beat by a Vette.....WHAT ????? where the hell do you get you're info? A magazine called "little boy racer"?? The Corvette hasn't beaten a Viper in a long time. Maybe it beat it in a slalom once or something and you're basing it off of that. Compare a 04 ZO6 to a 04 Viper and the ZO6 will get it's ass handed to it by the Viper.
Now about your 0-60 time for the S2k....Any dumbass could put up a page saying his car does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. He probably had a G-tech and drove his car down a steep hill and wrote down the time he got. People with comon sence don't believe that though. (obviously you don't have any since you do believe it) Have you ever actually talked to a person that owns an S2k? Probably not. I've seen them run at the track and I've ridden in a few of them. They're pretty fast no doubt but not 4.9 seconds fast.

I could go on making you look dumber and dumber but everyone in here already knows it. So until you (S2Kfan) reply with some other dumbass post I'll rest my case.

(By the way my Integra does 0-60 in 2.4 seconds.....)

Read the thread....good idea...why don't you start doing that since obviously you are completely retarded. About your coming here to "address" neon driver exadurating wins is total bull. You didn't address nothing. I call your kind of "addressing" "talking shit" which is exactly what you did and I bet money that you're the only guy in here that denies that. In your very first thread post you said that a honda S2k can beat a Neon any day....I wonder who started to make this a S2k VS. Neon thread....
About the Viper getting beat by a Vette.....WHAT ????? where the hell do you get you're info? A magazine called "little boy racer"?? The Corvette hasn't beaten a Viper in a long time. Maybe it beat it in a slalom once or something and you're basing it off of that. Compare a 04 ZO6 to a 04 Viper and the ZO6 will get it's ass handed to it by the Viper.
Now about your 0-60 time for the S2k....Any dumbass could put up a page saying his car does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. He probably had a G-tech and drove his car down a steep hill and wrote down the time he got. People with comon sence don't believe that though. (obviously you don't have any since you do believe it) Have you ever actually talked to a person that owns an S2k? Probably not. I've seen them run at the track and I've ridden in a few of them. They're pretty fast no doubt but not 4.9 seconds fast.

I could go on making you look dumber and dumber but everyone in here already knows it. So until you (S2Kfan) reply with some other dumbass post I'll rest my case.

(By the way my Integra does 0-60 in 2.4 seconds.....)


id like you to notice the "Any dumbass could put up a page saying his car does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. He probably had a G-tech and drove his car down a steep hill and wrote down the time he got. " well actually those specs came strait from road and track and once again this dude would have seen that if he read. o well, as for the vette v viper, no doubt the viper is faster but the vette is always considerd a better car every year because of better design.
in response to 92teggsr post....1. i said a s2k could beat a srt anyday because all these drivers are talking about how they could beat them...NOT TO START A ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DIFFEERNT CARS. youll also notice if you would have read the thread(theres that reading skill, who would have known it to be important) that i talk about teh evo suposedly beating evos and vettes...why doesnt anyone start bitching about that?? i put the specs of the s2k on because its the car i know the most about and i put it up there to prove a point and that is that on a track, stock, a s2k would beat a srt 4.
i noticed how noone has addressed the example of the neon beating the ligtenfeller vette...smells like bullshit.

one more note to this integra dudeI WASNT TALKING SHIT i dont know why you keep saying this.sure i said that i didnt particularly like the neon but i didnt smash it till you people made the whole thread about how SHITTY the s2k was. hell if i was handed a srt4 id be elated with joy.its sure as hell faster than my volvo(note: dont let looks decive you, my volvo can do the 1/4 in only 21.34...ha)

i dont know why i try, this is sure to fly right over peoples heads and you will continue to bash an s2000 just because you really jsut dont understand the point of this. If you were secqure(sp) with your cars youd simply say that "yea its true that alot of drivers stretch the truth" but alas no.

Typo...after the first set of parenthesis its sposed to say "that i talk about the srt suposedly..."