2000 Mustang GT vs. s2000

2000 Mustang GT vs. s2000

mustang = exhaust and k&n
s2000 = stock

http://www.3.8mustang.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=24612

Wow, before seeing that, I was expecting the S2k to pull if they went from a roll. Cool vid though

not too surpized but cool vid

I have never really been impressed by S2000's to begin with.

Anyway, Moved to the street racing forum.

I have always been impressed by the S2000 :biggrin:

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice video

Very misleading video trev.

This was a highly-disputed video at S2KI.com, even when the people that were actually there were chiming in.

http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177840

That is also an N/A Steeda GT in that vid. The best that Steeda has run at the track was 14.1 with its mods, and the best run that S2000 has ran was 13.9 stock.

The GT refuses a rematch even from a dead-stop, and his "camp" has been passing around that vid like that was the only race of the night.

The 13.9 wasnt ran stock... it was with Mugen exhaust and Injen intake...

"That s2000 has an injen intake and a mugen exhaust. It also has 2 12" subs in the trunk.

For those of you saying it was the driver........
The driver has ran a 13.92 @101.8 in that car. How many of you have ran 13's with a basically bone stock S2000?!?!"



I say who cares. Theyre both too close to even call anyone a winner.




Also what about this link?

http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179832

What car was the sound coming from? whatever it was sounded kinda crappy.

Damn i just read some of their other threads concerning that vid.... What a bunch of fuckin whiners. Seriously who cares? The GT lost, then the S2000 lost. Alright move on. :dunno:

What car was the sound coming from? whatever it was sounded kinda crappy.
The high revvin S2000...

Oh and I at least found one good thing in that forum :



http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021011l.gif



:lol:

I say who cares. Theyre both too close to even call anyone a winner.


The S2000 owner agrees:


Well the races can be explained quite easily.

#1: This is the only race where the Mustang slowed to less than 45. The s2000 was able to start in 1st gear as it was ran from 35-up. The s2000 pulled strong in first and continued to pull in second and held all the way through 3rd.

#2: Race starts at ~45. S2000 gets jump due to being in 2nd. At 65 the s2000 has to shift to 3rd, while the stang is still in 2nd. The s2000 is able to hold off the stang till shifting into 4th, where the stang has a huge gearing advantage still being in third. This is where the video ends. If the run was completed, you would have seen the S2000 pull back due to the gearing then being in it's favor.

#3: Starts again at ~45. S2000 pulls in 2nd again then the mustang misshifts into 3rd. Race over.

#4: Race starts at 55?! Mustang wouldn't slow past that :rolleyes:. The s2000 starts in 2nd, and at 65 then has to shift. Very small lead is taken by the s2k. Once in thrid the Steeda has a slight advantage due to still being in 2nd. He stops the s2000 from pulling anymore. The two are even with the s2000 still being out in front. Now the s2000 has to shift to 4th. The steeda pulls back due to the gearing advantage at that point and begins to pass the s2k. The Steeda then shifts into 4th at the very end of the video, and you can tell the S2000 was stopping the pull the steeda had started. If the race had continued to ~140, the S2000 would have re-taken the mustang due to the very large gearing advantage at that point.

Now to clear up a few things.

#1: S2000 and steeda both have 2 passengers. Steeda passenger being ~160 and s2000 passenger ~110. The S2000 has a full take of gas, the steeda has empty. Weight is even.

#2: This steeda pulls harder than a stock GT. I don't know why but i have seen the s2000 beat stock gt's inbetween 3-4 times.

#3: When it is all said and done, the S2000 has still traped 3mph faster and ran .3 seconds faster. The S2000 is the faster car.

#4: MOST IMPORTANT. The S2000 and This steeda are very evenly matched from a roll. The determining factor of the winner is the speed at which the race ends. Both drivers believe this to be true.

BUT there is still the fact that the Steeda driver has refused to race from a stop, and has himself requested the roll-on races. The S2000 driver only concedes to the roll-on race, as the winner from a stop is yet to be determined. Although from the track numbers so far, the S is faster.

The S2000 owner also owns a juiced C5, and a Supra Turbo, according to the 'Stang driver himself, so it's not like the S owner is some kind of fanb01...

BTW, I am posting rebuttals on this subject, as I did in that S2KI thread, because the outright fanaticism I have observed from some Mustang owners is almost to the point of being absurd. Like ECOT3C and his Cavaliers.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1417672#post1417672

In that thread right there, I seem to see a couple of you saying that the S2000 is just "not as fast" as a late-model Mustang GT.

Now with the discussion at hand, and the resulting evidence, the S2000 is NOW "too close to tell", and a "driver's race" with the same said GT that is supposedly faster?

In the S2K boards, they post GT kills. In the Mustang boards, they post S2K kills.

The Mustang guys dog the S2000 for being slow, when it's actually just as fast, and in some instances faster than their GTs.

The S2K guys dog the Mustang for...well, being a Mustang (aka, quality, or lack thereof), when they should realize that that should be expected from a car that is almost 10,000-dollars cheaper in some instances than the S2K.

I have nothing to say about the quality of the Mustang, as I have not owned any recent model, so I can't really talk. But as for the speed thing, I have seen both cars run at a track, and what I have consistently seen is that the S2000 is faster, despite your, and other people's claims.

Just like when I posted my race with my Sentra against 90redgt in another site...everybody that owned a Mustang dogged Brandon and his car, claiming that his car was running poorly, and that he sucked at driving, or both.

C'mon now?

Is it one of those: "it's not a car, it's a lifestyle" deals?

C'mon now?

Is it one of those: "it's not a car, it's a lifestyle" deals?

Like it is over at the SRT forums:biggrin::p

Just like when I posted my race with my Sentra against 90redgt in another site...everybody that owned a Mustang dogged Brandon and his car, claiming that his car was running poorly, and that he sucked at driving, or both.




No, it's just that GT foxbody's are just slow. :icon16:

Some things that I'm confused about...

To the best of my knowledge those year Steedas were either a S/C GT(V8) or a N/A V6. The only N/A V-8 Steeda makes is a road racing stang people aren't driving on the streets. So either it's not a Steeda cause a stock S2000 is not gonna beat a 13.0 1/4 mile Steeda and now way a N/A V6 Steeda is gonna beat a S2000(both barring misshifts etc..,). or that I'm misinformed about the years and availabilty. So if some has other proof please send us a link cause these are Steeda facts I'm 90% sure about.

Also going from a roll is to the S2000's advantage. But maybe the Mustang owner is not confident about his launches and I can understand that. So for that the Mustang owner pays the price all is fair but don't act like it is to the S2000's advantage other than the fact of driver skill.

[QUOTE=carrrnuttt]BTW, I am posting rebuttals on this subject, as I did in that S2KI thread, because the outright fanaticism I have observed from some Mustang owners is almost to the point of being absurd. Like ECOT3C and his Cavaliers.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1417672#post1417672

In that thread right there, I seem to see a couple of you saying that the S2000 is just "not as fast" as a late-model Mustang GT.

Now with the discussion at hand, and the resulting evidence, the S2000 is NOW "too close to tell", and a "driver's race" with the same said GT that is supposedly faster?

The Mustang guys dog the S2000 for being slow, when it's actually just as fast, and in some instances faster than their GTs.
IQUOTE]

Carnutt what really got that thread going was my statement of a 99+ Mustang GT running a low 14 second 1/4 mile. This statement was treated as absurd and ridiculious. Now if you want to take this video and this thread to say that a 99+ Mustang GT runs even or close with an S2000's fine.. . But you yourself in the other thread posted things about high 13 second S2000's so I won't argue that fine they do. And you also just posted "The Mustang guys dog the S2000 for being slow, when it's actually just as fast, and in some instances faster than their GTs."

So then a 99+ Mustang GT can easily run a low 14 second 1/4 mile if it's that close to a S2000 which runs high 13's. I have not gone back and read that thread but I think you were rather vehement that this was not the case.

[QUOTE=carrrnuttt]So then a 99+ Mustang GT can easily run a low 14 second 1/4 mile if it's that close to a S2000 which runs high 13's. I have not gone back and read that thread but I think you were rather vehement that this was not the case.
I was actually "vehement" about the fact that I saw what I saw...which is the newest model Mustang GTs barely breaking 14's at 14.7 or higher at my local track (this is from what I have seen with my own eyes, I'm not there for every event), and this from watching at least 50+ plus runs by late model (99+) Mustang GT's, that were stock to almost stock.

At the same time, I have seen an S2000 run a worst of 16.1, BUT, have seen one actually go 14.1 stock (based on how it sounded).

So, here it is:

Worst run I have seen by a 99+ Mustang GT: 15.8

Worst run I have seen by an S2000: 16.1

Best run I have seen by a 99+ Mustang GT: 14.7

Best run I have seen by an S2000: 14.1

EDIT: Remember, this is at about 1000' elevation.