heard 2003 s2000 slower than the rest?

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #1 (**permalink**) 09-13-2005, 08:22 PM

i got a question for you guys, has any1 else heard of the 2003 s2000s being slower than all the other years? if so why? this was brought up in a thread were a guy was talkin about his kill of an s2000 with his 3 series, and said it was prob a 2003 cus they are slower?? more info on this if there is any please

powerslave · #2 (**permalink**) 09-13-2005, 11:35 PM

I thought we went over this in the Kills Section already. No, they are not slower. Yes, the rev limit is lower, the displacement is up and the torque peaks earlier. Same peak power. I would guess most people could actually drive faster with the newer ones.

Why is this in Members Rides?

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #3 (**permalink**) 09-14-2005, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerslave

I thought we went over this in the Kills Section already. No, they are not slower. Yes, the rev limit is lower, the displacement is up and the torque peaks earlier. Same peak power. I would guess most people could actually drive faster with the newer ones.

Why is this in Members Rides?

dude not the 2004 and up with the new 2.2 motors...im talking about the 2003's with the same motors....

NSM · #4 (**permalink**) 09-14-2005, 08:46 AM

Again why is this in member's ride's???

But as powerslave said there is no difference. Same power, def. not slower. Driver error perhaps.

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #5 (**permalink**) 09-14-2005, 11:53 AM

powerslave is talkin about the 04 05 model with the new engine...im not asking abou that! GOSH!

powerslave · #6 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjmthree

powerslave is talkin about the 04 05 model with the new engine...im not asking abou that! GOSH!

Well then they are exactly the fucking same as the older ones!

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #7 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 06:36 AM

THANK YOU! IN ANOTHER THREAD THERE WAS SOME DUMBASS's SAYING THE 03 MODEL WAS SLOWER than the 02 01 00 ...EVEN THO IT HAD THE SAME ENGINE IM YELLING IN REAL LIFE ....IM IN A GLASS CASE OF EMOTION!

NSM · #8 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjmthree

IM IN A GLASS CASE OF EMOTION!

Hold on let me say something.....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahah baaaaaaaaaaaahahahahha

the man... the man on the motorcycle....

He punted baxter ?? hahahah!

Ne ways same thing!

00ronburgandy00 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 12:25 PM

no not you i dont know your name...............what is it.......lanolin.. lanolin, like sheeps wool.

hb712 · #10 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjmthree

THANK YOU! IN ANOTHER THREAD THERE WAS SOME DUMBASS's SAYING THE 03 MODEL WAS SLOWER than the 02 01 00 ...EVEN THO IT HAD THE SAME ENGINE IM YELLING IN REAL LIFE ....IM IN A GLASS CASE OF EMOTION!

First don't call me a dumbass. I told you to look at the site where I got my info. DON'T EVER CALL ME A DUMBASS BECAUSE SOMETHING I READ IS WRONG! hopefully you will read this and become suddenly aware that not everyone is wrong. Now because I said in the other thread that I got my info from this site, I CANNOT BE WRONG! The site can be wrong, but; because I never claimed that I tested the car, or, that I had any other info other than that provided by the site below I am not wrong.

"2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9 (Manual)"
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #11 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 03:57 PM

dumbass's being plural not singling you out....and sayin a car with the same engine is slower than its earlier predicessors is a pretty dumb thing to do, a website might give a 2003 a slow 0-60 time for an unknown reason...but where on the same website does it say the 2000 or 2001 or 2002 is faster????

ps. way to ruin the anchorman fun... I LOVE LAMP

NSM · #12 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hb712

First don't call me a dumbass. I told you to look at the site where I got my info. DON'T EVER CALL ME A DUMBASS BECAUSE SOMETHING I READ IS WRONG! hopefully you will read this and become suddenly aware that not everyone is wrong. Now because I said in the other thread that I got my info from this site, I CANNOT BE WRONG! The site can be wrong, but; because I never claimed that I tested the car, or, that I had any other info other than that provided by the site below I am not wrong.

"2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9 (Manual)"
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html

Website's driver must have sucked fuckin ass damN!

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #13 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NsMthree

Website's driver must have sucked fuckin ass damN!

hb712 · #14 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjmthree

dumbass's being plural not singling you out....and sayin a car with the same engine is slower than its earlier predicessors is a pretty dumb thing to do, a website might give a 2003 a slow 0-60 time for an unknown reason...but where on the same website does it say the 2000 or 2001 or 2002 is faster????

ps. way to ruin the anchorman fun... I LOVE LAMP

Umm it says the 2000 has a 0-60 time of 5.5 secs. I believe it was you who posted on the other thread a site about 2001s. Those I believe were listed at 5.5 secs. That would be faster than 6.3 I think...

ps. Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident!

SeeYaLaterQUEEF!!! · #15 (**permalink**) 09-15-2005, 04:28 PM

that website that says the 2003 is 6.3 0-60 also says (manual) next to the 2003....which is quite pointless considering the s2000 doesnt come in auto transmission? obviously a very smarth and trustworthy source lol