it really is not, simply not enough horsepower, not enough torque, and weight a bit too much.

it's fun to drive and handles well, but at the price range, it's simply not in the top tier as far as performance goes.

real race car wise, there is a reason why s2000 only competes in gt300 class, because in gt500 class, it's simply outclassed going up against skyline, nsx, supra, z, etc.

 

^^^ Who in the hell is talking about gt500 here? None of us are gonna be racing in gt500. The car is a good racing platform as far as auto-x and track days are concerned.

Sure, the vague statement didn't specify only being about auto-x and the like, but using a small amount of good judgement will draw that conclusion.

 

lol
why the hell would you want to race a honda fit? im sure it could totally take on a s2k or g35 anyday...

 

lol hold up homie... let me pour you a glass of hater - ade

 

hater-ade = reality-ade

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV1mZ...gra%20type%20r

 

I don't think the S2000 is a good race platform for one reason and one reason only, it's a convertable.

I don't know of many cars that can be regarded as a race car with no top. It just lacks the rigidity needed for a good race platform.

 

^^ I'm guessing you haven't driven one.

 

oh yes, you simply must experience the neck breaking fiery of 162 lb of torque to fully appreciate it.

 

Oh god. I would hate to be as ignorant as you. I would probably just shoot myself.

Read carefully now... Scroll back up, read his comment again. Disect his comment and figure out which facet of performance he's eluding to. I think you'd find that it has nothing to do with torque.

 

how about your go learn what sarcasm is before telling people they are ignorant??

and if you really want disect vert vs coupe, he is still right. common sense, no roof = less ridigty = compromise to cornering.

no if or buts about it.

performance wise, coupes >>>>>>>>>>> verts.

guess who is the ignorant s2000 fanboy tool??

 

I would beg to differ... My race team partner has '02 AP1 and was a bit pissed when looking in rear view mirror stock for stock on the on and off ramps in our local area... I would also say that I'm not saying people should race the fit on the streets, but my fit did pull 87 mph in a 35 mph rated long S Curves we test cars on... That is high as most of the fully modded EG's & EK's pull

 

Oh my god!! Go stab yourself in the jaw right now, you are so damn dumb. No shit, of course you were being sarcastic but you could at least learn to be sarcastic while staying on topic. Hence, still ignorant.

And yes, true, if the s2000 had a roof it would be more rigid, but ask anyone who has driven an s2000 and they'll tell you it is extremely rigid. Find me a coupe in the same price range that handles as well as the s2000. I guarantee you you would be hard-pressed to accomplish this "feat".

And though I love the s2000, I am in no way a fanboy. I normally don't spend time defending the car because I know what it can and can't do, but when people are talking out there a$$es I have to butt in.

One more thing... leave the "greater-than" sign to C programming and mathematics applications. If used outside of said applications, it just looks retarded.

 

Believe me, I'm not trying to discredit the handeling capabilities of the Fit. It's believable that the Fit can keep up through many turns since it's just so much lighter. The required centripetal force (I don't know if there's a "racing" term for centripetal force) to get the Fit around the turn is much smaller than that of an s2000/EG/EK because of its weight.

 

lmao... do you even know what ignorant even is?? i did stay on topic, topic was s2000 a real car. no real race car will weight 2800 and only have 16x lb of torque.

the only ignorant braindead fanboy tool here is you. vert = compromise to the body. simple as that. it doesnt matter if s2000 stock body is rigid, give up the vert, and the body will be even more rigid and much less weight.

 

Holy crap, you practically repeated what I said with your second paragraph there. Are you seriously that dense.

And no, you didn't stay on topic. You obviously didn't heed my advise to go back and read his comment. He said "It just lacks the rigidity needed for a good race platform." which means he's talking about the "handeling" aspect of performance. But you decided to reach far up into the depths of your ass and pulled out a comment about torque.

I'm done with this, I'm obviously arguing with a feeble minded bafoon here. Your juvenile insistance to call me a "fanboy" again proves that.

--- Stay in school kids!

 

1) The S2000 is the best car in its class in its price range.

2) The S2000 has a stiffer chassis than most coupes.

3) Torque isn't everything.

4) Every car is a compromise. It just so happens that the S2000 doesn't really give much up.

5) The S2000 was built from the ground up to be what it is. I don't think you could say the same for your entry-level-sedan-on-steroids.

Cliffs: The S2000 is the best sportscar on the market at its price point. Period. Noone is claiming it's anything it's not.

 

best thread ever.

 

http://automobiles.honda.com/images/...141_eprint.pdf

.79G on the skidpad for the Fit

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/ro...0403scc_s2000/

.89G for the AP2
.92G for the AP1

I would figure out the velocity deltas for different radius arcs, but I think the skidpad numbers (and common sense) illustrate quite clearly the fact that the S2000 will be faster in steady state cornering situations.

 

1. evo, sti, cobra, and gto, all better. 350z, 330, rx8, is350 all fairly equal.

2. most cars also arent race cars. the fact s2000 might be stiffer then civics and accords doesnt make it the best like you are claiming.

3. torque indeed isnt everything. do you want to see who got more hp, bigger brakes, better power band, etc?

4. s2000 gives up plenty, the complete lack of power for one.

5. i dont need my pocket rocket to have a grand hertiage. you can have your heritage, i'll win the races.