Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

S2000 would be running in the high 14's there really would not be much seperating them. Credit to Honda they are a very highly tuned machine from factory. Unfortunately going faster really costs big $ in the Hondas. most people who modify them usually end up going backwards. I have a good friend with an integra who just by fitting a full exhaust picked up 3 kw from 7000 rpm to redline. Unfortunately under 7000 rpm he lost 5 kw all the way.

So average power from idle to redline still comes as a loss

R33 though is SO much easier to improve power on however

I'm sorry but the S2000 will be quicker on the track and on the strip relative to an R33 GTS-T...an R33 GTR on the other hand is much more of a contest :P (assuming both are stock of course)

Edited by mickey

yeah it depends on who u talk to........

if you talk to a random skyline owner.......

obviously hes gonna stick up for thier car......

same goes for hondas.......or if you ask in a honda forum............

well the thing is..........s2000 are BRUTAL for a non turbo 4 cyl........and they are reknowned for that

and on the other hand the GTS-T are really nothing to sing a song and dance about... there isnt really anything special about its performance..... for e.g the simiallar induction/CC car i can think of is the Toyota Chaser.... its also a 6cyl 2.5 with a 1JZ-GTE engine (which are reknowned to be one of the BEST inline 6's in the world) & single turbo, RWD but only comes in auto......

those things do LOW 13 SEC!!!! and i think are actually heavier than skylines.

anyhow getting back to the figures....

i think its a close call......the HOnda Runs a 176KW @ the motor stock ...and im pretty sure the GTS-T is also around 176 - 178KW @ the motor stock.....

but a BIG difference in weight there.....

and the extra Nm of torque.......on the GTS-T may or may not make up for it.

I currently own a Civic Type R, and while V-TEC Hondas are pretty quick, they achieve their power with very high rev limits, and relative to any turbo motor, they have no torque whatsoever.

The upshot of all this is, they are very quick in the right gear and at the right revs, but not as user-friendly for real-world driving and for modifying. If I wanted to run an S2000 in an R33, I'd make it a rolling start and wait till he's in 3rd or 4th and catch him on the hop lol

I currently own a Civic Type R, and while V-TEC Hondas are pretty quick, they achieve their power with very high rev limits, and relative to any turbo motor, they have no torque whatsoever.

The upshot of all this is, they are very quick in the right gear and at the right revs, but not as user-friendly for real-world driving and for modifying. If I wanted to run an S2000 in an R33, I'd make it a rolling start and wait till he's in 3rd or 4th and catch him on the hop lol

yeah i hear ya dude

ive driven a Honda Integra Type R a few years ago.....

and mate.......what a SACK OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!

such garbage really.....

sorry to offend honda fans......but its true.......HIGH revs is something you dont want....

some people think its a good thing but it really isnt......feels like a WORN CLUTCH!

ive driven a 200sx with a worn clutch and thats EXACTLY how the hondas felt.....

your always constantly having to gun it to the floor to even beat anything or accelerate ahead of anything

makes you eventually feel like your not running enough power to what your putting down........

anyways, i dont like V8s..and i would probably never buy one.......but id chose that over a Type R any day...

but in terms of S2000 of GTS-t...............id go the S2000......

its probably a tad quicker than the GTs-t...... but looks alot better and more original..where every tom dick and his dog has a GTS-t or GT-t or watever the GT.......

goin by http://english.auto.vl.ru/ ... and redbook.com.au

S2k = 176kw / 1260 kg (curb weight) = 139kw per tonne..

R33 183kw / 1370 (curb weight) = 133kw per tonne...

R33 has alot more torque (294nm), S2k has 208nm but it probably gets evened out with the added weight of the R33.. so stock for stock, i'd give the win to the S2K theoretically :P

im sure R33's are alot easier to gain power from compared to the S2k tho and R33's nowadays always have some kind of work done so it really would depend

Edited by shaun123

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
×
×
  • Create New...