gossamer

Actually its 227 hp and about 170 whp.

Bill

sk12879

Drivetrain loss on those things is horrible. You're lucky if those are the whp numbers you put down stock. A guy here put down 150-155whp bone stock from 227 crank hp. But still losing almost 60hp from ~230 is 25-30% loss.

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

Surely you must have several mods to the car because the best time I got for it was 14.3 seconds in the 1/4. 13.59 is cutting around .7 of a second off and that takes some pretty good mods.

falcon3624

On kind of a funny note there is this guy that works at the same place as me. He drives an old Honda del sol that he basically got ripped to buy. His is the SI model and it has like 106bhp from what I understand. Anywho this guy comes and tells me that he raced a brand new vette and was 2 car lengths behind him lol. The he tells me that he raced with this other guy from work that has a Trans Am and he could not leave him (of course the guy with the Trans Am never remembers racing).

If anyone has any incite on these Del Sol's please share because according to the information I have found the Del Sol SI was suppose to run a 16.8 in the 1/4 brand spanking new.

sk12879

There's a reason that they're known as Del Slow's. I have yet to see any stock Honda that can hold with a properly driven stock LS1....S2000's included. I've left a couple S2K's like they were sitting still after giving them the jump. And I'm far from one of the best shifters out there. There's a guy here with a "tuned" Civic Si. He claims he left an LS1 Z28 without even shifting out of 5th gear.....at 100+ mph. Because we all know that over 100mph is where a 1.6L engine is going to shine (in 5th gear no less)....

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

So you have raced a new S2000? I hate to tell you but I know a couple guys that have S2000's and have seen them run at the track and most of them run either 13.8 or 14.0 and the LS1 Z28 runs at 13.6 so if you are not the best shifter around that car would keep up with your Z28. That is unless the guys you are racing don't know what the hell they are doing. I have seen a stock S2000 run with a stock Z28 and it didn't win but it was right on the Z28's ass the whole way.

sk12879

We were from a 60mph roll, so maybe the guy didn't know how to get the torqueless wonder into the powerband (considering that at 1800 rpms, I've got more torque than his peak). I drive a Trans Am by the way, not a Z28. All I know is that both of them were 2-3 lengths back when we shut down at about 100-110. Buddy of mine raced an S2K with exhaust (and who knows what else....exhaust was obvious) in his 99 TA (bone stock) from a dig with the same results. The S2K is not a bad car (good p/w ratio, sweet looking), but it's not going to run with any of the power cars....on top of the fact that to get the car to do anything you have to drive like you are pissed off at it.

And me saying I'm not the best shifter doesn't mean I'm the worst. I have run dead even with an M6 C5 Vette and killed an automatic C5, both from a dig. Ahh....the look on the face of a Corvette driver when he loses to your "inferior" car.

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

The mistake is running them from 60MPH. I have an accord and it runs in the low 14's bone stock, but unfortunately it's mostly all low end power. From a dead stop to 60MPH the Accord does it in 5.7 seconds and the S2000 does it in 5.5 (same as the TA). Once you get over 60MPH though you hit the low spot of the car. You know how every vehicle has that one bad spot to take off from? My Z71 and most other vehicles I have owned was at 40MPH but the Accord I know for sure has terrible takeoff at 60MPH. It takes off awesome from 50 and from 70 but horribly disappointing from 60.

Like I said before one of my good freinds does street racers for a living and we spend alot of time at the track and I have seen that most S2000's run about a 13.8-14.0 1/4 mile. I know that I raced a guy a while back that has the same Accord as me to the T and we ran dead even and he raced a guy the other night with a hopped up SRT Dodge Neon that runs 14.4 in the 1/4 mile and beat him.

If you are not running the 2003 model S2000 that is the one you should find. They changed engines in 2003 and the cars have much better 1/4 mile times now. I know the change in engine in the accord brought it from a 16.4 1/4 mile to a low 14 1/4 mile. The new engine is pumping around 60hp on the old one and I can assure you that it does make a difference. I raced a gen. 6 model Accord that had cold air and one or two other things and ran off and left him like he wasn't even moving.

sk12879

Actually, most any LS1 in the hands of the average driver can hit 60 in 5.3 (road testers rip off 5.1-5.2 routinely). My grandma could get my TA to a 5.5 0-60 (if she could get it off the line without blowing the tires off)....only takes 1 shift....first gear is good to 50 mph. I have nothing against the S2000 (I'd love to have one for my daily driver), but you have to absolutely ream them to get anything out of them.

http://www.modernracer.com/hondas2000.html
This is the fastest 0-60 road test I could find for the 2003 S2000. They ranged from 5.7-6.0. I know there are accounts of them going 5.4-5.5, but they are few and far between. And I have no idea of knowing what year they were....they were chance meetings on the expressway, not anyone that I know.

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

Actually you can trust those test about as far as you can throw them. Honda makes the engines so they can be ran off 87 octane and that is what most people will run them on and all the test that I have read accounts of they used 87 octane gas. Now tell me what your TA runs again on 87 octane? The technical specs I saw on one test showed that going to premium octane made the engine gain almost 20hp.

I know that when I bought mine I was running 87 for a good while and then I finally decided to go up to the premium (you could not do this in the gen. 6 because the engine would not run properly on higher octane). Anywho after I switched after a couple of tanks it seemed like the car came alive and it does not preform anything like it did on the 87.

Try to put some 87 octane in that TA and see if you run 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.

sk12879

My car is not recommended to run 87 octane (manufacturer recommends premium). The compression is too high. However, Honda rates their engines for 87 octane and therefore, it makes sense to test them on that (especially since some cars do not run better on premium when recommended for 87....then people would say "it's recommended for 87 and doesn't run as well on 93, but that's what they tested it on".). The point here is this....the Honda will run on 87, just not as well. My car will knock and ping itself to death if I put in 87....that's called compression ratio.

As for trusting the tests, I find it humerous that everyone always discounts road tests that work against their hypothesis. You are taking 2 cars and putting them in the hands of the same drivers (drivers that do this for a living no less), under similar conditions and saying the results mean nothing? You take a driver and toss him in 2 different cars and see which one he can pull better results from....sounds reasonable to me.

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

I am not discounting the test at all. I beleive the S200 probably does run a 14.3 on 87 octane. I am not disatisfied because I don't even own a S2000. The test for the Accord V6 coupe that motor trend did left the car running a 14.4 1/4 mile on 87 octane and that is pretty damn fast for me. I run the premium in my car and so does the other guy that ran the hopped up SRT Neon that runs 14.4.

What I think is funny is when the guys with the TA's and Z28's start getting scared that little rice burning car is catching up to them lol. I know how it is cuz I had a 96 TA that I hopped up and ran an 11.18 with my last time at the track.

gossamer

Well it depends on what type of dyno is used. The one I'm going by is TurboXS in Maryland. They use a dyno-pak which has hubs you bolt the wheels to, so this removes the rolling resistence of the tires.
I just the the hp numbers to base improvement not for a definitive hp measurement.

Oh and no, no other mods, well actually an air filter. You need to base the improvement on finish line mph (+5mph) not my et. My car driven by someone else is capable of a 14 where as I can drive it too a 13.5.

Bill

sk12879

I love seeing a little rice burner that can run fast as hell. I love cars, not just muscle, power cars. As long as it's fast. My friend Pat has a 1989 Mirage with a 4g63, Big 16G turbo, FMIC, engine management, huge injectors, etc. He would kill me if we ever got a chance to run them....his car is a high 11 second 4 banger. I love going out in his sleeper and rolling up V8's with him. I'm all about the SRT-4. But I can't stand when people (not you, so don't think I'm directing this that way) think that the turbo 4-cylinder is the mecca of automotive performance...completely discounting the V-8's and V-10's that will run circles around them on street, strip or track.

__________________
Scott
Louisville, KY

falcon3624

I don't swear by any 4 cylinders. I never liked a V6 until I got this accord and saw what that thing could do. I mean I bought the thing cuz my wife liked the way it looks and then what a suprise to find out later this thing runs a low 14 in the quarter. Now I love pulling up on the side of anyone and giving them a good run. I have not raced a Z28 or a TA because I know if the driver is worth a shit I will loose, but I have ran a few mustangs and with the new ones it's about a dead even race but I can take the older ones pretty easy.

Once I get a few mods like the cold air, ecu, exhaust, throttle body, and maybe a few other things I'll start eating some TA's up.