S2K vs 06 eclipse
#21
Registered User
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by gomarlins3,Sep 15 2006, 05:53 AM
That would be my opinion as well.
The only potential debate that an S2000 is NOT a true sports car is if you classify rag tops; "Convertibles" or "roadsters" as a separate group.
#22
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sorry but saying they run low 14's is like saying the average owner with a stock S runs mid 13's. Look at the times, even with professinal drivers. Stock 2006 Eclipse runs high 14's, low 15's.
#23
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ehh to me the only good Eclipse would be the first gens. Even though they had crank walk issues like crazy. i dont car if the new eclipses do 11's stock and outrun a EVO lol...well they dont. So i can see that as a justifiable statement
. EVO is the only Mitsu i would consider buying.
seriously though i really didnt realize the new Eclipses had those numbers. Im actually impressed. Wonder if they used any parts parts from EVOs
![tongue.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
seriously though i really didnt realize the new Eclipses had those numbers. Im actually impressed. Wonder if they used any parts parts from EVOs
#26
Registered User
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by UCrazyKid,Sep 15 2006, 07:53 AM
More magazine racing for evidence. ![rolleyes.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
I wouldn't be caught dead in an eclipse, ugly car in my opinion.
![rolleyes.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
I wouldn't be caught dead in an eclipse, ugly car in my opinion.
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by S2K-DJ,Sep 15 2006, 12:40 AM
You gotta rev the S2K and get near that vtec range to run low 14s, and that to me is way to abusive for this car. Cars like the MS6 and Eclipse GT give you that power and torque instantly, without really having to launch it hard to get going. That's awfully tough for the S2K to beat in a straight line, but if you put a really good driver in an S2K and a bad one in an Eclipse, it can beat it. IN a perfect world with dead equal drivers, I just don't think it can beat one.
The S2000 is best left to avoid racing these big on torque cars. It's just not that type of vehicle.
The S2000 is best left to avoid racing these big on torque cars. It's just not that type of vehicle.
Obviously their is much more to the S than straightline racing, but it will do just fine against much higher torque cars....
If it is commonly understood that a stock S and stock 350z perform about as equal as possible in a straigtline, with the 350z having 274 lb-ft of torque and weighing 3200 and the Eclipse weighing nearly 350 lbs more than the Z, having 15 less horepower, and 14 less torque...How does the Eclipse to have any chance at all?
The added weight, while less a factor at higher speeds, still matters. Look at the portly Audi S4, it in no way competes stock for stock with the M3, but if you looked at the power numbers you may think so.
#28
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by r26372,Sep 15 2006, 08:57 AM
Please sell your S if you are not willing to rev it. That's the way it was designed, that's the way its meant to be driven. "get near that vtec range" What in the world are you talking about, I rather doubt you even own an S.
Obviously their is much more to the S than straightline racing, but it will do just fine against much higher torque cars....
If it is commonly understood that a stock S and stock 350z perform about as equal as possible in a straigtline, with the 350z having 274 lb-ft of torque and weighing 3200 and the Eclipse weighing nearly 350 lbs more than the Z, having 15 less horepower, and 14 less torque...How does the Eclipse to have any chance at all?
The added weight, while less a factor at higher speeds, still matters. Look at the portly Audi S4, it in no way competes stock for stock with the M3, but if you looked at the power numbers you may think so.
Obviously their is much more to the S than straightline racing, but it will do just fine against much higher torque cars....
If it is commonly understood that a stock S and stock 350z perform about as equal as possible in a straigtline, with the 350z having 274 lb-ft of torque and weighing 3200 and the Eclipse weighing nearly 350 lbs more than the Z, having 15 less horepower, and 14 less torque...How does the Eclipse to have any chance at all?
The added weight, while less a factor at higher speeds, still matters. Look at the portly Audi S4, it in no way competes stock for stock with the M3, but if you looked at the power numbers you may think so.
Where I don't agree with S2k-DJ is the S vs. Mitsu from a roll. The reason we say our cars don't work well from a dig is because we're not in VTEC, unless you launch the car as I stated above. However, from a roll at say 30mph, we're already in VTEC (in 1st) and thus from their own its bye-bye Mitsu. IMO (no insult to S2k-DJ intended) I think he has it backwards when he says that high torque vehicles are good from a roll. In higher gears, like when cruising in 6th on the hwy, higher torque would be quicker. And from a dig, a car with a nice broad torque curve, and lots of it, would get a quick start. However, when going from a roll, I think that hp is more of the deciding factor. Like I said, from 30mph, we're in VTEC (= hp galore
![biggrin.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Like someone mentioned, if the S2k can take the 350Z, then I don't see why a Mitsue would pose any significant problems, not to mention that its FWD.
Oh, and S2k's can post much quicker times. High 13's in the quarter and 5.4-5.6 to 60 sound more accurate, whereas the avg. times I've seen for the new eclipse are around 6.0 sec to 60mph.
#29
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Ks320,Sep 15 2006, 04:33 AM
It's sad to look at these numbers.
The eclipse actually out-braked the S2000. Here is another piece to support the idea that the "S2000's brakes aren't really as good as they could get". The braking distance is very objective ... and truth is our braking distance is greater than both the RX8 and Eclipse, which are somewhat in the price range of the S.
Not to get away from the topic ... but the 1/4 mile time also isn't very good for the S2000 either. It's true that the S2000 has a steep torque curve, but at the same time, it's RWD. FWD does suffer quite a bit in a launch, which most likely translates to slower acceleration in a rolling start for the S2000.
Oh well ... I guess this is the trade off between the fun factor and the other two. I of course, chose the former ...
The eclipse actually out-braked the S2000. Here is another piece to support the idea that the "S2000's brakes aren't really as good as they could get". The braking distance is very objective ... and truth is our braking distance is greater than both the RX8 and Eclipse, which are somewhat in the price range of the S.
Not to get away from the topic ... but the 1/4 mile time also isn't very good for the S2000 either. It's true that the S2000 has a steep torque curve, but at the same time, it's RWD. FWD does suffer quite a bit in a launch, which most likely translates to slower acceleration in a rolling start for the S2000.
Oh well ... I guess this is the trade off between the fun factor and the other two. I of course, chose the former ...
Your comparing the braking performance of 2 cars, performed on different days under different weather conditions, with each car being with 2ft of each other. Less than a 2% difference that could be attributed to any number of things. But don't take it from me - talk to some of the folks who track their cars, and see what they say about the brakes (Hint: their good).
1/4 mile times aren't good? Compared to what? A 997 911 Turbo. Because yeah, then I'd agree that the S can't quite match up. Or maybe you were using the F430 as your yardstick.
Please stop using one mag article to compare the performance of the S vs. another car that was tested on a different day under a different set of conditions.
Again, I have to ask, do you even own an S2k?
![banghead.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
#30
Registered User
![](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/s2ki/ranks/gold_member.png)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by vishnus11,Sep 15 2006, 01:18 PM
Do you own an S2K?
Your comparing the braking performance of 2 cars, performed on different days under different weather conditions, with each car being with 2ft of each other. Less than a 2% difference that could be attributed to any number of things. But don't take it from me - talk to some of the folks who track their cars, and see what they say about the brakes (Hint: their good).
1/4 mile times aren't good? Compared to what? A 997 911 Turbo. Because yeah, then I'd agree that the S can't quite match up. Or maybe you were using the F430 as your yardstick.
Please stop using one mag article to compare the performance of the S vs. another car that was tested on a different day under a different set of conditions.
Again, I have to ask, do you even own an S2k?![banghead.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
Your comparing the braking performance of 2 cars, performed on different days under different weather conditions, with each car being with 2ft of each other. Less than a 2% difference that could be attributed to any number of things. But don't take it from me - talk to some of the folks who track their cars, and see what they say about the brakes (Hint: their good).
1/4 mile times aren't good? Compared to what? A 997 911 Turbo. Because yeah, then I'd agree that the S can't quite match up. Or maybe you were using the F430 as your yardstick.
Please stop using one mag article to compare the performance of the S vs. another car that was tested on a different day under a different set of conditions.
Again, I have to ask, do you even own an S2k?
![banghead.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
I'm not saying that the S2000 isn't great. If the car isn't great, I wouldn't have slapped down my money for this car in the first place.
I am not bashing the S2000 and saying that the brakes suck. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the S2000's brakes aren't superb, but are only good. And yes, the brakes do work well in track/AutoX events.
You are correct about the margin for error when it comes to measuring braking distance -- issues due to tire, pad and pavement temperatures, tire pressure, etc. However, if the Eclipse and RX8 could stop in the same distance as the S2000 could, then the S2000 brakes isn't "the best brakes out there" as some argue.
Both the RX8 and Eclipse weigh more than 3000lbs (the Eclipse weighs significantly more than that). With the weight and weight distribution advantage, the S2000 (I would imagine) should stop in a shorter distance if it really has superb brakes (not just good ones). I'm comparing stopping distances here, and not how well the brakes dissipate heat/ventilate -- that's something not measured here.
Again, I'm comparing cars of similar price here. I'm not comparing an Enzo with an S2000; I would say stopping distance is one of the least subjective (if not the least) argument. The car either stops or doesn't. There is no buts or ifs. With ABS, there is no "stopping skills" like one would get from varying numbers in a 1/4-mile run or slalom.
Or perhaps I should word it differently: The 60-0 braking distance on the S2000 isn't the best out there in its class. If the brakes are good, but the stopping distance was tire-limited? Then that's still an issue. I don't really care if it's because the calipers could be stronger or whatnot. Braking system/design is one of the few things that doesn't interfere much with the rest of the car's design. Personally, I feel Honda could have done a slightly better job there, probably without too much effort in their research (unlike handling). Anyway, from time to time, I find that the braking capabilities are hindered by the grip of the tires, and sometimes don't. But then it's hard for me to conclude, as I am not a good driver at all, and I altered the tire pressure, and the temperature of the pavement in the events were somewhat different.
As for the 1/4 mile time, that's mostly attributed to the power of the car, I know that. I'm not comparing the S2000 against Porsches here, but the truth is, the similar priced FWD car with a launch disadvantage is able to get through the 400 meters in the same time as the S2000, given some margin for error. I know some of you may flame me on this, but the S2000 really isn't that great in the straight line and needs a little more punch. This, in effect, does affect performance on a track as well. It's great that the S2000 has excellent handling capabilities, but then, there are still straight portions of a track that S2000s tend to fall behind on.
In any case, don't get me wrong. I do like the S2000 a lot, that's why I chose the car over many other cars -- including cars that could out run the S2000 and/or out-brake the S2000. At the same time, I do keep in mind that the S2000 isn't the best in everything, while some people become extremely defensive when people talk about these issues. I love my S2000, but I know it's not superior in every category.