JLUDE

Uhoh...the timeless debate: "what constitutes a Sports Car"

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.

common reactor

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.

jdm knowledge

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

common reactor

UCrazyKid

More magazine racing for evidence.
I wouldn't be caught dead in an eclipse, ugly car in my opinion.

JLUDE

I know some chic who has one...I thought the S had bad blind spots...that thing is almost as bad as the 350Z with blind spots.

r26372

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.

vishnus11

Easy up, I think you misread S2k-DJ there. He was talking FROM A STANDING START. And from a start, you'd have to rev an S2k to a good 5-7k give or take depending on launch conditions to get a nice start and pull high 13's in the quarter.

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 ) and thus I think it wouldn't be too much trouble to waste a Mitsu.

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.

vishnus11

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?

Ks320

First of all, I do own an S2K.

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.