Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

GT40 vs corvette

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #46  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:37 PM
COBRAjrb's Avatar
COBRAjrb
COBRAjrb is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
this s2000 does any body no how much this thing weighs? ive got a home dyno test prog and all c if the numbers match up i know they arent that acurate but it will give me a rough idea.
 
  #47  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:45 PM
Bob Ayers's Avatar
Bob Ayers
Bob Ayers is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The US version weighs 2810 lbs.
 
  #48  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:51 PM
Bob Ayers's Avatar
Bob Ayers
Bob Ayers is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by 4x4xford
The only thing about the 240 HP for the S2000 is the lack of torque. The HP number is at 8300 RPM, and the engine peak torque is 153 ft lb for the 2.0 liter. Honda has increased the displacement for this year to 2.2 liters, with no increase in HP, but torque jumps to 162 ft-lb. The performance is still behind the Mustang, though - 5.8 sec versus 5.6 for the GT. To get the Honda to launch also requires a redline side step of the clutch - not a good idea if you're paying the repair bills.
On the '04, the 240HP is developed at 7800 RPMs, instead of 8300 RPMs. Peak torque is at 6500 RPMs, readline is 9000 RPMs.
 
  #49  
Old 02-22-2004, 08:05 PM
COBRAjrb's Avatar
COBRAjrb
COBRAjrb is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hmm .if this thing is right it says 1/4 13.23 at 96mph www.VirtualEngine2000.com
 
  #50  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:17 PM
Peganit's Avatar
Peganit
Peganit is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
vitriole

sorry but I thought I made my sarcasm clear. once again proof that its hard to convey sarcasm in print.
 
  #51  
Old 02-24-2004, 02:16 PM
carlo's Avatar
carlo
carlo is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Delaware
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry about that...

Haha, yea at first I wasn't quite sure, but there probably are a lot of folks on here that would agree with your sarcasm, in a non sarcastic way. Now I would NEVER buy a 4cyl sports car, I just dont like the FWD aspect or the lack of torque, but I sure do respect them as a vehicle known for what they do best, economic advantages. Honda and all the rest came out in the late 70's to be an economic fuel consuming vehicle. Ever look at Ford's numbers on sports cars during the late 1970's/early 1980's before EFI?

Well hey, I just got my 1970 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland, for the same price as a hell of a lot of other 4cyl foreign cars which would have been much newer and economical. Shows you how much I care about all that jazz.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Furyus1
General Automotive Discussion
9
07-01-2014 02:11 PM
ARMORER
General Automotive Discussion
61
09-03-2005 10:09 PM
da cubs
Ford vs The Competition
21
02-28-2004 02:27 PM
superman71
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
10
09-04-2003 04:06 AM
pntrbil
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
1
12-28-2001 08:24 AM



Quick Reply: GT40 vs corvette



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.