Which is/was the better handling car?
Ignore the shit engines. Pretend each one had a propperly swapped 400whp LS. Chassis is completely stock
Which one handles better?
Which wins on a race track with stock suspension and decent tires?
>>13808014
>not so cleverly disguised rotary vs pushrod thread
>>13808014
Any answer other than "FD" is incorrect and that poster is a faggot.
>>13808018
>only one of the cars in the pic have a rotary
lol op mad from the other thread
i pick the car with numerous endurance race wins.
but in reality its a trick question as theyve all been swapped with pigfat pushrod garbage so they all handle like shit.
>Ignore the shit engines. Pretend each one had a propperly swapped 400whp LS
>>13808027
>lol op mad from the other thread
uhh what other thread?
>theyve all been swapped with pigfat pushrod garbage so they all handle like shit.
Explain.
How do pushrods make a car handle like garbage?
>>13808014
I imagine the GT86 would be least affected by having the LS swapped in.
As they are the FD is the best handling of the 3
>>13808044
>what is A heavier engine up front makes the car handle worse for 500, Alex.
>>13808044
>How do pushrods make a car handle like garbage?
okay so you have a trolley filled with milk and eggs and bacon and all good stuff, not filled all the way but like half filled. you running fast around the isles doing sick drifts and having fun.
then you start dumping massive boxes of soft drink cans into it. now its like super full and suepr heavy. you try to run fast but its too heavy to push, then you try to stop but its too heavy, then you try to do sick drifts and slam into a pram and kill a baby then get arrested and sent to jail and raped by niggers because its too heavy
>>13808063
The difference in weight is probably like 100lbs tops
That's like having half a passenger.
People pile on turbos/superchargers and front mount intercoolers and all kinds of other shit out on the front of their cars an no one complains about more weight.
Sounds like typical "its a V8 so it weighs a ton" groupthink nonsense.
>>13808065
>LS
>heavy
I dont think you know what you're saying.
Daily reminder that an LS only adds ~60lbs to an FD.
That particular model of Mazda understeers like a muhfukker.
>>13808063
>>13808065
Jesus Christ. I added the LS to take the engine out of the discussion and focus on the chassis' handling and not each of the car's shitty stock motors.
We're talking about the chassis and handling. Which is better?
>>13808091
>>13808095
FD is god.
>>13808089
>Daily reminder that an LS only adds ~60lbs to an FD
With a heap of other shit stripped out, and compared to the weight of a bone stock FD complete with the unnecessarily pigfat factory piping.
btw in the case of the S2K the chassis literally has to be cut up. Shoehorning an engine in, especially with stock suspension etc still, is only going to make it drive like poop.
>>13808095
ok, now if we LS swap them...
>>13808089
>Daily reminder that an LS only adds ~60lbs to an FD.
[citation needed]
>>13808096
You ever driven one? It's like perpetual butter smeared all over the front wheels. If you want to remedy that, you got to open your wallet.
>>13808083
100lbs is pretty significant when its being thrown right on to one of the extremities of the car (far front). And I dunno who you talk to, but I do make a big deal about forcing induction on a car when it'll throw too much weight on.
>>13808112
What the literal fuck are you talking about?
>>13808112
>one of the best handling cars of the past 25 years
No, sounds like you just have no idea how to drive.
>>13808121
lol Sullivan is an idiot. No wonder he died of electrocution in his bathroom.
>obvious FRS
Modern engineering and coupe
>>13808112
If you want to remedy that you gotta learn to not drive like shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYa5neUwv9E
>>13808119
>extremities
LS fits almost entirely behind the front axle line on the FD. Likely a similar story with the FRS and S2000. It is not a large motor. No longer than the F20 in the S2000.
There are retards that throw 2jz's in FD's and S2000's and 20b's in FD's that hang out over the front axle and completly fuck the handling of the cars.
>>13808126
And yet you've never driven one Mr Expert.
>>13808129
The fuck are you talking about retard? He's still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan
>>13808145
>A former F1 driver says a car gets light in the rear and oversteers and proceeds to set a fastest lap in it.
>Some retard on the internet says that same car understeers like crazy
Hmm, who do we believe?
okay, this is what an LS1 torque curve looks like.
For starters, an LS1 will not bolt up to the stock tranny and rear end, so there's the added weight from those, so automatically your "only 50lbs" argument isn't going to work.
Secondly, imagine trying to exit a corner in a car that weighs +2900lbs with almost 400ft/lbs of torque at 3000RPM, or any RPM for that matter going to the rear wheels in either second or third. Your tires will not be able to put that power down. To fix this, you need to do three things; you need to run stupidly wide tires, stickier tires, and run taller gearing.
What does this get you? more weight/rolling resistance, and a lack of what I'm going to call "situational" power, which is the ability to lower your RPM to have less power for a particular corner. Too much power can actually hurt performance, which has been a known fact since racing began, yet some people still can't understand that concept.
putting a big engine in a 2 door car, with big tires, a big gearbox, and a big rear end, just yields a corvette. and we all know how that worked out against the GTR, which is actually a properly engineered car.
This is literally drag racing or highway pull mentality and it's fucking retarded. Any properly engineered performance car will go with less hp in favor of balance and harmony between the parts in the vehicle.
>>13808112
What the fuck are you talking about? FD has one of the sharpest turn-ins of cars I've driven.
>>13808156
>implying that was written by Danny Sullivan the not- auto- journalist instead of Chad Sullivan the auto journalist that died in his bathroom in the UK
>>13808215
>implying you're not a fucking idiot.
>>13808018
>Rotary
>DOHC
>Boxer DOHC
Oh yeah pushrod vs rotary
>>13808189
>Too much power can actually hurt performance, which has been a known fact since racing began, yet some people still can't understand that concept.
good job there's a pedal there that allows you to not have 100% power applied all the time huh?
>>13808189
>For starters, an LS1 will not bolt up to the stock tranny and rear end, so there's the added weight from those, so automatically your "only 50lbs" argument isn't going to work.
No, that's including the tranny (t56). The rear end is fine and is adapted over using a custom driveshaft.
>imagine trying to exit a corner in a car that weighs +2900lbs with almost 400ft/lbs of torque at 3000RPM
Protip: Throttle pedals are not on/off switches.
The rest of your post is just retarded.
>putting a big engine in a 2 door car, with big tires, a big gearbox, and a big rear end, just yields a corvette. and we all know how that worked out against the GTR, which is actually a properly engineered car.
You mean ended up with the corvette being faster than the supposed "properly engineered" car? pic related.
Stop tripping, you're an idiot.
>>13808258
>You mean ended up with the corvette being faster than the supposed "properly engineered" car? pic related
Cherry pick lap times set like a year apart kek
pic related is what he means by being properly engineered or not
>>13808014
I think RX7. 86 is too soft, S2000 is too shit.
>>13808189
You wouldn't type all this just to troll people on the internet.... would you?
>>13808266
Ring times are set decades apart and are still valid metrics for comparison.
>>13808215
>>13808237
lmao
BTFO
T
F
O
>>13808271
>Ring times are set decades apart and are still valid metrics for comparison
Its a bit different though. Manufacturers spent countless hours there, so more likely than not the recorded time will be the highest display of performance possible. VIR shootouts etc is just a handful of hot laps.
Not like ring times matter because the poorly engineered corvette is unable to get around at full power without overheating or crashing.
>>13808266
That was caused by a bad water pump.
>>13808282
How about all the other press cars then? And cars owned by normal people?
>>13808280
>Its a bit different though. Manufacturers spent countless hours there, so more likely than not the recorded time will be the highest display of performance possible. VIR shootouts etc is just a handful of hot laps.
How exactly is cars compared on a track with equivalent testing time not a valid comparison?
If anything having a set number of hot laps is a better means of comparison. Actually giving easier to drive cars like the GT-R an edge because harder-to-drive-fast 'pure' performance cars like the Z06 require more skill and more time to properly wring out that would not be available in a set amount of time doing hot laps against other cars. So if anything the Z06 would have been at a disadvantage in the VIR shootout.
>Not like ring times matter because the poorly engineered corvette is unable to get around at full power without overheating or crashing.
[citation needed]
>>13808283
Who knows. I'm just telling you the story behind the picture you posted. It was a bad water pump.
>>13808290
>How exactly is cars compared on a track with equivalent testing time not a valid comparison?
It is a valid comparison. Even more so if its done on the same day and not a year apart.
>[citation needed]
Ask GM, they've been there three times and have nothing to show for it.
>>13808295
>It was a bad water pump
gm did a day of testing with that car before they sent it out and had no problems. gm reliability i guess =//
>>13808300
>It is a valid comparison. Even more so if its done on the same day and not a year apart.
If the validity fo the comparisson is questionable based on the condition of the cars durring that test, the whole comparison is trash. Like the Big Willow test you posted.
Clearly if the Z06 was 5 seconds faster at VIR then the results of that compromised and questionable comparison are garbage.
FD, give it modern tires and stock for stock there's no way the other cars stand a chance.
>>13808329
This.
The FD pulled .95g on early 90's rubber.
Neither the FRS or S2000 can do that on modern rubber.
>>13808316
Lap times set a year apart vs times set on the same day. Very different. Im glad you understand.
>but muh rear caster
Garbage. No lap time for the corrected alignment was posted from the retest, just a lap time with new settings that gm had spent the day fine tuning. The GTR wasnt running with the minimum required fuel either so if you want to cry about something theres that.
Its strange how the GTR wasnt present for the latest vir lightning lap though..
But who cares about the corvettes ability on one lap and one lap only (read the vir review, its only good for one fast lap). After that the tires are trash and the temp needle is climbing, soon power will be declining, spark will be retarded and the hopes and dreams of corvette fangirls departed.
FD obviously.
>>13808355
Alignment on the Z06
Fuel on the GT-R
The whole comparison was shit.
VIR times show the Z06 being 5 seconds faster confirming that that comparo was shit.
>Its strange how the GTR wasnt present for the latest vir lightning lap though..
They already had a 2015 GT-R time.
>read the vir review, its only good for one fast lap
The TIRES were only good for one hot lap.
Denying that the Z06 is the faster car now is just pure Nissan fangirl butthurt.
>>13808367
The comparison is fine and the results still stand, motortrend said so =))
>They already had a 2015 GT-R time.
A year earlier.
>The TIRES were only good for one hot lap
Yes exactly like I said.
>Denying that the Z06 is the faster car now
Nah, I only care about non american tracks and head to head comparisons.
>the stig is four seconds faster around red bull ring (a 2.7 mile track compared to VIRs 4.1) in the nismo gtr than the c7 z06
still want to go on about muh vir? seems even now brah, even slightly in the gtrs favor...
>>13808385
>The comparison is fine and the results still stand, motortrend said so =))
New data and shit testing methods render it shit. No one cares.
>A year earlier.
A year difference doesn't magically make the GT-R 5 seconds slower.
>Nah, I only care about
No one cares what you care about and what realities you choose to ignore.
>still want to go on about muh vir? seems even now brah, even slightly in the gtrs favor...
[Citation needed]
>>13808396
>A year difference doesn't magically make the GT-R 5 seconds slower
So the weather conditions were exactly the same or something? Come on kid theres more to bench racing than the lap time
>No one cares what you care about and what realities you choose to ignore
projecting here bud, seeing as you cry for a citation for something easily looked up
>still ignoring the fact the corvette is a one lap wonder, if the tires dont go shit than the oil temps will
>>13808014
FD is obv shit
>pic related
S2000 would be okay
GT86 would definitely 125% win with an LS
Fucking boxer with no turbo...that guy should get fired
>>13808413
>moron forgets to tighten lug nuts
>this makes the car bad somehow
>>13808255
>>13808258
> all these kids that just play forza and have never driven on a track in their entire life.
> throttle is not an on/off switch
Name a single driver that can control the throttle so well they can have their own built-in traction control.
you can't because nobody can do that, and it's why "sport traction" control mode exists. Between irregularities in the road surface, temperatures, corner bank, and a million other variables means you will never be able to get exactly enough throttle.
also, 50% throttle still means 200ft/lbs, which is still enough to blow the tires off on a tight corner.
>>13808014
If you're talking about actual cornering ability at high speed and at the limits, then the FD.
If you're talking about drivability, that's subjective, but the FD and S2000 are better than the BRZ there. I like the FD a little more.
The BRZ has too much nanny shit that jerks it around and won't let you actually drive it. I'm not sure it can even be turned off. The new MX-5's traction control is way fucking better and makes it a lot more fun and better handling.
>>13808014
Also feel like the S2000 and BRZ will be hurt the most by the LS swap.
The BRZ will become much more front heavy compared to the rest with its far forward firewall and it will hurt its center of gravity the most.
The S2000 will gain a lot of weight.
A better fucking question is which handles better stock, and which handles better with a reasonable tuning budget ($5k or whatever), which the FD I'd say wins both, especially the tuning one.
>>13808425
Better made cars fall on the ground much better when their wheels fall off than the FD. Moron.
>>13808091
lmao WHAT.
I own one and I've literally never heard someone say that. Even in the rain it doesn't understeer and it gives pretty good feedback of when it's about to oversteer.
>>13808112
It definitely benefits from some aftermarket coilovers, like Koni Yellows, to lower it a little and stiffen it up, but that's just an extra $1k over and FDs cost to make it suddenly godly. Like what's the fucking excuse?
>>13808215
>>13808237
>>13808277
I visit /o/. I see people get BTFO.
I visit /o/ the next day. I see probably the same people get BTFO over the same sort of bullshit as yesterday.
pls learn
>>13808441
>also, 50% throttle still means 200ft/lbs, which is still enough to blow the tires off on a tight corner.
You usually have a rear differential that's taller when you LS1 swap. Same when you have 350lb-ft+ 20bs.
>>13808496
Anyone who took this seriously
>>>13808215
got butt the fucked out
I should know, I posted it.
>>13808441
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I bet you've never touche a track.
Don't bother responding without proof that you have. Otherwise your retarded trip and the retarded bullshit you spew is filtered forever.
>>13808545
Do your fucking home work Abernathy!
>>13808441
>nobody can modulate the throttle of a high power/light car car to minimize/prevent wheelspin
What is every racing driver ever.
Stop posting.
>>13808329
I'll concede that the S2000 was better tuned out of the factory and more modern compared to the '93-'95 FDs. It's 6 years newer, after all.
But with modern tires and a modest coilover upgrade, or if you compare to the Spirit R, the FD is significantly better handling even if you dump the same money into S2000 tuning.
>>13808104
I was going to say, the stock twins for the '93-'95 with all the vacuum lines and other junk is like around 100lbs I think. A single turbo and simplified vacuum lines saves 30-75 lbs.
Compared to stock, yeah the LS swap is very close. Compared to a modernized 13B single turbo, it's not quite so much.
>>13808548
>>13808545
so let me get this straight...
you're telling me
that there isn't a single racing driver in existance, who has never needed to counter steer because they kicked the rear end out?
holy shit you guys are literally retarded.
>>13808598
You've made the claim that no one can control the amount of wheelspin of a vehicle with the throttle (as you call it "built-in traction control").
You are the only retarded one here.
>>13808598
>no proof of track time
Lying shit trip has been filtered.
>>13808548
>>13808645
retarded tripcunts point that he is horribly failing to get across is...
>computer is needed for extremely precise control, human is only so good
which is true because traction control systems in race cars are highly advanced. but none if this is relevant at all to an v8 having more torque at a certain rpm than a gutless ass honda 4banger that can only break traction with throttle in the wet
>>13808014
from a semi bench racing point of view & never being in a FD, I'd probably still lean towards it just out of racing pedigree, mixed with personal experience with a only lightly modded FC Rx7, which if it was only marginally better then, I'd prefer it over a S2k.
Not to disparage the S2k, since I've been around plenty & know they are damn good street to track day cars, they just don't seem as balanced (not benchrace weight distrabution numbers, but driving feeling) as even an older rotary FC.
and as for the FRS/BRZ/GT86, surprisingly disappointing, even tho I liked the concept.
my wet noodle 240sx handles better with the only suspensions mods being ebay coilovers, 245 tires, and slight chassis bracing, and pulling a full 2 seconds better in a mall conefag course with 50 less hp
>>13808649
so how many images should I post to make you fuck off?
>>13808645
> can't into reading comprehension.
I said control the throttle so well it's as if they have their own traction control. I am well aware you can control the throttle, but due to human error, it's either too little, or too much, and there isn't a single person on earth who can literally get that perfect. If you know what RPM your wheels spin at, on the other hand, then all you have to do is keep it in a certain range, without having to worry about throttle control as much, and that's alot easier than having to balance the throttle.
>>13808649
hes been to the track
he spun out in the wet because he failed to catch a tiny bit of oversteer
and he ran off track because he decided to go full gran autismo and brake drive
and another time he busted his caliper because he cant into heat management (iirc he bought fancy project mu pads thinking heat and fade would never be a problem, regardless of the condition of his 15 year old brakes)
>>13808721
1. I post those spinout web-m's as a joke. I've only ever spun out once in the dry, and that's because I was chasing another s2000 and thought I could go into the corner at the same speed as him. I spin in the wet because I drift around for 30 minutes at a time in a car that's known to spank you for fucking with it, of fucking course I'm going to spin at least once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlSd-ilIqmc
2. ran off track - don't know what the fuck you're talking about because this literally never happened.
3. brake fade was never an issue. hindsight is 20/20.
>>13808778
Hey not a miata im from Niagara where you from ? Toronto? I've been to Cayuga before
>>13808778
Also what the fugg are you doing up at 6am
>>13808014
LS swapped? Boxster S
![IMG_0562[1]+-+Copy.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E5X78fp.jpg "IMG_0562[1]+-+Copy.jpg")
>>13808978
I'd be willing to test it out
>>13808778
You spun out because your engine is in the wrong place senpai
>>13808721
Have you ever been to the track?
Everyone spins out in the wet unless your car is awd, I spun out for fucks sake in my Ep3.
Professional race car drivers spin out on the track all the time the fuck is your point
>>13809012
No one spins out when bench racing
>>13808014
Not even a doritos fanboy, but FD would btfo both of those cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxQjteQsOtg
The speed and grip through those fast corners is just pretty crazy.
>>13808089
>an LS only adds ~60lbs to an FD
And 61 to the GT86, supposedly. But you're forgetting how short four cylinder boxer engines are. It's not only how much weight, but where it's located.
>>13809044
Why the fuck is there two pieces to the drive shaft?
>>13809086
What do you mean? The diff or the transmission ?
Or are you talking about the boot and ther small areas along the shaft ?
>>13809175
No, I mean the drive shaft.
who cares when the car is now ruined by a garbage engine
Id take a stock RX7 over the other 2 with Literally Shit engines since its easily the best
>>13809175
He means to ask why are there three u joints, instead of only two.
>>13809232
>needs 2 turbos to make 10 more bhp than the S2000
>>13808441
Almost any F1 driver. Sebastian Vettel was renowned for it in the V8s. Keiichi Tsuchiya is pretty in-tune with the throttle pedal. Shit.. anyone who is mediocre at racing.
>>13808441
>Name a single driver that can control the throttle so well they can have their own built-in traction control.
>this guy is serious
>>13810107
I'd have to throw in Schumacher as well, he learned by only driving karts in the wet, practically, very smooth.
>>13810107
F1 drivers also have super human reflexes, and they still manage to fuck up every now and again
>>13810124
Hence why I said almost every. Hell, even most of em back in the 50's.
>>13810136
Yeah but in the context this guy is talking about, a small slide is not an awful thing. Sliding the car through certain corners in a subtle way can be quicker than grip. The argument is just stupid. I agree that throwing more weight up front is stupid, but saying you can't control the power and it's going to be so detrimental that it weighs out the pros is idiotic. Git fucking gud.
source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vynlkwA8X_8
>>13809026
Lol
>>13808598
>>13808720
You've not seen the evo magazine video with Chris Harris and Francois Delecour?
He says he'd prefer the 997 GT3 RS without traction/stability control or ABS because he can do a better job himself.
>>13808467
>being THIS assmad
>being THIS retarded
>Pretend all of them lose one of their signature traits
>implying that would make them better
The engines are apart of these cars personality, Rotary, high revving n/a 2 liter, and a boxer engine with a low cog. I'll just pretend they are all turboed to 400whp.
I would say they are all pretty close. The FD and S2000 have a major advantage over the FRS because of double wishbone suspension, but the S2000 doesn't have a roof (effects chassis rigidity, though I bet it is still close to the other two) and the FD is a lot older then the other two (everything is a bit less sophisticated, but it holds up pretty well anyways). Macpherson struts is probably the worst disadvantage though, rigidity can be fixed and the FDs disadvantage isn't that big of a deal. At the end of the day though, I would just pick which ever one looks better/more fun/cooler, which definitely goes to the S2000 and FD. If you added the ND Miata, I think it would be even closer.
>>13808336
S2000 can pull over 1g with good tires.
>>13808018
Fack off cunt
>>13810610
So what would the S2000 pull on shitty 90s tires like the FD had? .7? AP2s were posting skidpad results of .88 g, with modern tires dude.
>>13810610
There's RX7s pulling over 1.10g with sticky tires and no aero, so... shit thing to even bring up?
On stock '93 tires the RX7 pulled 0.99g according to Car and Driver compared to 0.88 for the S2000 (0.95 for the 2008 S2000 CR).
The '93s 0.99g is one of the highest skid pad ratings of all time even today, and that's on '93 rubber. With modern tires, they're usually 1.01-1.035g.
BUT skidpad is just grip at a consistent speed and not "handling". The RX-8 only pulled 0.88g, too, and that's a car that is amazing handling, and pretty much just a better S2000 in the way it drives.
The RX7 FD is a bit squirrely to me with its weight transfer. It's insane with grip as long as you can keep it smooth, but it can really all of a sudden get light if you fuck up.
But it's the car that is the most like a track car for the road of the 3. It was probably one of the best overall handling cars up until recently, but now days there's plenty of better cars like the Cayman, though they're expensive.
>>13808089
Also i'm fairly disgusted that you're comparing the FD to these inferior pieces of shit.
>>13813204
This information is correct.
>>13808014
>le ls swap meme
Daily reminder ls swap is for plebs that can't into triangles
>>13813861
murica stronk
nippon a shit
>>13813884
U a shit
>>13808014
With the best driver in the world driving each.
The S2000.
With your average auto enthusiast, the FD.
The BRZ wouldn't stand a chance
>>13809529
60 hp but apparently that's nothing
![1404536069112[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kHN9Kqw.jpg "1404536069112[1].jpg")
>>13813944
no u
>>13808720
>I said control the throttle so well it's as if they have their own traction control.
That's a stupid assertion altogether.
>I am well aware you can control the throttle, but due to human error, it's either too little, or too much
IF you have an engine that's always "to little" due to making shit power at low rpm, how is that in any way "better" than having too much power but using too little of it to break the tires loose?
Your point is flatly stupid. About what I would expect from a gutless S2000 driver trying to justify why his car's engine is so shit.
>>13809232
>the car is now ruined by a garbage engine
Reminder that the best production rotary ever made was worse than the cheapest lowest displacement 4.8 liter chevy LS Vortec that came in budget trucks.
Cry more rotard.
>>13815358
>"worse"
>>13814189
I'm interested in your reasoning behind this.
>>13814212
255hp is only 15hp more than 240hp.
>>13815387
It has 60 more lb-ft of torque and it has over 90% of its peak horsepower available for over a 3000 RPM band instead of a tiny peak.
>>13815406
>it has over 90% of its peak horsepower available for over a 3000 RPM band instead of a tiny peak.
Except that's wrong.
>>13815406
versus that little peak at the top and then having Honda Fit horsepower up until then.
>>13815446
Ok. Over 90% of peak HP over a 2700RPM power band.
>>13815460
90% of 240lbft (peak according to your graph) is 216lbft
According to the graph you posted it makes that from 5000-6700rpm (approx)
>>13815460
Your FD dyno is not a stock FD.
Here is a stock FD dyno. Pardon the shit scaling
Your "90%" metric means >190hp which the FD only manages to pull over a1250-1500rpm range (~5700rpm to ~7300rpm)
This is further mitigated considering the FD had a redline of 7000rpm meaning to take advantage of that full ~1500rpm of "90% powa" you'd have to run it up dangerously close to fuel cut.
So no, the FD did not have anywhere near 3000rpm of "90% power"
>>13815381
Without going into an in depth discussion.
Basically the S2000 is a lot more sensitive then the FD. But most drivers can't control it well enough for it to be worth more then an FD.
The FD is a lot easier of a drive while still being comparative in overall performance.
So with someone that knew the car, the track, and what they were doing, the S2000 would narrowly, but still accomplish, beat the FD.
While with a more standard driver they wouldn't push the S2000 to the absolute limit like a professional (because they might lose it) and would end up a bit behind the FD.
Just my personal thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong of course but based on my own experience this is the conclusion I have.
>>13815406
>>13815460
By comparison an AP2 S2000 makes "90% powa" (>184hp) from ~7000rpm to ~8100rpm. Meaning about an 1100rpm range.
Both car's have the same "90% power" range within a few hundred RPM of each other. The RX-7's being slightly fatter but the S2000 having much better space ratios.
>>13815528
pic related
>>13808014
>meme cars
>>13815535
>meme cars
>literally three of the best drivers cars of the past 25 years.
>three generations of lightweight sports cars from three different decades.
>>13815539
>dorito
>hairdresser car
>amerifat toyota
>not memes
>>13815549
I dare you to name three other cars that better embody what a sports car is.
>inb4 pigfats, exotics, or $100,000+
![6eaa05f6a7171af4ccba97b81a1f06cd9d59fd92932e8656ab70203327c8b8f4_1[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WjdfMib.jpg "6eaa05f6a7171af4ccba97b81a1f06cd9d59fd92932e8656ab70203327c8b8f4_1[2].jpg")
>>13815560
MGB
>>13815494
I said peak horsepower, dumbass.
>>13815508
Your "stock dyno" shows 332.5HP @ 5700 RPM. Are you sure?
And in your dyno, it's still around 90% of peak horsepower from 5400-7500 RPM, and much better so for the more top end power dyno.
So, what point were you trying to make, again?
My image was a lot more stock a similar to something like a Spirit R.
>>13815564
well you should have said torque, your figures would have been less wrong :^)
>>13815560
>I dare you to name three other cars that better embody what a sports car is.
Lotus Elise
Lotus Exige
Austin-Healey Sprite
>>13815564
>Your "stock dyno" shows 332.5HP @ 5700 RPM. Are you sure?
There wre two dyno's in the FD graph I posted. A stock baseline and a sngle turbo swapped FD.
Ignore the single turbo swapped FD making 300+whp and look at the stock baseline. The red lines.
>And in your dyno, it's still around 90% of peak horsepower from 5400-7500 RPM, and much better so for the more top end power dyno.
It's not 90% from 5400 to 7500rpm. It's 90% from ~5700 to ~7300rpm.
7500rpm is fuel cut and by that time it is already tapering off power substantially. No one runs and engine to fuel cut (well, unless you're an idiot) So realistically the FD's "90%" powerband is ~5700rpm to 7000rpm which is an FD's redline. This nets ~1300rpm of "90%" power
>So, what point were you trying to make, again?
Your claim that the FD makes "90% power for 3000rpm" is copletly wrong. It doesn't do that for anywhere near 3000rpm. In fact it's only withing a few hundred rpm of what you characterized as a "peaky" S2000 powerband.
>My image was a lot more stock a similar to something like a Spirit R.
Your posted dyno was a modified USDM FD making ~60hp more than stock.
JDM "276hp" FD's made around 230whp. Not 270+whp
>>13815528
90% peak horsepower in 1100 RPM versus 2700RPM. That AP2 power curve is significantly better, but an FD still has a 2.5x wider power band. That's significant and it's why you can't just compare peak HP numbers.
That mod is a huge improvement that closes the gap quite a bit, though.
I really like the Apexi RX6 turbo (red lines) on a 13b with the right tune. Save a significant amount of weight, too.
>>13815570
Are you blind or just retarded? You can clearly see the stock FD dyno that you get 90% of peak HP over ~2700 RPM in the stock FD.
>>13815574
>Lotus
>Lotus
M-muh exotics.
Telling that you essentially had to call out the same car twice.
>Austin-Healey Sprite
Nigga plz.
>>13815589
I was going off the first graph you posted, but either way you're wrong.
2700rpm=/=3000rpm
>>13815589
>90% peak horsepower in 1100 RPM versus 2700RPM.
That's wrong. The FD does not make 90% of pek power for anywhere near 2700rpm. It's like 1300rpm tops.
>an FD still has a 2.5x wider power band.
That's wrong.
>That's significant
The difference isn't significant. Especially when you consider the S2000's gearbox was closer ratio and more easy to keep in the car's powerband.
>You can clearly see the stock FD dyno that you get 90% of peak HP over ~2700 RPM in the stock FD.
Again, this is completely wrong. In none of the stock FD graphs does the car make ~190hp+ for anywhere close to 3000rpm, or 2700rpm.
>>13815587
I honestly thought it was labeled wrong because it was such a shit dyno run but now I see the lack of matching HP dip.
The stock FD got more than 210 WHP. There's either a really degraded engine, hot air (TX), or more likely a big combination of things.
And regardless, there's still a largely long flat long on there from 5400-7500.
>>13815598
Rofl. 2700 is a lot closer to 3000 rpm than 1100 is to either.
10% off some estimation, big fucking deal. It's still double the S2000s powerband at the bare minimum.
Found a bone stock one but it's in mph.
>>13815605
>The stock FD got more than 210 WHP. There's either a really degraded engine, hot air (TX), or more likely a big combination of things.
No, that's what stock FD's made to the wheels. Stock S2000's made slightly less to the wheels but in the same ballpark.
>And regardless, there's still a largely long flat long on there from 5400-7500.
Don't get confused by the scaling (which makes the entire graph look long and flat).
The FD makes 90% of people power starting at ~5700rpm. The FD redline is at 7000rpm.
That's a 1300rpm powerband at 90% of peak output.
Which is within a few hundred rpm of an S2000.
rotards ruin everything
you're engine's shit
stop being so sensitive about it
>>13815591
>M-muh exotics.
The Lotuses that I mentioned are in no way exotics. They're reasonably affordable for just about any enthusiast provided they don't live their parents basement as a NEET.
>Nigga plz
It may be a product of a different era, but it doesn't change the fact that it's more of a sports car than the FD.
>>13815616
>It's still double the S2000s powerband
No it's fucking not.
>>13815616
2700rpm=/=3000rpm no matter how much damage control you use
>>13815626
>The Lotuses that I mentioned are in no way exotics.
>low production numbers
>rare brand
>not exotic
Okay.pdf
>It may be a product of a different era, but it doesn't change the fact that it's more of a sports car than the FD.
This is bait.
>>13815622
The FD drive train does not lose 18% of their power through the drive train.
15% is pretty average and it's definitely not below average with it. They made around 230 to the wheels.
You found one bad example of a poorly aged engine in a hot climate and who knows what else might be wrong.
>>13815628
There's images that show you're wrong. There's at a bare minimum of 90% of peak horsepower available over more than 2200 RPMs in 3 different stock set ups, one of which wasn't even my image.
You're retarded and can't read a dyno graph, apparently.
>>13815633
nice straw man
>>13815635
>using a pdf just to say okay
post invalid
>>13815638
220 whp on the low end
>>13815560
>what is 240sx
>what is supra
>what is 300zx
![1391086399606[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/d2HbbA3.gif "1391086399606[1].gif")
>>13815638
>you make a claim then try back tracking
>I pull you back to your original claim
>hurr straw man
>>13815638
>The FD drive train does not lose 18% of their power through the drive train.
>15% is pretty average
>calculating drivetrain losses in percentages
Don't do this. It shows how stupid you are.
>it's definitely not below average with it.
Stop injecting your hopse and dreams without any proof. I posted a stock dyno from a respected FD tuner showing exactly how much power it was putting to the wheels.
Only late model JDM "276hp" FD's put ~230whp to the ground. And we didn't get those cars in the US.
>You found one bad example of a poorly aged engine in a hot climate and who knows what else might be wrong.
Now you're just pulling shit out of your ass. That Dyno was from 2000 from a respected FD tuner/builder (RX7.com)
>There's images that show you're wrong.
You have not posted any stock FD images showing anywhere near a 2200-3000rpm making 90% of peak power. In fact most of (read: all) the dyno's you've posted are from modified cars.
>You're retarded and can't read a dyno graph
No, you can't read a dyno, you're claiming a powerband 500rpm past redline all the way up to fuel cut after the power has blatantly dropped off as "90% of peak power"
You're also claiming FD's made 190+hp from 5000-5400rpm which simply is not true as evidenced by the dyno's posted.
Stop being stupid.
>>13815648
>what is 240sx
Compact coupe with a truck engine
>what is supra
Pigfat GT
>what is 300zx
Pigfat GT
>>13815677
>Don't do this. It shows how stupid you are.
Thinking it lost 45 HP from its drivetrain shows how stupid you are.
More stress is created in the drivetrain at higher horsepower, thus more loss. It is a percentage, just not linear. The drivetrain doesn't degrade a flat amount of horsepower.
![1433486110922[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iERYolz.jpg "1433486110922[2].jpg")
>>13815692
>only addressing one of his many valid points
>>13815692
>Thinking it lost 45 HP from its drivetrain shows how stupid you are.
It's telling that you somehow think this is not possible. Especially after I posted a fucking dyno showing wheel horsepower of a stock FD from a reputable FD tuner.
>More stress is created in the drivetrain at higher horsepower, thus more loss.
You don't even understand the stresses created.
>It is a percentage, just not linear.
You're right, drivetrain losses aren't linear
The problem is a percentage IS linear you fucking retard.
A 100hp car with 15% losses would lose 15hp
A 200hp car with 15% losses would lose 30hp
A 1000hp car with 15% losses would lose 150hp
This is not how it works. There are several factors at play that dictate drivetrain losses.
A given drivetrain has a set amount of mass. This mass does not change when the car starts making more power. Meaning if the drivetrain has 10kg of rotational mass the engine must overcome (and produce power to overcome) the inertia of that 10kg no matter if it's making 100hp or 10,000hp.
In addition to the power required to overcome a drivetrains rotational inertia, there are friction losses which do scale with loading (output). but not in a linear fashion. It is almost impossible to quantify these losses as this type of friction can follow an inverted bell curve depending on the cut of the gears, type of bearings, and types of lubricant used. Meaning the initial friction for a low loading situation will be high, but incremental increases in loading will not net linear incremental increases in friction loading. While at the same time thic can be true up to a point where the friction efficiency of bearings and the lubricity of the system is exceeded and suddenly each incremental increase in loading will have a compounding increase in friction losses.
tl;dr it's simple minded to try to base an argument of some retarded notion of percentage based drivetrain losses.
Also, you completely glossed over my other points.
>>13815714
You say too much dumb stuff to respond to it all.
There is too much clearly wrong with that engine in the dyno graph to use it as a basis to argue on.
The dyno doesn't even have a line marked for where 200 hp is.
It doesn't go to the redline of 8000 rpm, with an unusual drop at 7400.
I think you're just trying to get me mad by spreading misinformation and bullshit, but all it does is make me roll my eyes.
>>13815788
>maximum_damage_control.jpg
>>13815811
Are you just retarded, or do you have proof that the redline is suddenly not 8000 RPM anymore?
>>13815816
where did I claim it was?
>>13815788
>There is too much clearly wrong
Like what exactly? Other than the fact that the FD doesn't make as much power to the wheels as you wish it did?
FD's made like 210-220whp. That's just the way it is. No USDM FD's made 230whp.
Here's Sport Compact Car's Project RX-7:
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/project-car/9905-mazda-rx-7-part-4/
>Once strapped down on his portable Dynojet Model 248C dynamometer, Project RX-7 spun the heavy rollers with 218 rear-wheel hp in fourth gear
>That is, if a stock 218 rear-wheel hp RX-7 is rated from the factory at 255 crank hp, it must have 17-percent driveline losses. A 284 rear-wheel hp RX-7, then, must be blessed with 332 crank hp.
Oh and what luck, they even happen to talk about the same shit I was just talking about with regard to drivetrain losses.
>This popular, if somewhat optimistic, correction technique assumes driveline loss is proportionate with engine output. That is, as wheel horsepower increases, driveline loss must also increase commensurably. Some would even disregard stock quotes and apply a standard 20-percent drivetrain loss figure. Using this popular correction factor, we already have a 340-hp monster! Some would vehemently disagree. These folks would tend to use a fixed number to represent driveline loss. In this case, they would believe that all RX-7s are faced with a driveline loss of 37 hp. (255 minus 218). Using this correction method, Project RX-7 produces a more conservative 321 ponies at the crank. All three techniques, (as well as other far more [Ahem.] optimistic methods) have been used at one time or another.
>>13815819
>>13815811
>There is too much clearly wrong with that engine in the dyno graph to use it as a basis to argue on.
>It doesn't go to the redline of 8000 rpm, with an unusual drop at 7400.
How am I doing damage control by pointing out the bullshit and how that dyno graph is fucked up and can't be used as any sort of point of reference, exactly?
You must be retarded.
>>13815508 is who needs damage control after posting that clear bullshit.
hur dur the RX7 loses 45 of 255 horsepower from powertrain loss and only revs to 7500.
>>13815848
You are now aware it is pointless to rev a non-ported/stock turbo 13b-rew rotary out to 8000rpm because they don't make much power past 7000-7500rpm
>>13815838
I love how you keep repeatedly ignoring the part where that dyno stops 500 RPM short of its redline and has an unusual dip at 7400 that you don't see in any other stock FD dyno.
There's something wrong with that engine and/or the ones who ran the dyno even if you ignore the 210hp part when most others dynos for bone stock cars are in the 218-230 range.
If something is wrong with the engine and it's not breathing well, and stopping 500 RPM short, no fucking shit you get a shorter power band.
>>13815848
>taking it to the redline when power is already tailing off
is it possible for you to not be retarded?
>>13815848
>>13815863
And again.
>>13815865
I love the part where you don't know shit about RX-7's.
>>13815848
>>13815863
>>13815865
>>13815868
And another.
>>13815863
That one's not stock. The other one I posted on stock twins made power up until redline fine. The other I posted was stock except the precat removed, and it made power up until redline.
Saying it's "pointless" is not a good excuse when you're just destroying making an accurate graph through the available RPM range.
Original S2000s dropped off hard short of their peek but people still ran the dynos to redline.
That's a bullshit response, and you know it.
>>13815872
>>13815868
What are you trying to prove, exactly?
>mfw none of the people arguing here likely own an FD
>mfw the people arguing here probably haven't ever even seen an FD outside of pictures on /o/ and inisharu di
>>13815885
I own an FD.
>>13815863
>>13815868
>>13815872
And another
>>13815881
>What are you trying to prove, exactly?
That it's common not to rev a FD to 8000rpm on the dyno and while driving because they typically make peak power below 7000rpm and taper soon after.
>>13815881
>>13815896
And another.
>>13815881
>>13815896
>>13815905
And another
>>13808083
>100lbs
>half a passenger
Murrica
>>13815916
>Shitstain hungry skelly europoor thinks 200lbs is heavy for an adult male
I'm sorry your country is full of woman sized limp wristed pansies.
>>13815896
In other words, bad tunes or something is wrong with them in the case of that one stock one.
Plenty of them make power at 8k including stock. Not peak, but peak at the redline isn't desirable anyway.
It's pretty pointless to not redline at a dyno. It's there to see what power you make. You don't see what power you make at the redline when you don't do that.
You may as well cut off the first 3/5ths of the RPM and go "haha who cares about low end power - I mean this top end that I don't have cropped out is totally representative of my power band"
Just because some people don't get the full graph doesn't make it any less stupid of a thing to do.
Roflmao at this nigger cherry picking dyno jet print outs
Dyno jet is fucking trash
Oh and cherry picking the lowest power FDs
Let's ignore the fact the 13brew can still make a lot more power with little work as well
>>13815924
>I know better than RX-7.com, RX-7 store, and literally dozens of other tuners
Cool story bro.
No one cares about the top 1000rpm of a dyno when your peak power is at 6500rpm. No one revs it out that high when you're already making the same power in the next gear on your way to the power peak.
>>13815924
the point is where they peak you fucking moron
not him btw
>>13815933
dynojet's are okay for the purposes of the point he's making.
they don't make peak power at a different rpm
> rx7 is making near peak power at 6000rpm
> gutless honda s2gay is making 150hp at 6000rpm
What's there to argue?
>>13815933
>Oh and cherry picking the lowest power FDs
Because big turbo/ported FD's make power high enough to justify reving it out to 8000rpm.
>Let's ignore the fact the 13brew can still make a lot more power with little work as well
If by "a lot more power" you mean 350whp.
And by "with little work" you mean pulling the turbos out and doing substantial modifications to make them non-sequential, cleaning up a zillion vacuum hoses, and literally reengineering the car's cooling system to support that 350whp. Then running a stand-alone or six different piggyback tuners. Sure.
Meanwhile Subarus are making 350awhp with an OBDII to USB cable, and an exhaust.
>>13815947
>implying the rpm at which power is made matters
>implying gearing doesn't exist.
>>13815936
No the point is the power band, not peak, which you can't see when you chop 500 RPM off the end, you fucking moron.
>>13815935
Yeah. Aftermarket stores totally won't misrepresent things so when you throw in some bolt ons and then dyno it, and cheap out on dynoing it before hand, you get a misrepresentation of how much power you gained.
I don't know first hand about RX-7.com, but RX-7 store are shitters.
RX7club forums has tons of people that say they made 218-230 whp stock, many from people first hand.
>>13815947
well we wouldn't argue over nothing, now would we?
:^)
>>13815950
> What is larger area to play with
Kek
>>13815949
FDs can make over 300whp on the stock turbos ez pz. Even more with the 280hp twins and not the early 260hp ones. What do subaru a have to do with this? They can't make power for shit and blow head gasket Lel
>>13815952
>it's a conspiracy!
into the trash it goes.
>>13815952
you asked why they don't rev to 8k, we told you they peak before so it's pointless. so of course the peak matters you fucking retard
>>13815950
actually gearing wouldn't matter in this instance (provided it's not fucked with massive drops in engine speed)
what matters is area under the curve and nothing else
>>13815963
>FDs can make over 300whp on the stock turbos ez pz
Tuning is a nightmare, cooling system needs work or it's going to pop. And that's just for 300whp.
More than 300whp and you typically have to go non-sequential or big single. and then really work on the cooling system. and have 6 different 90's era tuners piggybacking your ECU.
>What do subaru a have to do with this?
Every STI since 2004 can make 350awhp with a OBDII/USB cable and an exhaust. That's what making power with "little work" looks like.
Not the clusterfuck of performance/reliability mods you have to do to an FD to get to a similar power level then the joke that is tuning the car with a 90's era ECU.
>>13815971
Don't bother. Honda kiddies think they have magical gearboxes that allow them to stay at peak power all the time. Aren't they called cvts? Whatever
>>13815972
You are unaware of the later model FDs with upgraded oil coolers. They are easy good for over 300whp with exhaust intake and tune.
Still not sure what a subaru has to do with this
We are not talking about subaru a you bringing it up Is just pointless
Evos can make even power with little work as well, so what
F20 is still a gutless na 4 banger that needs forced induction to get anywhere and that's waaay more of a hassle than making 400hp+ with the fd :))
>>13815971
>actually gearing wouldn't matter
Gearing always matters.
If an S2000 makes the same power at a 33% higher rpm (Say 9000rpm compared to 6000rpm) all it needs is 33% shorter gearing to level the playing field.
>what matters is area under the curve and nothing else
That's not entirely true.
So long as the engine's powerband is wide enough to be taken advantage of by the transmission's correctly spaced ratios, a larger area under the curve only serves to make the car easier to drive. Not faster. (i.e. easier to maintain engine rpm within an acceptable powerband without tons of shifting)
But we're comparing peaky ass engine vs. peaky ass engine here. If you really care about area under the curve you swap a fucking LS into an FD like a man.
>>13815984
> If an S2000 makes the same power at a 33% higher rpm (Say 9000rpm compared to 6000rpm) all it needs is 33% shorter gearing to level the playing field.
Kek
>>13815984
yeah everyone's got it wrong with this horsepower meem, just throw more gears at it right?
>>13815982
>>13815982
>You are unaware of the later model FDs with upgraded oil coolers. They are easy good for over 300whp with exhaust intake and tune.
It wasn't the oil coolers that was the issue, it was the shitty stock radiators and the horrible pre-cat setup that caused the motors to overheat and pop.
>Still not sure what a subaru has to do with this
Someone mentioned that FD's could make power with "little work". I pointed out a car that can make lots of power with actually small amounts of work. The FD takes tons of work by comparison.
>F20 is still a gutless na 4 banger
The 13b-rew is a gutless rotary. Your point?
>that needs forced induction to get anywhere
The rotary needs forced induction to get anywhere too :^)
>that's waaay more of a hassle than making 400hp+ with the fd :))
Not really. To get 400whp in an FD you need a big single swap and a lot fo supporting mods.
For a similar amount of money you can run a centrifugal supercharger and header on an S2000 and make an easy 400whp on the stock bottom end.
If you don't want a peaky ass engine and you want 400whp, you swap in an LS.
>>13815990
>his gearbox doesn't do power multiplication
oh wow
>>13815990
That's how gearing works retard.
If engine A has 500hp at 10,000rpm and engine B has 500hp at 5000rpm.
Giving engine A a ratio final ratio 4:1 and engine B a ratio of 2:1 would render the performance of both engines equivalent. both would produce the same torque at the wheels at that power level.
>>13815992
You have no idea how horsepower works.
Horsepower is a measure of work accomplished over time. If an engine makes the same amount of power at a higher rpm, it doesn't make it worse. Gearing allows that horsepower to be used just as easily as the engine that makes the same power at a lower rpm.
Please go back to highschool and take a physics class.
>>13815998
>tonnes of work
a die grinder and new intake exaust manifolds with a massive carb. they're like 2smokes just gotta bore the fuck out of all the holes
>>13816003
doesn't help too much if engine a is making 150hp at 9000rpm and engine b is making 450hp at 4500rpm does it?
you don't sit at peak power you use a power band (unless you have CVT)
>>13816001
It's not power multiplication if it's the same power retard.
Gearing does torque and rpm multiplication/division. Meaning if an engine produces power at a higher rpm, dividing that rpm and producing more torque with shorter gearing, levels the playing field with an engine with the same power at a lower rpm.
>>13815998
>you can run a centrifugal supercharger and header on an S2000 and make an easy 400whp on the stock bottom end.
But all muh big nasty supporting mods aren't needed for that? Lol
> ls swap
Around 10k in the hole if you're good, that takes you very far with the 13brew. Unless of course you want to pretend all rotary tuning needs to be done at an expensive shop and you can swap the v8 in your back yard on the cheap
Im nit sure what's happened to thus discussion or how it started but point is rotary has far better power delivery than the s2gay, I think that's what it was anyway
>>13816019
You're trying to compare two engine's at two entirely different power classes. That's retarded.
a 450hp engine makes three times more pwoer than a 150hp engine no matter what rpm either engine makes their power. Thus the 450hp engine would have approximately three times the performance of the 150hp engine.
>you don't sit at peak power you use a power band
as long is the gear spacing is short enough to take advantage of the width of the power band, or the power band is wide enough to take advantage of the gear spacing, or some combination of. performance is retained(ignoring things like shift time).
>>13816025
some rotard made silly claims and got called out on it.
if they'd just said the 13brew has a better power band than a f20c i don't think there would have been this shitfest
>>13815972
>More than 300whp and you typically have to go non-sequential or big single
Okay? 300whp, which is a 40% improvement over stock, is plenty for a 2700-2800lb car.
You can get 400 HP off turbos that give 15psi @ 3500 rpm which isn't too bad and laggy, like the Apexi RX6 and various GT35s.
I like the stock twins running sequential with their really fast spooling, though.
>and have 6 different 90's era tuners piggybacking your ECU.
You replace the whole ECU, dumbass. You don't use piggybacks.
>Tuning is a nightmare, cooling system needs work or it's going to pop. And that's just for 300whp.
The reason Rotary's are so popular among poor spics is that they're so cheap to tune and get lots of power out of, you fucking moron.
You lose more than 100lb of weight and gain 40-70 hp from some minor cheap things, removing emissions shit, that costs basically nothing.
The stock twins will make 20%-30% more boost than they do stock. You can also put them in a non-sequential setup that's better for cooling, takes off a little more weight and complication of vacuum lines, etc.
Porting costs basically nothing except some time.
A lot of the cooling improvements cost nothing, like keeping the rad fan running.
like lmfao you actually don't know shit
>>13808062
>I imagine the GT86 would be least affected by having the LS swapped in.
nigga, have you seen the pissy tyres on them? What would happen with triple the power?
>>13816003
>>13816012
You guys are fucking retarded
If one engine is making more power for lonfer it will always be faster. I don't know why the fuck you're crying about gearing it doesn't matter anyway if the rotary makes more power the entire time
>>13816031
>>13816023
no amount of clever gearing is gonna make up for the power and torque advantage the rx7 has
>>13816025
>But all muh big nasty supporting mods aren't needed for that? Lol
Supercharger kits for the S2000 typically have all the supporting mods you really need. Other than the kit, throwing an exhaust and a header on you're at 400whp pretty easily.
And the S2000's cooling system isn't horrible so you don't have to budget reconstructing it into the cost of a build.
>Around 10k in the hole if you're good, that takes you very far with the 13brew.
That takes you less far when you have to budget in the cost of rebuilding the rotary 1-3 times after you inevitably pop it like everyone does when they start making power on the 13b-rew.
An LS swap is a set it and forget it ordeal. You can make 400 to 700+whp reliably. And plus you get all that special "area under the curve" you've been touting all night that puts the 13brew and F20/F22 to shame.
>>13815998
>For a similar amount of money you can run a centrifugal supercharger and header on an S2000 and make an easy 400whp on the stock bottom end.
>If you don't want a peaky ass engine and you want 400whp, you swap in an LS.
You're delusional if you think a 400whp S2000 is less peaky than a 400whp RX7, or that they're even close.
I'm not even opposed to LS swaps, either, just saying.
>>13816048
> ls swap is a set it and forget it ideal
You've got no idea kid
http://www.norotors.com/index.php?topic=3426.0
>>13816036
>You replace the whole ECU, dumbass. You don't use piggybacks.
Like I said, you either run a standalone or you run silly status with 6 piggyback tuners. 90's tuning was not "easy" as claimed. Especially when you can tune a Subaru/evo with nearly standalone fidelity using an OBDII cable by comparison.
>The reason Rotary's are so popular among poor spics is that they're so cheap to tune and get lots of power out of, you fucking moron.
>cheap to tune poorly
That's why so many are fucked. because when you tune one cheaply it fucking blows up. When you tune more correctly it lasts a bit longer then blows up.
The spics that tune them "cheaply" run some garbage diesel turbo on a 80's 13b with carbs for a few runs at the drag strip in an RX-3 before they explode, then they rebuild them.
>You lose more than 100lb of weight and gain 40-70 hp from some minor cheap things
Your concept of "minor" is hilarious. An exhaust is minor. Pulling out a zillion vacuum hoses and unfucking the mess, pulling out an air pump, pulling the turbos and taking an angle grinder to them, etc. is not "minor".
>The stock twins will make 20%-30% more boost than they do stock.
Garbage.
>You can also put them in a non-sequential setup that's better for cooling, takes off a little more weight and complication of vacuum lines, etc.
Once again, nothing "minor" about pulling the turbos and the vacuum line cluster fuck.
>Porting costs basically nothing except some time.
Except the cost of seals, a good shops time, and the effort of pulling a motor. Which again, nothing fucking minor about it.
>A lot of the cooling improvements cost nothing
HA!
>like lmfao you actually don't know shit
I actually know more than you do you fucking retard.
>>13816033
There wouldn't have been a shit fest if Some butthurt honda fanboy didn't start quoting differences in peak hp Like it's all that matters
> rx7 is better than the s2000 in literally every single way except for gayboy shit which you should buy a mx5 for
>>13816038
>You guys are fucking retarded
Wrong. That statements are factually correct.
>If one engine is making more power for lonfer it will always be faster.
No one said anything about making power for "longer" in either of those examples. They simply demonstrate how making power at a higher or lower rpm doesn't make one engine better or worse than another because gearing levels the playing field.
>I don't know why the fuck you're crying about gearing it doesn't matter anyway
Gearing always matters. The only retards that don't think gearing matters are retards that don't know how gearing works.
>if the rotary makes more power the entire time
FD's and S2000's make within 5-10hp of each other. You're an idiot.
>>13816059
Yep.
There's a reason people take out the AC, power steering, ABS, and so much else when doing LS swaps and go "haha saved so much weight!". It's because they couldn't get those things working.
There's very few LS swaps that are very "turn key" and well done.
Damn, for 14k that's a real shit job. But I think just half decent ones tend to be 10 grand.
>>13816080
> They simply demonstrate how making power at a higher or lower rpm doesn't make one engine better or worse than another because gearing levels the playing field.
So what happens when the engine that makes peak power earlier continues to make more power than the other engine? So basically you're saying if you severely Gimp one engine with gearing it will level the playing field? You're retarded as well
> make within 5 to 10hp of each other
top kek you're even more retarded than I originally thought
>>13816043
>no amount of clever gearing
There's nothing clever about the gearing.
If X engine makes power at ABC% more rpm than Y engine. Gearing has to be ABC% shorter to level the playing field. It's that simple.
>make up for the power and torque advantage the rx7
S2000 and RX-7 make roughly equivalent amounts of power. The torque advantage the RX-7 has doesn't mean shit in 10/10th's performance driving with a qualified driver beyond making the car easier to drive.
Engine performance can be said to be roughly equivalent with a slight power advantage to the RX-7. From there it comes down to chassis dynamics.
>>13808014
>hurr durr ignore power
>each has a properly swapped LS
THISKILLSTHEHANDLING.jpeg
Too many variables. Early RX7's were nuttier than squirrel shit anytime the rear end came out, different Toyobarus have different suspension settings depending on what badge is on it, etc...
The fact is, if we're comparing the top level models, the bearers of the highest echelon of performance stock...
...a late-model RX-7 Spirit R will win, hands down. It's simply in a higher class of car, as it had much more power and years of suspension, weight balance, and chassis tuning. The S2000 CR (I guess...) would be in second, simply because it's still in a higher class than the Toyobaru. Subaru BRZ (most gimmick free suspension settings I'm aware of) is dead last, because it simply can't keep up.
>>13816053
>if you think a 400whp S2000 is less peaky than a 400whp RX7
I never made any assertion one way or another regarding 400hp FD's or S2000's. I said they would both be peaky and if you wanted a non-peaky powerplant you should get an LS.
>>13816059
>someone does a shitty swap
>has problems with it
You're surprised by this?
The quality of the end product is obviously dependent on the competence of the person doing the swap and the care taken during the swap. If you're an idiot, do not attempt.
Better yet, if you're an idiot. Don't buy an FD period.
>>13816088
> it's that simple
It's not that simple bevause they aren't geared like that. Why the fuck are you retarded a bringing imaginary gearing into this.
The fd makes a significant amount more power than the s2000
If you want to go ahead and cherry pico a 92 fd vs a 2002 s2k go ahead, but keep in mind that 280hp FDs exist you cherry picking spastic
>>13816071
It's like $750 for a replacement ECU that makes the car run a lot sooner and lets you tune optimally for your mods. Is that a lot, or something?
The exhaust stuff is nearly pretty. You're replacing cats with a pipe. Might keep your main cat. Once you do that, you free up a lot more power to be gained from a remap, as well as get improved reliability.
'93 ECUs were so shit.
>Your concept of "minor" is hilarious. An exhaust is minor. Pulling out a zillion vacuum hoses and unfucking the mess, pulling out an air pump, pulling the turbos and taking an angle grinder to them, etc. is not "minor".
It's basically fucking free. That's minor.
I'm sorry following vac line diagrams is so hard for you. I thought someone already did the hard part of making the diagram for you.
>Except the cost of seals, a good shops time, and the effort of pulling a motor. Which again, nothing fucking minor about it.
o I see, you're a ricer that can't do your own work.
Racing Beat provides templates to do your own porting. You don't even need them for a mild port, though.
>>13816076
>There wouldn't have been a shit fest if Some butthurt honda fanboy
I don't even like Honda's retard. I just pointed out when you said something stupid.
>quoting differences in peak hp Like it's all that matters
You said something stupid like FD's have 3000rpm of 90% powerband which is fucking retarded. I corrected you and you got all butthurt about it.
The FD and the S2000 have within a few hundred rpm of each other the same size 90% peak powerband.
Deal with it faggot.
>>13816088
>S2000 and RX-7 make roughly equivalent amounts of power. The torque advantage the RX-7 has doesn't mean shit in 10/10th's performance driving with a qualified driver beyond making the car easier to drive.
>Engine performance can be said to be roughly equivalent with a slight power advantage to the RX-7. From there it comes down to chassis dynamics.
>slight power advantage
RX-7 Quarter mile: 12.6s
S2000 Quarter mile: 14.0s
Holllyyyy shit you're delusional.
This thread was supposed to be about handling but there's some /o/tards that actually think the S2000 was as powerful, too, after they got BTFO on the track handling end.
>>13816113
You know this is an anonymous image board right and there's more than two people in this thread?
FD makes more power earlier and continues to make more power
Peak power at 6000rpm vs 150hp at 6000rpm. Deal with it.
> bbbut muh imaginary gearing means that doesn't matter!
Tip top kek cunt
>>13816086
>So what happens when the engine that makes peak power earlier continues to make more power than the other engine?
Typically that just means that engine is easier to drive than the more "peaky" engine. I.e. less shifting is required to maintain an acceptable amount of acceleration for most situations.
It does not necessarily mean that car is faster.
Things like launches in straight line speed where initial launch puts an engine outside it's powerband will obviously benefit an engine with a larger torque spread, but this is a single situation. If you care about straight line launches, by all means get the engine with the fatter low rpm torque curve.
>top kek you're even more retarded than I originally thought
Several dyno graphs have been posted in this very thread showing exactly that retard.
>>13816113
Holy shit you fucking retard there is more than one person calling you out on your S2000 fanboy bullshit.
He's not the person that said that, I am.
Even if you go by the shit dyno that clearly has something wrong with the engine, that's dropping off 600RPM short of the redline, it still has twice the usable powerband there and the S2000 gearing, while shorter, is not twice as short to make the difference.
It would have just been easier if I didn't have to call out the retardation of someone quoting peak HP numbers because they don't understand how using power actually works.
And the best some S2k fanboys could do is call me out on how I was a BIT off on it being 90% over 3k, when it's more like over 2300-2700 on stock twins, but it still reinforces my fucking point to begin with even if I was slightly off. But S2K fanboys have to ignore the point to justify their car.
>>13816135
> it does not necessarily mean that car is faster
Having more power doesn't mean it faster? For fucks sake bro just stop
> several dyno graphs
Yes your shitty cherry picked ones, but I'll still go by them
> 200whp at 6k rpm vs 150whp at 6k rpm
big difference. Keep crying busta bitch
>>13816105
>It's not that simple bevause they aren't geared like that.
Yes they are.
>Why the fuck are you retarded a bringing imaginary gearing into this.
I'm not.
A car with a smaller powerband or less torque torque curve wil have shorter gear spacing. I.e. the S2000 has a closer ratio gearbox than the FD despite them having similar power outputs. That's not "imaginary gearing".
>The fd makes a significant amount more power than the s2000
No it fucking doesn't.
>If you want to go ahead and cherry pico a 92 fd vs a 2002 s2k go ahead
It's not cherry picking to compare the highest power versions of each car available in the U.S.
>keep in mind that 280hp FDs exist
No USDM, no care.
And even if we did care, why wouldn't we compare the cars with the equivalent power levels? This thread is about handling. Are you really saying that the FD chassis needs a ~20whp advantage over the S2000 to compete?
>>13816156
Hey kid, it's cool that you want to stick you head in the sand but imma just leave this here
> 200whp at 6k rpm vs 150whp at 6k rpm
Kek
>>13816135
Have you noticed how the MX-5 has faster 0-60 and the same quarter mile as the FR-S despite a 9% lower power-weight ratio?
It has more power earlier on and a more useful power band than its power-weight ratio suggests.
That's also why the RX-7 gets a whole ONE-POINT-FOUR-FUCKING-SECONDS faster 1/4 mile time despite only having only a 7.5% greater power to weight ratio than the S2000(and it's a fucking 5 speed when the S2000 is 6, which helps in the 1/4 mile). It's improvement in power band and gearing is even greater than the MX-5 has over the FR-S.
>>13816112
>Is that a lot, or something?
Going stand alone and tuning is a long more work than modifying base maps over OBD2.
>It's basically fucking free. That's minor.
That's major engine work. Anything from minor.
This is the delusion of rotards. You idiots pretend like it's no big deal to pull a motor and rebuild it all the time, or just yank out turbos, or go through a ridiculous vacuum hose mess to unfuck it. Normal enthusiasts with normal cars don't have to do all this bullshit to get a 350whp car.
No amount of pretending that that shit is normal makes it so. The worst part is it's always kids who've never owned an FD or done this sort of work claiming this shit is no big deal.
>I'm sorry following vac line diagrams is so hard for you.
Either prove that you've done it or shut the fuck up.
>o I see, you're a ricer that can't do your own work
Oh, so you're going to bubba your own side housings on a DIY port job is see? lol, good luck with that. I've seen the kind of "quality" that comes from retards porting their own motors, hilarious.
>You don't even need them for a mild port, though.
That's the equivalent to saying:
"you don't need to know what you're doing to regrind a camshaft!"
>>13816119
>RX-7 Quarter mile: 12.6s
On what planet does an FD ever run in the 12's?
FD's are mid-high 13 second cars. Stop with the bullshit.
>Holllyyyy shit you're delusional.
Irony.
Pic related.
>actually think the S2000 was as powerful
The USDM S2000 made about the same amount of power as the USDM FD. Deal with it.
>No it fucking doesn't.
>18 more horsepower
ONE-POINT-FOUR-FUCKING-SECONDS faster 1/4 mile.
You're either retarded or delusional. People have been repeatedly trying to explain it to you, but you just don't get it. Seems you're hopeless and need to just give up on cars, man.
I was quick to correct myself on being wrong about the 90% over 3000 RPM range part, yes it's not quite that large, but it's still far larger than the S2000's little peaky powerband which was my point.
I could readily admit I fucked up but S2k fanboys have to cling to semantics and think my one mistake invalidates dozens of other facts. Rofl.
Peak HP isn't nearly as important as the RPM range you have a usable amount of power over.
>>13816122
>Peak power at 6000rpm vs 150hp at 6000rpm.
As Iive explained that means absolutely nothing.
You have no idea how gearing works.
>> bbbut muh imaginary gearing means that doesn't matter!
>imaginary gearing
retard alert.
>>13816144
>> bbbut muh imaginary gearing means that doesn't matter!
No it fucking doesn't.
you're looking at 1100rpm vs 1300rpm for a 90% peak powerband.
1100 is not 50% of 1300.
You cannot into maths.
>the S2000 gearing, while shorter, is not twice as short to make the difference.
It doesn'tahve to be twice as short to make up for having a smaller powerband you fucking diiot, thats not how gearing works.
The gear spacing just has be be close enough to allow shifting to keep within the powerband between gears.
Please try to pay attention. I'm getting tired of educating you dumb asses.
>when it's more like over 2300-2700 on stock twins
Again, that's just as wrong as the first 5 times you said it.
>>13816186
Damage control at its nastiest
50whp difference doesn't mean anything? Kill yourself kid I'm serious
>>13816183
Oh yeah was 13.6 in '93 not 12.6. Was going off memory.
That has a lot to do with the rubber. A lot of people do low 12s with modern street tires and stock turbos.
Not the same kind of comparison you can make between the MX-5 and FR-S, I guess, due to that.
>>13816192
>1100 is not 50% of 1300.
Where the fuck do you get 1300 from? From that blown out RX7 in Texas that has some problem 600 RPM from the redline and makes abnormally low peak power before that?
You KNOW that dyno is bullshit but you want to believe it so badly to invalidate your insecurities.
>>13816193
Underrated suicide request.
>>13815921
200lbs is heavy for an adult male that isn't over 6'4"
Now given the fact that the average American is 5'8" tall, that's statistically more likely to be a fat fuck than a tall musclebound athlete. .
>>13816155
>>13816155
>Having more power doesn't mean it faster?
we're talking abotu equivelent power cars with power occuring at different points in the rev range.
Comparing cares with disparate amounts of power is stupid if that's what you are trying to get at.
>Yes your shitty cherry picked ones, but I'll still go by them
Not cherry picked, literally posted a bunch off of the FD forums and RX-7 store at random. Try again.
>> 200whp at 6k rpm vs 150whp at 6k rpm
>big difference. Keep crying busta bitch
Once again, the engine speed at which peak power is made doesn't mean shit because gearing exists. It doesn't matter if the S2000 makes 150whp at 6000rpm because it makes 200whp at 8000rpm which is equivalent to the FD.
I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding how gearing works.
Itt honda fanboy getting btfo and refusing to accept reality
> no no it doesn't matter if an engine makes 50whp more than another
>>13816165
Oh neat.
He lost the argument and has resorted to retard tier trolling. Glad you've conceded the point. Maybe next time you won't get into a discussion without knowing what gearing is.
>>13816211
So both engines are at 6000rpm, one us making substantially more power, and it continues to make more power as they continue to rev higher. But that doesn't matter because why again?
>>13816168
>Have you noticed how the MX-5 has faster 0-60 and the same quarter mile as the FR-S despite a 9% lower power-weight ratio?
It has more power earlier on and a more useful power band than its power-weight ratio suggests.
This is exactly what I covered when I said:
>>13816135
>Things like launches in straight line speed where initial launch puts an engine outside it's powerband will obviously benefit an engine with a larger torque spread
You even quoted the post I said that in.
>That's also why the RX-7 gets a whole ONE-POINT-FOUR-FUCKING-SECONDS faster 1/4 mile time
That's completely wrong. The FD is 0.1 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. Right in line with it having about the same power to the wheels as the S2000.
> it's a fucking 5 speed when the S2000 is 6, which helps in the 1/4 mile
Not exactly true. Most shifting costs more time. Both cars cross the finish line in the same gear anyways so it's no advantage or disadvantage for either.
>It's improvement in power band and gearing is even greater
You'd think that with such a better cited power to weight and all your claims about having a better power band it would be faster than 0.1 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile...
>>13816217
Let's remember that this was all originally about power and had nothing to Do with gearing. You just started rambling on with shit you have no idea about and ignored all points brought up about the significant difference in power, which was the original point.
So... 200whp minimum vs 150whp at 6000rpm
Kek
>>13816184
>ONE-POINT-FOUR-FUCKING-SECONDS faster 1/4 mile.
Again, that's fucking wrong.
It was 0.1 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile.
another pic related.
>You're either retarded or delusional.
Says the guy who claims the FD ran in 400hp corvette territory 1/4 mile times...
>>13816217
How'd he lose the argument when one guy is trying to say having equivalent (or greater) power over twice the RPM range is better, which it is, and another is trying to say it isn't because of gearing (that makes the peak power in an even shorter span, kek).
>That's completely wrong. The FD is 0.1 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. Right in line with it having about the same power to the wheels as the S2000.
Cherry picked, like usual.
It's 0.4s faster in '93 on '93 tires. 13.9 is the worst 1/4 mile result I've ever seen for an FD while you're using the best 14.0 for the S2000.
Compare best-to-best or averages, retard.
Stop cherry picking the worst thing you can find to try and invalidate your insecurities.
>>13816235
One One tenth of a second faster? Where are you getting your numbers from
The American FDs constantly run midnight 13s. Ap2s run flat low 14s. Later model FDs ran High 12s
Fucking retard
>>13816193
>50whp difference doesn't mean anything?
No FD ever made 50whp more than the S2000.
Sorry, try again retard.
>>13816254
Mid to High 13s* not midnight
Stupid phone
>>13816203
>Where the fuck do you get 1300 from?
From the clearly labeled dynosheet that has been posted illustrating as such.
>From that blown out RX7 in Texas that has some problem 600 RPM from the redline and makes abnormally low peak power before that?
Cool made up bullshit bro.
>You KNOW that dyno is bullshit but you want to believe it so badly to invalidate your insecurities.
I actually provided several other dynos of FD's validating that one and it's 7500ropm cuttoff from several different sources.
>>13816255
Compare the dynos in this thread retard
fuck you are one dumb blind cunt
200whp at 6k vs 150whp at 6k
CRY nigga
>>13816209
>200lbs is heavy for an adult male that isn't over 6'4"
In what universe?
You must live in some scrawny fucking fairly land.
>Now given the fact that the average American is 5'8" tall
Actually more like 5' 9.5"-5' 10"
