mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

[gavsdavs]

The S2k is MR?

Yep. *just like* an mr2.
Roflcopters.

[wilkie senior]

puts me in mind of the four yorkshiremen Monty Python sketch.





whens the cheese sketch coming?

Greg Wallace sits by with tongue firmly planted in cheek

[Shmed]

I know the s2000 have 215 at the front and 245 at the rear... and the mr2 has 195 all round

In amongst all the arguing, did this slip through the pedant net?

The first I ever heard of a car being called a mid mounted engine despite having the engine in front of the driver was a Ferrari on Top Gear. Was a new concept to me, but makes sense really.

Not joining the bun fight, I just read the thread this morning.

[Marf]

The S2k is MR?

Yep. *just like* an mr2.
Roflcopters.

Learning is hard


Love and kisses Gavlahhh

[Race Idiot]

The s2000 gearbox is amazing, apparently its a simmilar AISIN AZ6 unit used in the gt86 and a few other rwd jap cars.

I think going from a tubby to an s2000 you get spoiled by the tubbies extra torque.

I think if I still needed to drive every day i'd be choosing between a runout year s2000 or a lightly used GT86

[Marf]

The shift in the GT86 is very very nice.

If the S2000 g/box is as good as that then they've definitely taken a step forward. The Gearbox on my EG6 VTi was crunchtastic!

[Race Idiot]

The shift in the GT86 is very very nice.

If the S2000 g/box is as good as that then they've definitely taken a step forward. The Gearbox on my EG6 VTi was crunchtastic!

Well its not a honda gearbox, its built by AISIN who make parts for different cars. Like ZF build gearboxes for different cars in europe.

[Marf]

Would love on of the ZF 8 Speed boxes in my FD

[shinny]

For those tuning in late, here's the story so far...

A friendly group of car enthusiasts were peacefully discussing the merits of two different cars, when one enthusiast states both cars have the engine mounted between the axles. Unfortunately the term he used is commonly misunderstood to also mean the engine is mounted behind the driver. Some of the enthusiasts who haven't heard of the terminology being used this way dispute the statement and, after explanation, request links to wikipedia to back up the statements they are being presented with. This is duly provided, not only with a link explaining the layout, but also a link using the exact car in question as an example of that type of layout. The provided links also state that the specific variation of the engine layout is often referred to as a different layout for simplicity.

Now, viewers, this is where the mystery starts. To the casual observer the argument is now null and void. The original statement has been shown to be entirely correct according to the information source the other enthusiasts requested. There is also a get-out claus that accepts many people refer to that variation of the layout differently, meaning those who want to can still refer to the car via the other term. Normally peace would fall back over this community and the discussion of the merits of the two cars would continue. However, for some unexplained reason, those who didn't understand the terminology originally have ignored the evidence they themselves asked for and continue to argue that the mid-engined terminology is incorrect simply because the general population misunderstands it.

Why are they still arguing? Will there ever be peace again? Are screenshots from video games actually proof of anything at all? We simply do not know, viewers. However what is clear is that this argument is going nowhere...

[Marf]

[Race Idiot]

For those tuning in late, here's the story so far...

A friendly group of car enthusiasts were peacefully discussing the merits of two different cars, when one enthusiast states both cars have the engine mounted between the axles. Unfortunately the term he used is commonly misunderstood to also mean the engine is mounted behind the driver. Some of the enthusiasts who haven't heard of the terminology being used this way dispute the statement and, after explanation, request links to wikipedia to back up the statements they are being presented with. This is duly provided, not only with a link explaining the layout, but also a link using the exact car in question as an example of that type of layout. The provided links also state that the specific variation of the engine layout is often referred to as a different layout for simplicity.

Now, viewers, this is where the mystery starts. To the casual observer the argument is now null and void. The original statement has been shown to be entirely correct according to the information source the other enthusiasts requested. There is also a get-out claus that accepts many people refer to that variation of the layout differently, meaning those who want to can still refer to the car via the other term. Normally peace would fall back over this community and the discussion of the merits of the two cars would continue. However, for some unexplained reason, those who didn't understand the terminology originally have ignored the evidence they themselves asked for and continue to argue that the mid-engined terminology is incorrect simply because the general population misunderstands it.

Why are they still arguing? Will there ever be peace again? Are screenshots from video games actually proof of anything at all? We simply do not know, viewers. However what is clear is that this argument is going nowhere...

I'm definitely glad you took your time to write this massive wall of words im not going to read.

[SrSilkie]

From my experience, power wise, in a straight line my rev 3 tubby hands down out powers my friends AP2 S2000. His car is completely stock and mine at the time had a Fujitsubo Legalis R exhaust with the cat still in place, other than that was completely stock.

Handling wise I have no idea, they will obviously handle very differently but which is better I couldn't say however my gut says the s2000 will be more drivable on the limit due to its fmr layout and fairly linear power delivery.

Sitting in the passenger side of my friends s2000 was also my first VTEC experience and although the F20C sounds phenomenal and is an amazing piece of engineering, it failed to excite me in the same way as the 3SGTE does, but I suspect it may be different were I in the drivers seat

Overall though they are lovely cars and would jump at the chance to try one out.

[gavsdavs]

Sent Sunday...11.18am. This is the third time this has been quoted by me alone.
Can't you read or do you just choose not to read what doesn't suit you.

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

The rest is fluff.

[Marf]

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

I did know what you meant

[ashley]

Are screenshots from video games actually proof of anything at all?.

Nope...but it did help squeeze another page out of this thread...mission achieved

[gavsdavs]

[Marf]

[gavsdavs]

[Marf]

[fingers99]

And now for something completely different: