I have ADD. So I move on to better things pretty quick.

Most of the time, I start out wanting to launch. Then I just do this instead.
https://youtu.be/pnKAaKHhpLM

 

Hardest "launch" I've done is like 3500rpm

Once the car is rolling though, I don't let off. I even let the check-valve burn up some clutch too

 

I don't launch at all, I'd like the clutch and diff to last as long as possible lol. The fvckin CDV gets me on the hard shifts every time though, especially at high revs.

 

I don't usually slam gears because of the stupid check valve ...

I will say though, the AP1 flywheel is tits (about ~8-10 pounds lighter)... shifts are pretty damn fast without slamming gears.

 

When I need a new clutch, I'll definitely get the AP1 flywheel. I'm not going in there to replace it unless that's necessary though.

 

I initially wanted a lighter flywheel and since the AP1 flywheel is a direct OEM replacement, it was a no brainer for me.

It does tack $500 onto the repair bill - yolo bruh.

 

I dont think i have ever launched my s2000. the rear diff always scared me.

 

I'm on diff #3. 79K miles.

Also clutch #3.

Lmk.

 

No slamming of gears here but revs all day

 

I also do not slam gears. I obviously did when at the drag strip. But I only went there once.

My shifting is mad smoove.

 

themachine swears by ap1 flywheel and act pressure plate with oem clutch.

Mine still shifts great and grabs fine. I only do spirited driving though cause last time I went to the track I ran a 9 seconds quarters mile.

 

I think you mixed up seconds with minutes

 

.001 second 60 feets

 

Daaaaamn. I guess it is true what they say. Honda horsepowers is greater than any other horsepowers when compared side by side.

 

We've all heard it from SSFTSX, aka, the voice of reason.

 

I think hp is not the only thing that Honda has superiority over others.

 

In all honesty...this is true. Hondas are typically (almost always) the fastest car within an apples-to-apples comparison with other Japanese brands...and even a lot of times as compared to their european counterparts.

Start at Corolla/Sentra/Mazda 3 series vs. Civic. And end with Supra/GTR/RX7 vs. NSX. Hondas are faster almost universally across that board. And also more relevant because they're better cars to drive.

 

Rollin Balls strikes again with some fucking seriously noggin sweatin facts that can't be fuckin questioned because they're fuckin solid and true.

Honda for lyf.

 

how about ILX vs...
or TLX vs...
or RLX vs...
or RDX vs...
Maybe even MDX vs...

All fail

and until this latest gen Civic, last few gens have been slow as fuck. Fucking slow and slow as fuck!
I have a R18 parked on the driveway.

 

Meh, I don't slam gears often but I like to practice my ability to work that stick like a pro from time to time. Jumping off clutch and into full throttle at high revs sometimes takes a moment to engage. Guessing it's because of the stupid CDV...

It's that kind of thrill. TM

 

ILX Vs. CT250H? ILX

RLX VS LS4XX? IDK

RDX vs. Whatever the Infiniti small rat SUV is? RDX in every single respect.

MDX VS QX? Probably the QX.

Nissan has always put up one or two outliers of competition. A Maxima is probably slightly faster than a contemporary Accord V6, for example.

Your R18 civic is probably still faster than a Corolla or Sentra.

 

Besides being faster in a straight line (hondas almost always are), they are also better to drive, more engaging, and more ingenious than their Toyota or Nissan counter parts. Also usually better built.

Compare a RAV4 to a CRV. Either one is slow enough that you may as well forget about wherever you're going. But...the CRV has better MPG, a WAY more useful interior (the RAV4 is the most useless car of that size when considering interior design. Less cubby holes and storage pockets than a civic). The CRV has way more intelligent features, is better to look at, and more sporty (LOL).


Why was the Civic was the broke enthusiasts choice for millions of years? The Cavalier Z24, Nissan Sentra 2.5L, Corolla S, etc etc had larger engines, and more of the precious torque that everyone thought they needed. The Civic...across the board was a more attractive choice. From the grandma who bought DX to drive into store fronts because they got the brake and gas mixed up.... to the rice burglar that bought an Si because he wanted street cred and an exciting car which would happily accept his abuse indefinitely and hold its value better than anything in that category. Have yall seen the resale value on EM1 SI's? Abysmally slow, that car. But dope AF.

The GTi was the only car that consistently challenged the Civic Si. But...unfortunately for the GTi, a car usually has to be NOT on fire for a person to drive it.

Even when there are comparable cars that are faster...they're just not as well rounded or good. A 350/370Z was slightly faster than a S2000 down a drag strip. But it was a fucking shitbox. And you only remember that it existed because I just now said its name. The S2000 is so much more relevant that you can't even speak about those two cars together when making a fair comparison.

At the high end spectrum, the NSX was groundbreaking. Peoples' Ferraris actually turn on and drive today...because they learned lessons from the NSX as a reported fact.

A Supra is beautiful. But sitting next to a NSX, it looks like someone beat a few gills into a frog with a hammer. And neither the super tech loaded turbo powered AWD GTR or the supra could touch a NSX in terms of performance. You hear about 1990's Japanese power struggles...and the Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT (30,000LB GT), and RX7 are mentioned. The NSX would destroy any of those, still get more MPG, get more chicks, and run for longer without issue or excess maintenance.

Pffffffff.

With very few outliers, Hondas are...if not faster...than just simply better than their counterparts.

The CR-V is the perfect small SUV. It hits all the marks that it should.

The S2000 is the perfect roadster. Better than cars 2 or 3X its price.

The Civic is the perfect commuter.

The Civic Si is...a bit lacking lately. But still at the top of the pack in terms of sporty compacts. What else are you gonna buy that's better? A Corolla S?? LOL LOL LOL. A GTi? I hope you like getting murdered on the side of whichever road it strands you on.


There's a reason I buy Hondas. I love all cars. But there is factual information that Hondas are #1.

 

Fixed, kinda.

Last NSX model year = 2005
Last S2000 model year = 2009

For the last 8 years all we've had to satiate our enthusiast desires in regards to purpose built sports cars from them was the Si... hardly purpose built, an econobox tuned for spirited driving, but nothing serious.

I will agree with you on the other points, for the longest time I could not stand driving Toyotas (until recently), could not deal with Nissan unrealiability (yeah I made that up), and so on.

 

New NSX in 2015....err...2016....err....2017....or...err....l ike...definitely by like....2082 tho....

 

You're not serious, are you?

The GTR has been smashing the NSX since 1991. Yup, in Japan, the NSX was criticized for being so expensive and yet a car half it's price would smash it. I'd be surprised if the Supra didn't follow suit, since it's pushing more power and boosted from the factory. Can't speak of the RX-7, but otherwise, you're on bad drugs. Go sit in the corner until you come down a bit.

Another fanboi.. hey, SSFTSX called...

 

and for the record- I thoroughly love classic Honda- from the mid 80s until about 2003. But I've never once considered them fast. Because they're not. Those B series engines that people were paying ridiculous sums for, just to get 180hp were cool back in 2005.

 

He is serious. And I agree with him, to I guess WE are serious.
and between 2005 and 2009 and now? 8th Gen Accord Coupe...then the revamped Sedan...Crosstour, like the ZDX was for an acquired taste crowd...even the 4G TL SHAWS 6MT. Maybe not for everyone, but in their own right...ground breaking.

Driving a TLX right now for a day...and I can't see needing a faster vehicle. Damned thing is fast.

 

I found lap times for NA1 NSX vs GTR and the GTR was apparently 22 seconds faster, around the Ring. Not sure how accurate those numbers are. I can't really find any comparisons. Some specs though:

1991 NSX
270 bhp @ 7100 rpm
210.0 ft lbs @ 5300 rpm
1354 kg / 2985 lbs
0 - 60 mph: 5.6 s
0 - 100 mph: 14.1 s
Top Speed: 271 kph / 168.0 mph

1993 Supra TT
320.0 bhp @ 5800 rpm
315.0 ft lbs @ 4000 rpm
1565 kg / 3450 lbs
0 - 60 mph: 5.0 s
0 - 100 mph: 11.8 s
Top Speed: 250 kph / 155.0 mph (electronically limited)

Now I can't speak to the actual times, but the 105ftlbs of torque difference, at 1300rpm lower, is nothing to laugh at.

Found this for a 1991 GTR:
280 bhp @ 6800 rpm
266 ftlbs @ 4400 rpm
1480 kg / 3263 lbs

Also, it was highly and widely speculated that Nissan understated the power the GTR was putting out, due to the HP wars in Japan at the time, and the apparently crazy insurance rates for cars that broke 300hp. Yes, it's heavier. But even it's "base" power is out running the NSX. And lets not forget the AWD drive system the GTR is known for which is purpose built for attacking tracks. I dunno...

 

Comparing GTR's to BASE MODEL NSX's? Ha!!

Try that with a Skyline GTS. Or a NA Supra. Pfffff.

The GT-R should be compared to a NSX-R to make it fair. But even a NSX S-ZERO is still probably faster than a GTR in everything from 1/4 mile times to track times.

The NSX-R was the first production car to ever break 7min ring times.

The NSX-R or S-zero is hands down faster than a TT supra. I think even a base model NSX would give a TT supra the run around. Not even the same league of car. A stock S2000 is faster around most track than a TT supra...and probably about as fast as a stock RX7.

But....ring times aren't very relevant.

The NSX-R was the fastest car to come out of Japan in its production period.

If y'all are comparing ring times...make sure to pay attention to the model year and the day's weather.

A S2000 in the rain is slower around a 14 mile track than a Chevy Cobalt....for example

 

I'm comparing the top end 1991 skyline to the top end 1991 NSX. If you want to get into further discussions for those cars as the years went by, I can't wait until we compare the R34 to an NA2.

 

The NA2-R was faster than the R34 GTR. No way to doubt that.

 

Yes, and let's talk about the Type R that no one has likely even seen in the flesh here, let alone in Japan. There was less than 500 NA1-Rs and less than 500 NA2-Rs produced. The going rate for an NA1-R is around 150k US. These days. But hey, if you want to compare special editions, it's not like the GTR didn't have crazy special editions either.

 

Again, you're compare a special edition to a regular edition. There were more potent versions of the GTR available.

 

7:56 for a NA2-R. Again...ring times are awful comparisons.

 

The GT-R was a normal edition? What does that make the GT or GTS?

I'm comparing production cars to each other.

A GT-R Nismo edition would be like a Mercedes Black Series. Or a Mugen RR.

There were lots of GT-R's that got modified from the factory. Nismo even bought used GTR's and modded them. How is that a fair comparison to a production stock NSX-R?

 

By that logic, I could compare a Civic Mugen RR to a production stock M3 and claim that civics are faster than M3's.

 

Here's a top100 list of ring times.

I don't see ANY model of GT-R on there before 2009. The NA2 went out of production in 05.

I don't see any 05 or older GTRs on there at all.
https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

FWIW, no RX7's or supras at all either. Or 300ZX's.

Or Miatas :P

 

You're also comparing a car that cost almost three times more

 

Damn Adam, you tried really hard to prove him wrong and didn't. Accept your licks!

 

GT-R was a standard production model. Cars such as the GTR R34Nur V. spec II, or whatever the hell it's called is the special edition version. There were about 5 different GTR special editions. Come on man. How is it not fair to match a special edition vs special edition?

Anyway, this debate is getting dumb. Post some s2000 pics. We've gone way off topic.