I don't know where you got this information... Raw power isn't what matters, the s2000 has a ton of potential to be made into an incredible car for the turns. They do quite well in scca, nasa, and autocross from what I've seen as well.

 

Exactly. The S2000 is by all means a sports car. The original ones like the MGs and the Sunbeam Tigers and all those other little cars from the 50's and 60's had little engines too. 2 doors, 2 seater, removable roof and RWD are the only requirements for sports car in the most traditional sense. By definition they don't have to have much power at all.
I thought that too until someone clued me in on this. Stock bottom and 10's. Very impressive:
http://www.inlinepro.com/
Click on S2K turbo kit. 550+whp.

 

Have you seen the new g35 coupe concept? most likely 330HP and looks pretty good but not sure if I want to wait one year

 

i'd drive it

 

That's why I distinguished the LS2 as being "quite a bit quicker".

 

Times are changing.... please dont compare the S2K to cars in the 50's and 60's, thats a joke.

To get into the 10's in an S2K, your talking 10k+$... your not just going to bolt on a turbo kit and go run 10's................

 

I wasn't comparing the cars directly. I am saying in relative terms, those little cars from back then weren't very powerful to what was available. There were mainly just a lot lighter and more nimble. The S2K's power compared to Vettes, Vipers, twin turbo Porsches etc is far less too, but it is also lighter and more nimble. All I am saying is that the same basic formula from those older cars is what makes a classic sports car in the traditional sense and the S2000 and Miata are it.

That is a bolt on turbo kit. The point was made that the S2K had zero potential, I am showing that it is false. How much does it cost to build a 10sec Evo? What does it matter?

 

I still like the S2K, and that's not saying much.

 

someone needs to remind saturn that chrome is currently out of style (unless you are mr. bling living ghettofabulous). s2000 is so much nicer it doesn't even compare.

 

I've been through 3 thats right THREE s2000's. The last 2 I bought used. I think that a used 2002-2003 s2000 is probably the best bang for the buck in terms of performance, looks, and reliability. I put 70K on my 1st s2000 (my bro bought it from me and had 125K b4 it was stolen), 70K in my seconed s2000, and about 15K in my current s2000. You can pick up a used 2002 for about 17-19K. incredible buy! The reliability on these cars (if treated right) are top notch. Throw a front lip spoiler and rims, and you have a stunning car. I still get more looks in my s2000 than in my rally red evo. The saturn looks like a flash in the pan, the styling looks like it will get old in about 2-3 years. I would have reservations putting my money down for a car like that, the depreciation will be a killer.

And to the guy that says that the corvette is just a little bit faster than the s2000, HAVE YOU EVEN DRIVEN EITHER CAR? I am in the market for a new C6 and I will tell you there is NO comparision b/w the two in terms of acceleration! The C6 is a rocketship!

Bobby

 

Well, I have read (or scimmed) most of the 16pg's. I guess I will add some more fuel to the fire...check this link out: http://www.mallettcars.com/solstice-conversion.htm

You may not like the solstice or the sky, but you WILL learn to respect them. Can anyone imagine what a 600hp LS2 supercharged angine would feel like in a two seater roadster such as the sky or solstice. I sure in the hell can't. ****, I would leave the saturn emblems on and as someone is laughing and pointing at me I floor it and lay tread longer then great wall of china. All the while laughing at the sucker who just got smoked.

Don't get me wrong, I love the S2K, I have thought about buying one. Nothing shifts like it to my knowledge (so I have read and been told). I think they are an excellent car and look sick stock & especially when modded. Perhaps though it has had its time in the spotlight and the next best thing is around the corner.

For the record I have seen the Sky and Solstice at an auto show and they do in fact look better in person than some of the pic's being shown. I don't understand why everyone gets all worked up about a vehicle that hasn't either hit the market yet or has had any REAL testing to show there performance capabilities.

Well, that's my .02

 

The Red Bull Turbocharged 2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP Drift.:

This rear-wheel-drive beauty is powered by a race-modified version of the GXP’s 4-cylinder ECOtec 2.0L direct-injection engine, boosted up to provide 500 bhp for every drift and slide.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/28/pontiac-unveils-red-bull-solstice-gxp-drfiter-to-replace-gto/



Hi Res:

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/autoblog/videos/HiRezPics/SolsticeGXPDrift04.jpg

 

you know... i'm starting to really like car that just say nya nya with the chrome wheels. it's like when you knwo you got a bad *** race car, throw some chrome on there to mock everyone, HILARIOUS!

 

WRONG... its a Vauxhual

 

I don't like either car honestly...and I worked at Honda for 4 years. I was there when they were released and I still say the S2000 around town, drives like a civic. Revved out, still slow to me...guess I'm just used to boost.