Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This M5 goes down hard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    This M5 goes down hard

    to Steve Dinan's S2 M5....this is amazing!



    M5 vs. Dinan S2 M5 (http://www.vreracing.com/Bmw/dinans2.wmv)



    This e36 M3 spanks an S2000...I think the M3 is supercharged cause he wails on this S2K.



    M3 vs. S2000 (http://www.streetlegalhonda.nl/slhsitev4/multimedia.php?dir=movies/nonhonda/&file=m3_vs_s2000.mpeg)

    #2
    can;t get the M3 one.. must be on a honda forum..

    Comment


      #3
      ok now try

      Comment


        #4
        That M3 is probably stock. You have to remember that the S2000 has no low end and that wasn't exactly a hard lanch by either. The S2000 is quick, but not quicker than our fine automobiles.

        Comment


          #5
          96M3Power...im well aware of the S2000's capabilities (See Sig below )



          no way a stock M3 would pull THAT much on a stock S2000. That S2000 driver was gunning it too. he was at 83+mph when the M3 driver let off

          Comment


            #6
            dang, in the first run with the M5's, when the S2 hits second...wow. i want one

            Comment


              #7
              i don't know man.. those S2000's don't have very good low end torque.. when running against one (had an exhaust for sure.. new rims.. maybe some other stuff).. he had his girl in the car.. me too.. i was able to track him down from behind.. it was hard to tell when he was gunning it though.. cause the torque is so low in comparison.. i would bet money that my M3 would jump out to a lead like that though.. no ?... how much torque does an S2000 have? ours are rated at 236.. but it is more than that.. for sure..

              Comment


                #8
                oh yeah definitely the M3 should win the majority of the time with equal drivers. Only 156lb/ ft in the S2000, but no way is it that big of a difference between the two cars that it is in that video.



                also, gotta figure in that the S2000 weighs 400 lbs less than the M3...Therefore doesnt need as much torque to get it moving....



                so what im basically saying is the S2000 CAN be as fast as the e36 M3

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Black328iS

                  oh yeah definitely the M3 should win the majority of the time with equal drivers. Only 156lb/ ft in the S2000, but no way is it that big of a difference between the two cars that it is in that video.



                  also, gotta figure in that the S2000 weighs 400 lbs less than the M3...Therefore doesnt need as much torque to get it moving....



                  yeah but u have an 80lb/ft of torque difference.. thats HUGE.. it also depends whether the S2000 was grabbing or not.. if it was spinnin then it was an easy win.. but 80lbs/ft is alot.. they do say that 100lbs makes a .1s difference in the quarter.. but in a 0-80.. i don't know.. it looked like the real deal.. whats an S2000 run in the quarter? speed? off the line i woul bet that an M3 would devour an S2000 like that though..

                  Comment


                    #10
                    still have to remember that the s2000 is a dog at lower rpms where the m3 isn't. That kind of jump is possible easily with a stock m3 seeing as the race was basically from a roll. In first gear you floor it in the m3 and s2000 at 5 mph or less and your gunna be waiting a bit longer for the s2000 to kick in. By that time the M3 has taken its lead. It could be a close race from a roll that would be in the 2k's powerband, but from a virtual roll like that its toast, just like in the video. I like the s2000, its got a great engine in it, but it lacks in the low end. I think they fixed that by bigger displacement and lower redline now.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      S2000 runs 14.4 in the qm

                      M3 runs 13.9 to 14.2.



                      edit: the 95 m3 runs 14.5

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by 96M3Power

                        S2000 runs 14.4 in the qm

                        M3 runs 13.9 to 14.2.



                        edit: the 95 m3 runs 14.5



                        thats why i think this lead is possible.. i ran a 13.98.. and theres no tellin what the distance difference is in .4 secs.. ya never know..

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Black328iS

                          96M3Power...im well aware of the S2000's capabilities (See Sig below )



                          no way a stock M3 would pull THAT much on a stock S2000. That S2000 driver was gunning it too. he was at 83+mph when the M3 driver let off



                          ahahahaha, this is a joke right.. right after i got my CAI, exhaust, and my dinan stage 2, my friends friend in his s2000 asked to race.. he has minor bolt ons on his S.. so we race.. oh god i smoked the **** out of him, he even churped 3rd gear.. by the time we were doing 100 i was good 9-10 cars ahead of him... there is no way in hell and s can keep up with the M, not even with stock...

                          Comment


                            #14
                            ive seen sub 14 sec 1/4 mile times for stock S2000's.



                            i dont know why im even debating this. i mean you guys obviously know everything about these cars cause you read all the magazines...i only OWN BOTH CARS! lol geez. i think i know what both are capable of. Dont get me wrong. I have a total bias towards the M3 and i if i came down to selling one car, the S2000 would be gone without even thinking about selling the M. Im just saying, i know firsthand what the S2000 is capable of. Especially by comparison to the M3.



                            I never even said the S2000 was faster than the M3. All i ever said was that there is not a 4 car difference between the two like that.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              You may have seen sub 14 second stock s2000 times, I imagine thats probably with slicks, an incredible launch, and a great driver. However, in this particular race there were no slicks, nor was there a great launch. Only possibly a great driver, but we don't know that for sure. Going with a good launch it would have been a closer race... still its all about the launch in this race. There was none. Let it rest, the s2000 has no power in the low end, I know cause I've driven them, its like driving a wrx, if your too low in the rpms it struggles till it can get the turbo spooled up. And I know the S2k doesn't have a turbo, but the powerband feels like it does because the power doesn't come in full blast till you get into the revs. The M3 does not have that problem.



                              However, I do have an idea. You live in Lancaster, I'm in State College. We'll meet up sometime and videotape a race of the s2000 against my m3 or your m3. Mine is less modified than yours. I've got the chip and just some mods to the air box. We'll run them and settle this topic once and for all! hehe. I challenge you to a duel! Or else we could just meet, hang out, shoot the ****, talk about our cars, go cruising around, etc :P

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X