<![CDATA[s2000 turbo]]>Picts are of a s2000 we turboed... 307whp on a stock motor tuned with a Aem ems
By the way im headed to aem for the advanced training feb 2nd.legacy image
legacy image

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/1405/s2000-turboRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 09:01:31 GMTSun, 23 Jan 2005 03:33:55 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:42:36 GMT]]>

adog wrote:
Somebody needs to tell Tony this would be cooler than his Comptech blower. 😄 Well, somebody besides me.

i will try , but i don't think it will do any good though

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28143https://fargostreet.com/post/28143Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:42:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:05:28 GMT]]>Somebody needs to tell Tony this would be cooler than his Comptech blower. 😄 Well, somebody besides me.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28103https://fargostreet.com/post/28103Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:05:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:36:17 GMT]]>crazy 65 year old asian mix person

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28082https://fargostreet.com/post/28082Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:36:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:03:57 GMT]]>speaking of s2000's, does anybody know if theyre going to upgrade the s2000 anymore in the 2006 models? i know they made a boost from 2.0 to 2.2 and that increased the torque a bit so you wouldnt have to rev the car so much to get it going. My dads dream car is the s2000. he still drives like a mad man for being 65. anyways just curious if anybody knows

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28076https://fargostreet.com/post/28076Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:03:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:27:19 GMT]]>

92TSIpos wrote:
DO IT. turbo the baby jellybean!!!!

As soon as Nick perfects one for his car then I'll jump on the wagon.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28062https://fargostreet.com/post/28062Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:27:19 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:38:13 GMT]]>hey.... is there a graph for the s2k? curious to see the powerband...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/28051https://fargostreet.com/post/28051Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:38:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:47:50 GMT]]>

92TSIpos wrote:
DO IT. turbo the baby jellybean!!!!

i think it would be cool to do it

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26173https://fargostreet.com/post/26173Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:47:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:40:23 GMT]]>

PSI2HI wrote:
Wes, i do have some miata head flanges!

DO IT. turbo the baby jellybean!!!!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26164https://fargostreet.com/post/26164Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:40:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:34:39 GMT]]>

integra_gsr98 wrote:
Dude, once again...

BOOST IS FUCKING BOOST.
Don't matter if it's red, black, blue, or green. Vortech, Garret, Paxton, whatever, positive manifold pressure, is positive manifold pressure.

And adding a turbo kit and gaining 100+ whp, compared to pulling the motor, putting in new pistons, intake, header, and exhaust, for 12+ whp isn't really worth it.

i'm referring to the nature of the car; the s2000 was built to be a superior-handling, quick car.
in my opinion, any turbo lag will change that. if one were to use a sc, the lag would be less noticeable (keep in mind, i have limited sc knowledge). this is why i feel that n/a is the way to go with the s2000 if it is going to be turning a lot (as i mentioned in the previous post).
also, my statements are completely independent of my opinions on how to make a car faster in a straight-line. does that make more sense now?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26118https://fargostreet.com/post/26118Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:34:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:55:40 GMT]]>

92TSIpos wrote:
Turbo with custom sls manifold 😄

Wes, i do have some miata head flanges!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26108https://fargostreet.com/post/26108Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:55:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:37:24 GMT]]>s2000 only weighs about 2800lbs

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26106https://fargostreet.com/post/26106Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:37:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:17:20 GMT]]>

weshole wrote:
My convertible is 2150 lbs fully dressed. I think thats pretty light. Now I just need another 200hp.

Turbo with custom sls manifold 😄

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26103https://fargostreet.com/post/26103Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:17:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:06:28 GMT]]>

spoolude wrote:
i dont think of light car when i think of a convertable.

My convertible is 2150 lbs fully dressed. I think thats pretty light. Now I just need another 200hp.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26100https://fargostreet.com/post/26100Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:06:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:06:07 GMT]]>

spoolude wrote:
i dont think of light car when i think of a convertable.

My convertible is 2150 lbs. I think thats pretty light. Now I just need another 200hp.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26099https://fargostreet.com/post/26099Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:06:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:38:22 GMT]]>looks good, is that a custom kit?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26097https://fargostreet.com/post/26097Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:38:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:24:18 GMT]]>

stephen bradley wrote:
317 in that light car, she should really fly.
i dont think of light car when i think of a convertable.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26084https://fargostreet.com/post/26084Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:24:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:03:27 GMT]]>317 in that light car, she should really fly.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26065https://fargostreet.com/post/26065Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:03:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:17:05 GMT]]>Shop is Excessive Autosports in Sioux Falls. We still haven't figured out who the bald guy is yet though. 🙂

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26064https://fargostreet.com/post/26064Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:17:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:16:47 GMT]]>

excessive wrote:
Picts are of a s2000 we turboed... 307whp on a stock motor tuned with a Aem ems
By the way im headed to aem for the advanced training feb 2nd.legacy image
legacy image

Who is we? Is this a shop or something I don't know about?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26062https://fargostreet.com/post/26062Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:16:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:12:02 GMT]]>so anyways, very cool mods, bet it sounds badass..... vtec + turbo = wood

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26061https://fargostreet.com/post/26061Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:12:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:11 GMT]]>If flow numbers are similar then psi for psi should be close.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26058https://fargostreet.com/post/26058Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:39:29 GMT]]>yeah i suppose if you want to get into detail,but if you match volume of the turbo and sc it should be about the same?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26053https://fargostreet.com/post/26053Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:39:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:33:56 GMT]]>Well, sortof. The volume of air being moved @ 9 psi will vary the amount of hp being generated. For instance an s2k with a t25 @ 25 psi will make less power than an s2k with a t3/t67 @ 5 psi.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26050https://fargostreet.com/post/26050Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:33:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to s2000 turbo on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:20:08 GMT]]>you are correct sir

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/26041https://fargostreet.com/post/26041Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:20:08 GMT