RE: S2000's track attack
Discussion
In the US in 2004. Never here. I think it's recently been introduced in Japan too.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
Bada Bing! said:
In the US in 2004. Never here. I think it's recently been introduced in Japan too.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
Hardly, it's still a very revvy engine, but loosing 3bhp at the top an getting a bit more torque throught the rev range, is not a bad trade, in power terms.
As to if it's against the concept of the car, maybe, it's really a preferance thing
Edited by peter450 on Friday 6th April 07:41
You see, there is lots of people dissing this car, (and i have to agree the bodykit is ugly). but they have shaved 90lb's off an already relatively light car. They have ditched the power folding roof completely. and in its place that have welded a load of stiffening braces. I'm sure you can appreciate that that is the sort of things that need adding to increase the handling ability of convertibles. They claim the bodykit is 100% aerodynamically designed to provide downforce. How much that is true, who can say until its been driven.
but the main proof of the pudding for this car is the claimed 2second per lap quicker around their test track than the standard car.
2 seconds is quite an acheivement surely?
They aren't about to start changing the engines and getting type approval at this late stage in the product life cycle, ashame? perhaps. I've never driven a standard car so I've no idea how down on power it is. but for a 25k convertible I'm sure it fits in it's market quite well already.
Not tryin to start arguments, just felt like some extra things needed adding to the discussion...
but the main proof of the pudding for this car is the claimed 2second per lap quicker around their test track than the standard car.
2 seconds is quite an acheivement surely?
They aren't about to start changing the engines and getting type approval at this late stage in the product life cycle, ashame? perhaps. I've never driven a standard car so I've no idea how down on power it is. but for a 25k convertible I'm sure it fits in it's market quite well already.
Not tryin to start arguments, just felt like some extra things needed adding to the discussion...
peter450 said:
Bada Bing! said:
In the US in 2004. Never here. I think it's recently been introduced in Japan too.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
Hardly, it's still a very revvy engine, but loosing 3bhp at the top an getting a bit more torque throught the rev range, is not a bad trade, in power terms.
As to if it's against the concept of the car, maybe, it's really a preferance thing
yep, i recall that the reviews in US car magazines were very positive about the newer 2.2 engine - more 'Boxster' like etc. assuming it delivers 8%-10% more torque (and lower down) - i'd happily loses a few ponies (though i'm sure it produced the same bhp but 300rpm lower?). again, it's odd that the UK still gets the 2.0litre.
antiguabill said:
You see, there is lots of people dissing this car, (and i have to agree the bodykit is ugly). but they have shaved 90lb's off an already relatively light car. They have ditched the power folding roof completely. and in its place that have welded a load of stiffening braces. I'm sure you can appreciate that that is the sort of things that need adding to increase the handling ability of convertibles. They claim the bodykit is 100% aerodynamically designed to provide downforce. How much that is true, who can say until its been driven.
Not tryin to start arguments, just felt like some extra things needed adding to the discussion...
Not tryin to start arguments, just felt like some extra things needed adding to the discussion...
silk purse, sow's ear, etc
peter450 said:
Bada Bing! said:
In the US in 2004. Never here. I think it's recently been introduced in Japan too.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
The problem is with the stroke increase taking it to 2.2, they dropped the redline by 1100rpm, making it go to 8200, and it develops 3bhp less. All for a flatter torque curve, and an extra 6lb/ft.
They're slowly destroying the entire idea of the car.
Hardly, it's still a very revvy engine, but loosing 3bhp at the top an getting a bit more torque throught the rev range, is not a bad trade, in power terms.
As to if it's against the concept of the car, maybe, it's really a preferance thing
Edited by peter450 on Friday 6th April 07:41
The loss of 3bhp didn't bother me, but the loss of 1100rpm did. The S2000 isn't an S2000 until it bangs off the limiter at 9300rpm. chopping that down to just over 8krpm will take a lot away from the experience. The American press slated the car first time around because of its lack of torque, so they were bound to be more complimentary this time around.
It's just another compromise. The original MY99 car is everything that the S2000 stands for. Each "evolution" has only served to slowly erode that concept. I bet the replacement has an automatic gearbox and a metal roof.
cej said:
fido said:
But I like the idea of a stripped out version. The standard S2000 feels a bit bloated. It should murder a 118bhp Elise, but it doesn't because of all the unneccessary gadgets (electric roof).
How can it when the S2000 is 4-500kg heavier ? It's all about power to weight
My Elise weighs in at 730kg with a full tank of gas, the S2000 is more like 1250kg or perhaps even more.
The S2000 does murder the 118bhp Elise. It's power to weight is about 30bhp per tonne more. Not much difference 0-60 but 60-100 is about 4 secs quicker. Doesn't mean it's any more fun to drive though
I'm not surprised that Autocar were wrong. The 2.0L engine already holds the record for specific output for a production N/A engine, so it would be hard work to get more out of it. Realistically, Honda are not going to design an entirely new engine for one car, but they must have some lightweight V6s left over from the NSX? Even if they don't all the equipment will be in place. Getting it into a small car would be a bit of a job though. Remember, it is a small car, not a largeish GT, so talking about putting a V8 in seems a bit like overkill in my mind.
Elise99 said:
The S2000 does murder the 118bhp Elise.
It's a better seat as well.
RDE said:
. . .Honda are not going to design an entirely new engine for one car, . . . Getting - a V6 / V8 - into a small car would be a bit of a job though. Remember, it is a small car, not a largeish GT, so talking about putting a V8 in seems a bit like overkill in my mind.
Design a new car then!
Thaul said:
Beldrueger said:
mafioso said:
Yes cos the Americans sure need a good track car to really unleash their driving talent before anyone else!!
Thanks Fangio. What's with all the constant US bashing on these forums? You may be suprised to learn that this country is not a homogenous blob of NASCAR loving rednecks. Our strength is our diversity, yet the rest of the world seems to love the idea of "The American". There is no such person. With 5 times the population of your fair country, you might be suprised to find that their are quite a few enthusiasts over here, and with 38 times more land, you'll find more than just straight roads out here.
Couldn't have put it better. There's a large British car fanbase here in Seattle.
thanks. glad to know someone out there still feels the same way.
Elise99 said:
The S2000 does murder the 118bhp Elise. It's power to weight is about 30bhp per tonne more. Not much difference 0-60 but 60-100 is about 4 secs quicker. Doesn't mean it's any more fun to drive though
I agree that in a straight line, my S2000 was way faster than an early S1 Elise. But in the corners, the Elise was the one doing the murdering.
Hence why I bought the 111R. It has the power to weight to cope with anything I see day to day, and still has that cracking ability to dispense with corners that makes you laugh out loud.
To compete, the S2000 needs to lose about 240kg, not 40. People have achieved that on their own cars which they've converted for the track, but I don't think any of them have been road legal afterwards.
Edited by Bada Bing! on Monday 9th April 10:02
Edited by Bada Bing! on Monday 9th April 10:03
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff