RE: Will Honda replace the S2000?
Discussion
skibum said:
Beefmeister said:
Doesn't that kind of ruin the whole point of the S2000?
Its all about the engine!
Its all about the engine!
The man is talking sense. I doubt they will release it with over the "agreed" 286 bhp limit anyway. I think it doesnt need much more power than that anyway. Whilst the engine is definately superb and rightly touted as its main party piece, many people dont realise how brilliant the chassis is and how sublime the handling is in dry conditions - The car can really hustle from A to B very quickly (just dont try too hard in the wet or it'll bite). If you mess around with the formula and stick in a heavy, lazy, high capacity engine it'll turn it into a straight line drag monster that will plough straight on in the corners.
...and who needs Torque anyway! If you want Torque - get a diesel!
As the man said - " you want torque; get a diesel". Lots of lovely torque at low revs. Yummy. However, do agree that the engine is a big part of the S2000's appeal. Who knows, maybe we'll get an uprated, (i.e. torquier), 2.2 diesel in the next generation.
qube_TA said:
Personally although it's a nice looking thing the high revving engine is a big turn off, nothing worse than listening to a screamer on a long journey, it's like that RX-8, cool car but you just couldn't live with that engine, life's too short to wait until you're at 8000 RPM's and finally have some power.
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
If you had driven one, you'd know the gear ratio's are excellent, and 70mph in 6th is only about 2000rpm and virtually silent. People make assumptions about cars but until you actually drive them you'll never know what they're like.
The engine for me is as close to a race car engine as you can have. I don't find in-car footage of an F1 or Touring Car a turn off when they're blasting through the revs. Quite the opposite in fact. It makes you feel alive, that you're working with the car, rather than it doing all the work and all you're doing is just stepping on a pedal.
Edited by Bada Bing! on Thursday 8th June 08:00
dinkel said:
harristc said:
Just out of interest, why is everyone obsessed with a huge engine?! I mean 0-60 in 6.2 secs is quick enough for everyday road use isn't it!? Shouldn't we be more interested in how the new model may look etc...?
A 3.5 V6 isn't a huge engine . . . 300 over 250 hp isn't that big increase in power . . . . torque will be available below 6k revs
Have you seen the S2000 engine though? It's about the same size as a ford 1.6! I personally think if they were to do an engine swap at all, it would need to be with a Honda bike engine. But the car isn't light enough to benefit, I don't think.
As read above - driving a (small) Honda myself - I know they can make compact engines, and yes: it is huge fun to switch gears and work a bit when driving. The S2000 is one of those underrated classics of our time. Appreciation comes with the years, but at launch many were seceptic about it. It's a car that can be driven in a relaxed and a fierce mode and anything in between. Perfect. Making an Mk2 with a slight increase in power and the necessarily mods ain't gonna do it in today's world. The NSX is done, the roadster thingy is reasonable hot so a slightly bigger S3500 will do the trick IMO. With current hitech materials such a car would weigh about a 100 kgs more . . . and perform like stink.
We'll see.
I think your slightly out on the revs at 70mph Bada. Its more like 3.5k on my car.
If you had driven one, you'd know the gear ratio's are excellent, and 70mph in 6th is only about 2000rpm and virtually silent. People make assumptions about cars but until you actually drive them you'll never know what they're like.
The engine for me is as close to a race car engine as you can have. I don't find in-car footage of an F1 or Touring Car a turn off when they're blasting through the revs. Quite the opposite in fact. It makes you feel alive, that you're working with the car, rather than it doing all the work and all you're doing is just stepping on a pedal.
Bada Bing! said:
qube_TA said:
Personally although it's a nice looking thing the high revving engine is a big turn off, nothing worse than listening to a screamer on a long journey, it's like that RX-8, cool car but you just couldn't live with that engine, life's too short to wait until you're at 8000 RPM's and finally have some power.
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
If you had driven one, you'd know the gear ratio's are excellent, and 70mph in 6th is only about 2000rpm and virtually silent. People make assumptions about cars but until you actually drive them you'll never know what they're like.
The engine for me is as close to a race car engine as you can have. I don't find in-car footage of an F1 or Touring Car a turn off when they're blasting through the revs. Quite the opposite in fact. It makes you feel alive, that you're working with the car, rather than it doing all the work and all you're doing is just stepping on a pedal.
Edited by Bada Bing! on Thursday 8th June 08:00
There definitely are some interesting comments on here. Some people really don't get the whole ethos behind the S2000, and some others need to drive it.
I am on my second S2000, owned my last for 3 years / 46k miles. Its an awesome car, and there is no other roadster that can match it for value, performance and reliability.
The F20C has won the Engine of the Year award for its class every single year since its release in 1999.
Someone mentioned that it was uneconmical??? Heh? It will return 30mpg+ on a motorway cruise and has a combined 28mpg.
What's the facination with a huge heavy engine? It would add far too much weight. The S2000 weighs in at a mere 1275kg. Try comparing that to a lardy 350Z roadster weighing in at more than 1600kg with it's 3.5 litre.
Dave King
- The S2000 has got LED lights from 2004 onwards
- The new seats in the 06 stop wind flow, as they do not have the same headrests
Is there another roadster out there that can provide the same level of practicality, reliability, perfomance, handling and fun for the money?
0-60 = 5.6 secs / 0-100 = 14.5 secs (figures from AutoCar)
I am on my second S2000, owned my last for 3 years / 46k miles. Its an awesome car, and there is no other roadster that can match it for value, performance and reliability.
The F20C has won the Engine of the Year award for its class every single year since its release in 1999.
Someone mentioned that it was uneconmical??? Heh? It will return 30mpg+ on a motorway cruise and has a combined 28mpg.
What's the facination with a huge heavy engine? It would add far too much weight. The S2000 weighs in at a mere 1275kg. Try comparing that to a lardy 350Z roadster weighing in at more than 1600kg with it's 3.5 litre.
Dave King
- The S2000 has got LED lights from 2004 onwards
- The new seats in the 06 stop wind flow, as they do not have the same headrests
Is there another roadster out there that can provide the same level of practicality, reliability, perfomance, handling and fun for the money?
0-60 = 5.6 secs / 0-100 = 14.5 secs (figures from AutoCar)
qube_TA said:
Personally although it's a nice looking thing the high revving engine is a big turn off, nothing worse than listening to a screamer on a long journey, it's like that RX-8, cool car but you just couldn't live with that engine, life's too short to wait until you're at 8000 RPM's and finally have some power.
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
MPG's always terrible too.
Matthew
What complete b*ll*cks.
Never driven an S2000 have you?
I have - I own one.
Only last weekend it returned 32mpg on a 90mph cruise from Bristol to N.Yorks - so makes your claims about economy seem somewhat false (and that was in 'high drag' configuration i.e. roof down too!). Not bad considering that 90mph=~5000rpm.
Considering the revs it pulling the engine is also suprisingly quiet on a cruise (both wind noise and tyre roar being far more dominant).
Once you understand how to use the engine/gearbox combination, there is useful power across the entire rev range - it's just that in VTEC there is so much more urge that it makes pre-VTEC 'appear' poor. It isn't.
Name a normially aspirated 2litre with more torque...or power in mass production. I'll make it easy for you - you won't be able to.
Factor in the light weight and excellent gearing and you have one of the most accomplished drivetrains on sale today operating in an environment to which it is perfectly suited.
You don't know what you are missing out on.
Andy
From my experience the S2k is great when you're out driving in isolation, working the engine/gearbox combo as the road dictates, t'is pure heaven.
However something along the lines of an S2.5k or S3k v6 of similar design but with just a bit more grunt lower down the rev range (but definitely still keeping the awesome top end!!) would enhance the package, make overtaking a tad easier, rather than having to hold a cog for long periods with the engine spinning at 6k and waiting to pounce. Would also enhance the aural please NSX stylee.
Bloody good steer though all the same.
However something along the lines of an S2.5k or S3k v6 of similar design but with just a bit more grunt lower down the rev range (but definitely still keeping the awesome top end!!) would enhance the package, make overtaking a tad easier, rather than having to hold a cog for long periods with the engine spinning at 6k and waiting to pounce. Would also enhance the aural please NSX stylee.
Bloody good steer though all the same.
Edited by foggy on Thursday 8th June 13:22
moffat and 320td have it. 
I also own an S2000...and I acknowledge the engine is an acquired taste - with VTEC you MUST use the gearbox, and I think the cam-change is a little too high up the rev-range and too extreme, all of which make it more of an effort to drive than a turbo or a big-cube engine...and some people don't like that. I find my TDCi Focus a lot easier to cruise in than the S, for example.
Oh...I posted a little while ago about how good a replacement S3000, or even an S2500 would be...same type of engine, just more cubes, more torque...and maybe a slightly lower rev-limit and lower cam-change point. Would have to be a 5- or 6-pot, preferably I-6 not V6, but would affect the weight distribution a bit. But would make it a bit more flexible and accessible to more people, without robbing it of any/much character...and 250-300bhp with torque, in a lightweight body, would be a real alternative to the Boxster-S and Z4M!!! Hell, TVR too, probably.
...bring it on!!!
I also own an S2000...and I acknowledge the engine is an acquired taste - with VTEC you MUST use the gearbox, and I think the cam-change is a little too high up the rev-range and too extreme, all of which make it more of an effort to drive than a turbo or a big-cube engine...and some people don't like that. I find my TDCi Focus a lot easier to cruise in than the S, for example.
Oh...I posted a little while ago about how good a replacement S3000, or even an S2500 would be...same type of engine, just more cubes, more torque...and maybe a slightly lower rev-limit and lower cam-change point. Would have to be a 5- or 6-pot, preferably I-6 not V6, but would affect the weight distribution a bit. But would make it a bit more flexible and accessible to more people, without robbing it of any/much character...and 250-300bhp with torque, in a lightweight body, would be a real alternative to the Boxster-S and Z4M!!! Hell, TVR too, probably.
...bring it on!!!
dinkel said:
Havoc, I'm glad someone see's a point in this.
A V6 isn't that bigger to the 4pot. See VAGs VR6 . . .
A V6 isn't that bigger to the 4pot. See VAGs VR6 . . .
without being too anal, the VR6 is not a 'V6' in the truest sense of the word. it's an inline-6 with slightly offset cylinders i.e. 2 camshafts (not 4), exhaust and intake on opposite sides (as per inline), and a rocker mechanism to operate the offset valves (which would rule out the possiblity of an VTEC-VR6, me thinks?). a 5/6 cylinder S2000 would be nice though.
dinkel said:
Havoc, I'm glad someone see's a point in this.
Sort of. I wouldn't want to see the S2000 become a Z4 clone, though. I still think it should be pitched at the hardcore end of the market, and should remain as lightweight as possible (difficult with modern regs), but just with a couple of the rough edges smoothed off (like they did for the US market with the stroked 2.2l F-series).
If I had to change my car at all, I'd adjust the following:-
- Steering needs more feel - I'm told strut-braces help here. It's not Audi-inert, but it's not as good as it should be.
- Drop VTEC point by 500rpm, even if the rev-limit has to drop a bit too.
- Increase the power a bit on the 'low' cam, which using iVTEC would be a piece of cake. Increasing the cubes here too will give the most fantastic 'affordable' engine...IMHO it needs the mid-range thickening up somewhat, the top-end need only keep pace with any weight increase.
- Increased break-away progression at the rear...although preferably not through 'softening' the geometry and giving understeer first. Be better to reduce the limits slightly, perhaps through less rear camber.
- Maybe a bigger rear wind-deflector.
- Move accelerator inboard a bit - little too far away for easy H&T.
And in all honesty, that's all it needs - tweaks, not fundamental changes. A tonneau cover or a lined hood are just weight and space, although some buyers may prefer them, the transmission and brakes are exceptional when warm, the interior, esp. on the '04s and later, is more than good enough, and it still looks better than most (all?) of the competition.
moffat said:
Actually, for a n/a 2.0 litre petrol engine the S2000 has a very high amount of torque.
Agreed. Another misconception about the S is that the engine is low on torque. AFAIK it still has more torque than any other 2 litre, and if anything has come out in the last few months that beats it, the vast difference in horsepower will more than balance out a couple of lb/ft.
They need to come up with something like this:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=160108
74kg V8 that makes from 320-380bhp and revs like a motorbike
It definitely needs more power, the game has moved on since 1999.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=160108
74kg V8 that makes from 320-380bhp and revs like a motorbike
It definitely needs more power, the game has moved on since 1999.
Neil_H said:
They need to come up with something like this:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=160108
74kg V8 that makes from 320-380bhp and revs like a motorbike
It definitely needs more power, the game has moved on since 1999.
Except that is race-tech and will need bike-intervals of servicing...making it unsuitable for an everyday road-car. www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=160108
74kg V8 that makes from 320-380bhp and revs like a motorbike
It definitely needs more power, the game has moved on since 1999.
The game HASN'T moved on significantly since 1999 - there is still no production car with a higher specific output in a NA engine than the S2000...at least until the 997 GT3RS is released, which is a class or two above. Moreover, while the BHP wars are in full-flow, most new cars are much heavier, so the bhp/tonne hasn't moved much either, the exception being the 350Z, which has been built down to a price around a very capable engine.
Having said that, any replacement S2k does need a notably thicker mid-range, but mainly because it's competing against 2.7, 3.0, 3.5 and FI cars.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff