2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by zero2sixty in 22secs, Jan 13, 2004.

  1. Re:

    What does driving well have to do with the S2000's increase of displacement?
     
  2. Re: Re:

    Let me keep this short, Honda have only made the displacement change IN NORTH AMERICA, which means that the S2000s there have 2.2L engines. IN other places, the S2000 still uses the same 2.0L engine. Honda made this change because it understands that american drivers tend to like torquey engines rather than high revving machines.
     
  3. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    damn it, why, i like the looks of the 04 S2000, but i still wish that we could've kept the 2.0L engin, in America.
     
  4. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    what are you talking about ? that what you say isn't correct, if they putted a little bit the revs down it's because it's a bigger engine, and they don't want to take the risk to go so far in revs...

    that is an excellent idea by honda.
    And I'm living in switzerland, there won't be a s2000 2.2L engine, but the "old" engine is very good.
     
  5. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    what i was saying was that i like the OLD engin better, but since we have the new engin i dont mind the torque, but i still would perfer the OLD engin...simply put it...if that makes any sense...
     
  6. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    Hello it is called a s2000 for a reason 2000 meaning 2000cc in other words a 2 litre engine!daaaa!
     
  7. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    umm...actually it's 1997cc, y not call it the s1997? no i dont think that the 2000 stands for the displacement of the engine. take the s600 for instance...
     
  8. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    ---
    umm...actually it's 1997cc, y not call it the s1997? no i dont think that the 2000 stands for the displacement of the engine.
    ---

    It is standard practice for car companies to round the displacement to the nearest convenient number. Very few engines in production today have displacement that exactly matches the commonly-used description.

    Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the S2000's engine is a 2.0 liter and 2000cc is another way of representing two liters.

    Also, the car was introduced in 2000, wasn't it?
     
  9. Re: Re:

    ---
    Honda wants to prove that having more torque does not mean faster acceleration.
    ---

    I doubt that since, as engineers, they know that isn't true - as does anyone who knows how horsepower is related to torque. More Torque DOES mean faster acceleration. More torque lower down means the engine is more flexible.

    The original S2000 engine was too closely in touch with its motorcycle roots for it to be a good engine in a 1250kg roadcar.

    They should have made a 3.0L I-6 instead and made the car a bit bigger. They could have had more power, plus rear seats and more boot space. Mazda has made billions by reinterpreting the Lotus Elan, Honda could have made billions by reinterpreting the E-type Jaguar.
     
  10. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    PIMP MOBILE CADDY is totally right, when I bout my motor trend mag and noticed that crap about boring the S2000 to lower the RPM range... what a jackass!!! how about 30 extra lb/ft and another 30 extra horsepower... why do USA people screw cool stuff? remember the old BMW's the bumper, SO UGLY AND BIG... and the european versions so nice looking... i dont know what tha f.uc.k... the only good thing they have done with import vehicles is with the USA Subaru Impreza WRX STi... increased engine size, increased horsepower and increased torque.... from a 2.0L 265hp to a 2.5L 300hp... thats nice....

    why dont they build for 2006 a Honda S2500? make your math with the hp per liter and with the torque.... it would come out a very nice thing.. its very nice alreadi indeed but if you want torque and just increase 200cc, and lower the RPM's, thats so stupid.
     
  11. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    ---
    when I bout my motor trend mag and noticed that crap about boring the S2000 to lower the RPM range... what a jackass!!!
    ---

    Actually, they didn't bore it, they stroked it. The bore in the 2.2 liter engine is the same at 87.0mm. The stroke was increased from 84.0mm to 90.7mm.

    They didn't to it to lower the RPM range, they did it to get more badly-needed torque from the engine. Not only did they increase the power output of the engine, but that extra power is delivered at lower RPMs so the engine will feel much stronger and the car much faster.

    That's a good thing, right?


    ---
    why dont they build for 2006 a Honda S2500? make your math with the hp per liter and with the torque.... it would come out a very nice thing
    ---

    And with a much lower redline than the existing engines. I thought you liked being able to rev it high. In order to keep the power AND the revs, they'd have to convert it to an I-6 engine instead of an I-4. To do that, they'd have to redesign the car practically from the ground up. I doubt they're going to do that.
     
  12. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    Would you honestly prefer a car that is less drivable in every day situations and has less acceleration just to be able to brag about the hp/ltr that your car has? I know that in Japan showing off how effecient of an engine you can make is cool, but in the U.S. it sucks getting taken off the line at a stop light by some guy that has an engine twice the size of yours. Its hard to convince the guy to go race on a winding road. If a minor engine change can increase performance I say it is all for the better. The WRX was outdone by the lancer EVO 8 and then subaru realized that just because they are making a rally car for the street doesn't mean they have to abide by the rules of World Rally Cross. They saw that there engine didn't have to be a 2.0 I4 turbo, so they made a 2.5L and put there car ahead of the competition. Producing a naturally aspirated car with hp/ltr numbers like the s2000 has is impressive, but when you have to compete with cars that have forced induction or more displacement in the same price range, you have to either did deep in the tech bag to pull out 150hp/ltr or try another approach. I thought it was a good idea increasing the displacement slightly. You have more torque, that 240 hp is available about 1,500rpm's sooner and I can't wait to see what aftermarket tuners will be able to do with the extra 0.2L as they seemed to have trouble getting significant performance gains from the current engine.
     
  13. Re: Re:

    It's true that when given the same gear ratios, a car with more torque at the low end would have a slight advantage. However, for S2000, this isn't the case since the gear ratios are different. Let's say for one a car, at 1st gear, it can rev to 6000rpm at a speed of 60km/h. But for the S2000, at 60km/h in 1st gear means 8000rpm. IF these 2 cars have the same weight and same hp, but the 1st car has more torque, then the time to go from 0 -60km/h should be the same. However, if someone modified the S2000's gear ratios, and changed the 1st gear so that at 6000rpm, it will do 60km/h, then the S2000 would take more time to get to that speed. I hope u guys understand wut im trying to say, sorry for my poor english.
     
  14. Re: Re:

    ---
    It's true that when given the same gear ratios, a car with more torque at the low end would have a slight advantage. However, for S2000, this isn't the case since the gear ratios are different. Let's say for one a car, at 1st gear, it can rev to 6000rpm at a speed of 60km/h. But for the S2000, at 60km/h in 1st gear means 8000rpm. IF these 2 cars have the same weight and same hp, but the 1st car has more torque, then the time to go from 0 -60km/h should be the same. However, if someone modified the S2000's gear ratios, and changed the 1st gear so that at 6000rpm, it will do 60km/h, then the S2000 would take more time to get to that speed. I hope u guys understand wut im trying to say, sorry for my poor english.
    ---

    I understand what you're trying to say - you're very clear. The problem is that there is a disadvantage to making the gear ratios shorter. In other words, when you set the car up so that it does the same speed at higher revs. It is better for acceleration, that is true, but is also is worse for driving ond distances. Look at the speed that the S2000 will do in top gear - 18mph for every 1000rpm. In order to get the car to cruise at the typical urban freeway speed limit in the US, the engine has to run at over 3,600 rpm. And in places where the speed limit is 80mph, the poor little engine will have to run at a constant 4400rpm. This is very bad.

     
  15. Re: Re:

    U have a point there, but I don't see a problem there, except it's kinda loud when ur up to speed. For the S2000. running at 4400rpm is like running at 2800rpm for other cars. The engine won't wear out faster than any other car (well, may be it would get worn out sooner than...let's say....a corolla). The stroke of the S2000 is very short, thus, the actual distance per minute that the piston has to travel isn't much longer than normal cars. I drive a CB7 (no not DB7..lol, but 4th gen Accord LX (DX in US)), at 62 mph in top gear, the engine runs at 3000rpm, when compaed with my camry (not v6), it's around 500rpm more. The engine is still running great without any problem even though it revs higher. And it certainly feels more powerful at any speeds, partly because the car is 500lbs lighter than the camry. But one problem, fuel economy is not that great.
     
  16. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    I have to agree with Jon that the same power at a lower rpm is better for the acceleration. The main number to look at is the street start. It is really hard to rev your car up to get a good launch. If you can get a decent acceleration by taking off without having to burn your tires so that the rpm's stay up, it is better for beating mustangs off the line time and again. If the light turns red and you have your car ready for a burn and lay down a thick patch and a lot of smoke only to look over and see the person wasn't racing you makes you look like a douche bag. If you take off normal and realize the other guy is racing and are still able to take him then he looks like the douche. I hate being the ass at the light that always has to pove myself to the next guy, but I hate losing to an ass like that even worse. The new engine gives better everyday driving and a better street start without giving up its high rev launch capabilities. The torque isn't so overwhelming that you can't keep from burning up your tires. You just get your power sooner.
     
  17. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    The most likely reason for the bigger engine is that America has stricter emissions laws. So the American version of the 2.0 litre engine is probably weaker than in other countries. Besides what is wrong with torque? If I wanted a motorcycle engine I would buy a motorcycle not a car.

    I think this car would be really good if the weight was down to around 2000lbs or lower. Then it would be a real killer, as oppose to just being a better value than the Z4, Boxter and TT. But unless the TSX gets the 240hp Accord V6 this is the only Honda I would consider purchasing, even though I wouldn't buy it.
     
  18. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    Exactly!
    ----------------------
    "Would you honestly prefer a car that is less drivable in every day situations and has less acceleration just to be able to brag about the hp/litre that your car has?"
    ----------------------
    No, I don't know who these people are exactly. Unless everyone lives in the mid-west where there is a population density of 1 person per 50 square miles when they don't have to ever stop/go, there is no reason.

    I think everyone would agree that a good sports car should be easily drivable in traffic but can still perform really well on a track/road course, drag strip, whatever you use to gauge a sports car. Car companies should build more cars with that duality. I doubt anyone could stand a track car toned down for the street, like the S2000, for more than a week in everyday conditions.
     
  19. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    Yes, I believe the S2000’s engine is weaker in north America, but not by much, around 5hp less than the Japanese S2000. That’s not really noticeable. There’s nothing wrong with more torque, it’s just that people in Europe and asia are satisfied with the torque produced by the 2.0L engine. And this engine has won the Best engine award,

    Well, the S2000 was designed to compete with boxster, TT, and Z4. And it’s doing well, too.
     
  20. Re: Re:

    ---
    U have a point there, but I don't see a problem there, except it's kinda loud when ur up to speed. For the S2000. running at 4400rpm is like running at 2800rpm for other cars.
    ---

    Yeah, I should have been more clear. When I said 18mph/1000rpm was bad, I meant it was bad for the occupants of the car, not necessarily for the engine. I would expect that Honda engine to cheerfully do well over 100,000 miles without major service even if you were to constantly thrash it to within an inch of its life.

    However, the constant drone of the engine at 4400rpm when you're driving on a motorway that it makes the car deeply unpleasant to use as a daily driver if you're spending a lot of time on motorways. If I'm going to drive with earplugs in, I'd rather have a Lotus Elise.


     
  21. Re: Re:

    That's true, but i dun't think anyone would buy that car if they don't like the sound of the engine. Just like the Lotus Elise, it's known for its handling. But, the ride is quite harsh when compared with the S2000, to some people, they will not buy it because of its harshness.
     
  22. Re: Re:

    You don't know the saying "too much of a good thing"
     
  23. Re: 2004 S2000...? 2.2L engin

    Honda has been putting 2L engines in many of their cars. The S2000 was kind of a gimick car in that they tuned that muched used engine to produce more hp/L than any other naturally aspirated car. At the time it made it a good value since they didn't have to do the research and developement for a new engine configuration to produce a sporty roadster. With the competition on the market using much higher output engines and with the complaints of low torque, Honda had to come up with a quick fix to keep sales up. Stroking the current engine was an easy way to keep sales up. Now that the gimick of the 120hp/L has worn off they are going to have to eventually develope a whole new engine if they want to keep this car competitive in the market place. I don't think that sacrificing torque for higher output/L is the way they can go if they are going to impress anyone. There is a saying that if you overspecialize you breed in weakness. The Lotus elise and S2000 are coming close to doing this. Keeping weight low by using a small engine is one approach but the Corvette Z06 pulls about 1g on the skid pad also and has only about 7.7lbs to move with each hp compared to 10lbs per hp in the lotus elise. If honda can drop a 3L 300hp engine in the S2000 (or the NSX for that matter) without skyrocketing the cost then they have a chance of producing another car that can be respected with the other new cars coming on the market that would also be drivable day to day. Otherwise you are going to see it lumped in with Mazdaspeed Miatas in comparos in the mags if they are going to be picked as a winner. I haven't read an article in a while that a test drive comparo has went to the S2000,
     
  24. Re: Re:

    Lol, may be, Im still young....
     
  25. Re: Re:

    Dude go for it. If you love having an engine with a super high redline that you have to drive like you hate it all the time to get performance from it, more power to you. I can see your point. I myself like cars with a smooth power band and torque, but to each his own. If everyone liked the same thing then there would only be one car on the road. The problem is that you seem to be in the minority in your opinion and Honda thinks sales will improve with the new, easier to drive model. You can argue the point all day but it was an executive decision on a sports car which always ticks enthusiasts off. All you have to do is decide which engine you prefer and either buy a new or used S2000. If you aren't planning on buying one or the other, then it appears that the execs at Honda know what they are doing and are trying to appeal to the people that are in the market for the car.
     

Share This Page