Cure for the S2000's lack of torque/power

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by Spyder757, Sep 8, 2007.

  1. I'd still buy one.
     
  2. I don't get it. I you have the same shape of torque-curve and the same amount of power, the gearbox solves all torque problems. What is this obsession of viewing torque whitout correlation to gearing? Torque alone doesn't say anything about how hard you can accelerate.
     
  3. Ever51 is generally an idiot and you can frown all you want but he's right this time.

    Ferrari would still be cool if it was high revving or if it was turbo charged. The F40 & F50 are both awesome cars.

    And rednecks have been building high revving engines in their backyards for decades. Destroked 351s generally run through the traps in the upper 8,000rpm range.

    Hell wayyyyyy back in 1969 the Camaro Z28 with the 302 & Cross Ram intake manifolds redlined at 7,200rpms and made some 458hp in the process. Honda thought driving the rear wheels with chains was high tech back then.

    Who gives a shit that it has a 9,000rpm redline when it's only making any real power for a 3,000 span in the first place. It's got the gas mileage of a 405hp LS2 while making a fraction of a the power. There is absolutely no advantage to this engine.
     
  4. I'm not sticking up for the S2000's engine. In fact, on evolutionm.net I just finished ripping on it because of an article posted on s2ki.com that said the S2000 had a phenomenal engine while the Evo's 4G63 is a tuner Corolla engine.

    But to compare what rednecks build in their backyards to what manufacturers mass produce is just ridiculous. There is much more that manufacturers have to consider than revs/power, unlike rednecks who can just rebuild the engine every week if something should go wrong.
     
  5. The only selling point the S2000 fanbois ever seem to have was teh redline. They whined like little girls when it got a 0.2 liter bump in displacement because it lost some of it's redline. Yet the end result was a faster car. They didn't care, it was still about the redline
     
  6. I get liking a high-revving engine, but they have no room to talk shit about other performance engines, especially when those engines crush their beloved VTAK.

    How much would an LSx swap with transmission run anyway? I'd love to do it someday.
     
  7. Spyder: Have you driven an S2000? I have, and the engine suits the car.
     
  8. i sure hope he has a T56 in there, the stock trans and diff and clutch would be gone in a half hour if it was hooked to an LS1.
     
  9. "It's got the gas mileage of a 405hp LS2 while making a fraction of a the power."


    LY7 of 263 bhp also has the gas mileage of a 405hp LS2, what's your point?
     
  10. Tell us why.
     
  11. My whole point with it being "real world" shit that actually matters is that an engine doesn't have to rev high to be impressive and get the job done. Anyone who is impressed by high revving just happens to like high revving engines for whatever reason. It's not something that actually really makes a car any better in anything objective.
     
  12. I never understood those Honda fanboys anyway. The only thing they care about is how far the needle could go into the redline on a 230hp S2000 with 156 foot pound of torque. In terms of performance on most autos you aren’t making anymore power, you’re just beating the hell out of the motor and making the engine weaker each time you redline it 400RPM over. In the "real world" those Honda Fanboys would never race heads up motor to motor with a car with an (LOW TECH LS-1) in it.
     
  13. "In terms of performance on most autos you aren’t making anymore power, you’re just beating the hell out of the motor and making the engine weaker each time you redline it 400RPM over." Isn't the S2000 considered to be one of the most reliable cars in most countrys?

    "In the "real world" those Honda Fanboys would never race heads up motor to motor with a car with an (LOW TECH LS-1) in it." So you're comparing two engine, in which one of them has almost three time the displacement. A very intelligent argument.
     
  14. It is fairly obvious that the S2000's high redline and hp/l figures were for marketing purposes only by how quick the 2.2l version came out.
     
  15. 5 years <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/disappointed.gif"></A>

    and still no 2.2 in Europe
     
  16. Honda 2l NA >>>>>>>> any other 2l NA in the world

    that's why it is impressive.If you combine that with its very good reliability you have a very impressive engine.

    Sure,it would look like shit if I compare it to the M3 engine for example.But is it smart?..ehr,no?
     
  17. For some reason I was thinking 3 years, but it is 4 years after intro in America.
     
  18. Isn’t an LS-1 just as reliable? Doesn’t the LS-1 get better mph while making a hell of allot more power too? I have heard many Honda fanboys talk crap about LS-1s and second and third generation 350s saying their unreliable gas hogs. Those motors out perform anything Honda has in its sports car line up as well as most other Japanese sports cars in terms of Hp and Mpg.
     
  19. ok,my bad (I was thinking 1999-2004)

    But you know that's like saying that the 7 speed gear box of the M5 was for marketing purposes only because now there's a 6 speed manual in America.
     
  20. No and no.
     
  21. No, because you are comparing the 7 speed SMG to a regular manual. The 6 speed manual is not better or equal in every single to the 7 speed SMG. The 2.2l version is just better in every way to the 2.0l version.

    Of course the 6 speed manual M5 is because of marketing. In Europe the paddle shifters have a strong connection to F1. Since F1 is not as popular in the US, there is no marketing connection between BMW F1 and the M5/6.

    It is a strange thing indeed when America gets the manual version and not europe.
     
  22. My have a friend that has an LS-1 Vette and you no what? It has 100,000+ miles on it and its never broken down engine or powertrain. I have full faith that it will blow the doors off an S2000 fresh from the factory.
     
  23. I could say that the 2.2l was for marketing because Americans want torque.

    If the 2.2l was really better why aren't they selling it everywhere? It still has very high specific outputs.
     
  24. It's the same talk from the GM fanboys like yourself that their engines are better than anyone else.

    Also I didn't compared compared the reliability of the S2000 to any other car. You're the one that stated that the car was flawed in that area, when it's a utter lie. And whether you like it or not, Honda made a great achievement to produce 240bhp from a 2.0 NA.
     
  25. LS engines are better than everything else.
     

Share This Page