Cure for the S2000's lack of torque/power

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

  1. yes and yes, actually. Show me an S2000 that makes 505bhp and gets 27mpg.

    this could go on for years, ahahahahahaha
  2. But let's choose a GM engine in the league of the F20C engine, the LY7. It has a considerably worse gas mileage than an F20C, and I'm not even going to mention the CO2 emissions.
  3. My point being that the NA portion is meaningless. Being NA or using FI means NOTHING. It is purely psychological. For some reason that makes no sense to me people are concerned with HOW power is made and not how much power is being made and over what RPM range.

    So you take the NA out of that equation and there are shit tons of engines that romp it. 4G63T of course being my favorite, since it's probably the best 4 banger ever.
  4. LOLZ you are sooooo wrong it's not even funny.
  5. The reason they're not selling the 2.2 elsewhere is probably also for marketing purposes. It outperforms the 2.0 by a good amount, so what other logical reason is there for them to keep it if it's not for that couple extra HP/L and higher redline which appeals to some (stupid)people.
  6. IIRC you're not a native English speaker so I won't call you an idiot and tell you to learn how to read, but he didn't say the S2K engine was unreliable. He said idiots rev them over their redline(even though it gives you no extra power) and that will fck the engine up.
  7. You should go tell Mercedes-McLaren they are DOING IT WRONG because their crappy 2.4Ls don't make any torque below 10,000rpm.
  8. I just want to hotlink this for all intent and purposes to another forum.

  9. Turbo and N/A cars drive differently. It's perfectly reasonable for people to want that sort of character in their car.
  10. Now you just need to admit that the RS6 engine is better than the LS7.
  11. People rev the car high because peak power appears at 8300 rpm, and I don't see that much people complaining that the engine was fckd up.
  12. Blowing the doors off in the straights is one thing, but anything with a bend in it and 'your friends' Vette would be bye bye. Afterall, an S200 will dominate the shit out of an Evo. This is not even questionable.
  13. That is true. However like I said I prefer the overall actual performance of a car/engine not how it arrives there. So as far as I'm concerned I'll take a turbo.

    Also it really depends on which particular engines you're comparing as to how differently they drive. Some turbo cars do have rather smooth powerbands that are very similar to NA engines.
  14. Hmmmmmm, maybe I would... if it were! If the engine weight was comparable to the LS7 I'd probably have to agree, but I suspect it's much larger/heavier. Size and weights cannot be ignored when comparing engines. That's really what puts the LS engines over the top for me, as good as it is at making power. They wouldn't be "good" swaps in nearly as many cars if they were iron block/heads because then it actually would throw off the balance horribly in many cars... Which it doesn't being aluminum.
  15. He was talking about going PAST the redline. ABOVE the redline. Not going just to the redline which happens to be high. In any event it doesn't matter. Just about any engine will have problems if you rev it past redline frequently, as that's the redline for a friggin' reason.
  16. Hey exer what would do if you popped the hood to your jag only to find that your 350 was replaced with an Honda EX motor?
  17. I'd rather have the Honda EX (what the hell? you mean a B16 you dipshit) than some piece of shit, unreliable, old tech, poor gas mileage, fat ass American V8.
  18. Dude you are so wrong. How would a C4-C6 Corvette or Evo lose to an S2000 on a race track if the Corvette and Evo has a lest a 25mph higher exit speed out of each corner and a 40-50mph speed advantage on the straight? If the Corvette crashed yes, maybe the S2000 would blow the doors off a Corvette on a Go-Kart race track. A high end Corvette has awesome handling in general even the cheaper base models do as well. The handling of an S2000 isn’t bad at all but it gets out performed by every modern Corvette. Had you compared the S2000s handling to a 1960-1985 Corvette then I would have agreed but 80% of those were made to be 1/4 cars anyway, but they are still faster and way cooler then an S2000. Even a C4 with Z51 suspension would blow the doors off a S2000 on a track.
  19. -100.
    In case you didn't no the 350ci motor is one of the most "winningest" motors on the face or the planet you dipshit. Its also just as reliable makes way more power as compared to a B16.

    If Japanese import motors kick so much ass the why are people trading out their Japanese motors and putting in 350s in Evos, STIs and S2000s? You don’t see muscle cars with B16s in them because 90% of Japanese motors suck.

    When it comes to making power displacement is the way to go especially in street engines where torque is king.

  20. I dunno about the C4.
  21. So the 650Nm at 1500rpm are irrelevant because the engine is bigger and heavier.

  22. C4 Grandsport LT-4 with Z51 suspension.
  23. Have you jumped one of these?
  24. Those are all bullshit lies that fanboys like yourself make up. American engines are shit and Jap engines are pretty much the best thing ever, especially the B16. I wish I had a Z06, I would put a Spoon B16 in it and smoke everything on the street and track.
  25. #125 Hollywood, Sep 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    My first and thrid sentence was Quoted form the late
    John Lingenfelter himself in the book
    (On Modifying Small-block Chevy Engines Chp 2)

    There is not one import tuner engine builder on the face of the planet that can do what that man did with performance engines. Maybe you should read this book and actually learn why a small block was a better choice for this S2000 and why Import engines suck.,M1

Share This Page