I SPIT on your "Masterpiece"

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by beliveinfiction, Nov 11, 2002.

  1. Re: I SPIT on your

    Another irrelevant post.

    I wasnt disputing that they raised low end torque on ivtec models or that this car didnt have enough. Instead I asked why do you act as if its only to please americans when really haveing midrange torque is only practical for everyday driving? Very fitting for a honda.
  2. Re: I SPIT on your

    Hey, plz forgive me, Englis isn't my first language, I may misunderstand u sometimes.

    Can u explain it more clearly plz?
  3. Re: I SPIT on your

    Sure I understand,

    A few posts ago you said:

    "It seems like people (especially teh Americans) want low and mid-end torque too; therefore, Honda introduced the i-VTEC"

    My question to you is: Why do you credit american interests for Honda boosting low end torque? The way I see it, being easy to drive in every day conditions is very much like honda (being practical), reguardless of where they are sold.

    Whats your 1st language and where are you from? (just curious) I think its good to have other opinions besides american on theese boards.
  4. Re: I SPIT on your

    Well, actually, not just Americans, but many people too, so, anyways, i-VTEC improves low-end torque no matters wut.

    I'm from Hong Kong, i can speak cantonese, englisha nd a little bit of Japanese.
  5. Re:

    While I envy your tri-lingual abilities, V-TEC hardly boosts low-end torque, it most noticeably kicks in at higher RPM, after 6000, for instance, for the S2000.

    My CBR900RR kick in after 8000 or so, starts pulling really hard right before you shift.

    Really, torque and horsepower are staticly linked, boosting high-end horsepower means boosting torque also, but the American's thirst for low-end torque hardly les to the S2000; the SRT-10's 500 lb/ft under 2800 rpm is more what they're after, I think.
  6. Re:

    True, V-TEC doesn't boost much low-end torque, but i-VTEC does.

  7. Re: Re:

    Like the man above said, V-tec doesn't boost low-end torque, However iV-tec does boost low and mid-range torque.
  8. Re: Re:

    ivtec has boosted midrange torque to be suitable for everyday driving. (Below 6,000rpms) However it is still far from enough torque to be desireable for heavy accleration. Bottom line, if you want your honda to go, the tach will be about 6,000.
  9. Re: Re:

    Oh, I never said I'd prefer the low end power, personally I prefer the higher end power, allows you more control offroad as you can toggle the gas on whether you want more or less wheelspin.

    I was just pointing out that iV-tec isn't low on the low end power.
  10. Re: Re:

    But the power in the low-mid rev range is more than enough for daily use.
  11. Re: I SPIT on your

    Believeinfiction is a fffuuccckkiinn liarrrr!! how is this shit gonna make 0-60 in 6.5??? go to hell man... then those guys hired kids to the drive tests... Motor Trend achieved a 5.2.... Hey I know you hate Hondas but come on, admit it its great... tell me any production series 2.0L with this output and reliability?? And american cars dont suck, they are just diferent, they are larger in cubic inches than Hondas and a little bigger than Ferraris and Porsches and those porsches and ferraris wipe their asses with them... My favorite one is the Corvette Z06.... No doubt, it is an awesome car but the rest of all american cars need to be improved.. they are about 70% larger than hondas and they should run more.... Since you like comparing your cars to little engined japanesse cars, why dont you ask chevy, ford or chrysler to build a 2.0L engine... Honda won't lower to your level....

    The Z06 is out of this comparison, that car is great.
  12. Re: I SPIT on your

    BrownDoggie, a Q? for you:

    why is it that bike manufacturers "detune" their racerep engines for "more torque?" For instance, the R1 has 20hp on the FZ1 Yamaha, however, the FZ1 has almost as much torque at 1000rpm lower!

    I realize that power is merely the derivative of work or torque, however, the way that I read it sometimes, they would seem to be inversely related!
  13. Re: I SPIT on your

    if i may

    whether it SEEMS like its inversely proportional or not is irrelevant, they are not proportional at all. If u double the max torque, u do not necessarily double the max power, it could go up by 3, it could even go down, depending on what u do to the engine.

    the only thing that always stands is hp = lbft*(rpm/5252)

    if u increase the compression ratio, but restrict the breathing, low-rev torque will go up but high-rev power will go down. If u destroke the engine, low-rev torque will go down but high-rev power will go up. However if u destroke AND increase CR but dont restrict breathing, everything goes up - similarly if u do the reverse, everything goes down.

    U can play around all u like to get the desired power and torque that u deem most suitable to the car/bikes application.
  14. Re:

    Thank you, Chicane.

    The second part of your question, why would a bike manufacturer sacrifice horsepower for a deeper torque, has to do with the nature of the racetrack.

    As Chicane has so gleefully pointed out to me, GP racers, for instance, take the slalom at a much slower speed than a normal touring bike is capable on a straight away.

    To take advantage of being in this lower powerband, racebikes are often given steeper gear ratios and more torquey engines so that they can keep in the powerband through the slaloms.

    As you and I both know, all the power is at the top end from the factory. Racing at 120 mph through slalom is much more rider skill than it is top-end horsepower.
  15. Re: I SPIT on your

    The article said that it ran 0-60 in 6.5 seconds I dont know what else to tell you besides go read it for yourself. Perhaps you missed the part where i said i was suppriesed by that 0-60 time because i have known it to be lower in the past. Again i'm amazed at how selective some people are when reading posts.

    Please, if your going to tell me why hondas are better than american cars dont say:

    "tell me any production series 2.0L with this output"

    That isnt even a ligitamate reason, hp/L does NOTHING FOR PERFORMANCE. Thats why i have a problem with so many honda fans, they make so many inflated calims.
  16. Re:

    This one should make everybody but Believeinfiction angry...

    My friend used to own a '67 Ford F-100, green-and-white beat-up pickup truck, $1200 IN ALL with a 360 big block (de-stroked 390), Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold, cam, 750 cfm Carb and a 3.90 posi with 275-series Grand Spirits.

    One day, we smoked an S2000 stop light to stop light. Man, that guy was PISSED as he took a right and sped off!!

    Say all you want about better "hp/liter," I'll laugh when you get beat by a 5100-lb, $1200, 35-year-old beater truck.
  17. Re: I SPIT on your

    BrownDoggie, why dont you reword your comparisons with the engine size and power outputs of each car?

    so a 2-litre 250hp/155lbft car got beat by what, a 6-litre 350hp/350lbft(?) truck?...see the slight imbalance?
  18. Re: I SPIT on your

    The 2002 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Firehawk, Faster,Stronger,less $, 18/28 MPG, 345HP 350 Pounds Per Feet of torque
  19. Re: I SPIT on your

    The M3 is an apple, the S2000 is an orange and the Shithawk is a lemon.
  20. Re: I SPIT on your

    The 2002 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Firehawk, truck ride, cheap interior, outdated suspension.
  21. Re: I SPIT on your

    Sounds like someone has LS1 envy.

    Although I am not sure I understand the point of your anology. WHats wrong with Lemons? I own a lemonade stand.
  22. Re:

    Honda - I respect you, you're very open minded even though you're a Honda lover.

    But until you have ridden in an SLP product (SS Camaro SLP or Firehawk), you can't appreciate the great power and overall performance (and yes, C&D tested an SLP Camaro to a 0.98g skidpad) for the amount these machines cost.

    Chicane - when you start talking about drag racing an S2000 and how wonderful they are, a 350-horsepower '67 Ford is a great comparison to a 240-horsepower S2000, expecially when it's twice the weight (or more).

    Blacky - My friend had an SLP Camaro SS, so I can appreciate the name. By the way, the 2002 SLP Camaro was tested at over 325 horsepower at the rear wheels, which tells you how underrated that 345-horse figure is, also. He even took it to the scales - with an all-fiberglass front clip, almost 700 pounds under the given GVWR.
  23. Re:

    NC&P - the Firehawk costs less, goes faster, looks better, and has more interior room than the M3; that's one sweet-tasting lemon.
  24. Re: I SPIT on your

    that nochrome and plastic guy's an idiot. He's actually one of the many reasons (the other "reasons" being the other idiot posters like him) that I left the site.
  25. Re: I SPIT on your

    so a 350hp pickup can beat a 240hp roadster?...yes, thats because the pickups got 110hp more and about 2.5 times more torque.

    Firehawk faster than an M3?...hmmm the Bimmer will do 0-60 in 4.7 (C&D) and a 13.4 1/4 mile (autocar). Tops out at 170+ now that German automakers are allowed to remove the limiter by request (maybe not in USA, i dunno). Handling fluidity, feel, ride quality, build quality, resale value..."different league" comes to mind.

Share This Page