the engine...

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by Modena3, Sep 26, 2002.

  1. this car has the most ingenious engine ive ever seen i mean 250 hp from a 2 liter N/A I-4 and so damn cheap, my uncle has driven one of these he says its so peppy and a real handful to keep it from getting away from you, he says hed take it over his Z3 or a Boxter S.
     
  2. Re: the engine...

    yer its an awsome engine!

    Car magazine says its the best four cylinder engine there is!
     
  3. Re: the engine...

    I don't see any 4 cyl NA better than this.
     
  4. Re: the engine...

    Yeah its amazing but the BMW E30 M3 Sport Evo made 240hp and that had an I-4 but was a 2.5 litre and that was made in 1990. So basically honda took the concept further and heres what we have today <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  5. Re: the engine...

    BMW is really good at making engines too, its valvetronic is very famous.
     
  6. Re: the engine...

    i like the Price , that's a bargin right there
     
  7. Re: the engine...

    damn , 5.5 sec outta a car like this , that's beautiful!
     
  8. Re: the engine...

    A real handful to keep it from getting away from you?? It only has 153 ft/lbs of torque and you have to keep it reved very high to keep it in the power zone. If your uncle had a difficult time with it, then I'm sure he's never driven a real performance car with lots of torque.

    The car costs near mid-30s (before dealer markup), which in my opinion is worth what you get. But I would not call that a super bargain price. And of course, the dealerships tend to mark-up the S2000 a few grand. A guy I used to work with paid $37,000 for his.
     
  9. Re: the engine...

    Yes, the S2000 only has 153lbs/ft of torque, yes i agree, that's not a lot, but it's all about how u use teh torque effectively, and Honda can do that. I mean just look at tehe stats, 0-60mph in about 5 seconds with only 153lbs/ft of torque? That sounds pretty amazing to me. Yes, I agree, the S2000 doesn't have much power at low rev, but according to car journalists, they say the s2000 has more than adequate power at low rev.

    I think the guy who used to work with u got ripped off! When purchasing a car, u need to be more patience with the saleman, u gotta play a little "war" with him to get the best bargain. Don't let him see you that u really want that particular car, pretend u don't really care about buying that car u want, and u'll get a better price.
     
  10. Re: the engine...

    Yes, it uses what little torque it has very effectively, which is what high RPM is all about. But you're wrong about what most journalists say about the power down low. One of the few complaints they have about the S2000 is the lack of low-end grunt.

    As far as the dealer mark-up goes, it's very difficult to buy one without an inflated price. The salesmen don't give a damn if you're not willing to pay because the next guy in line IS willing. This is not something I'm making up to bash the car. The same thing applies to the 03 Mustang Cobra (and I love the Cobra). The greedy dealerships are blowing up the prices.
     
  11. Re: the engine...

    I dunno, teh testers of the "international best engine awards" said that.

    ANyways, u have to be smart to get teh best price.
     
  12. Re: the engine...

    there's a quote from an owner of another Honda, but a bike that was ranked 2nd or 3rd place by mags b.c. of a lack of midrange "torque."

    "If there isn't enough torque/power, just drop down a few cogs..."

    I don't have a manual car, although I know how to drive one, so perhaps I can't really judge the whole torque thing. But, in traffic, what does it matter, I mean really, my 91 Accord has a 130 horse engine and it gets me to where I wanna go as quick as I want to.

     
  13. Re: the engine...

    By doing that, seperating power you use on the street and power you race, is much better than having the power there all the time in heavy traffic. It'll be much harder to contral a car with so much power while you don't really needed it in daily driving.
     
  14. Re: the engine...

    It gets away from you easily becaause of the tires, 8.8 in. in the back and 8 in. in the front tiny as tires go very low grip.
     
  15. Re: the engine...

    Honda has been making dinky little 4cyl. for so long, finally they got one right.
     
  16. Re: the engine...

    nah, the Integra Type R's engine is pretty good too.
     
  17. Re: the engine...

    they need to put this motor into the new integra type r. and make the r 4wd or rwd and drop the fwd crap. but hey, thats just me<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/cool.gif"></A>
     
  18. Re: the engine...

    This wut Honda is good at, making fwd cars.
     
  19. Re: the engine...

    yes they are, i would have to say the best in the fwd market. but this car, as a rwd, out-shines the other hondas in my opinion. excluding the nsx of course<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  20. Re:

    You must be JOKING me!! This little V-TEC hunk of aluminum? Melt it down and make some pop cans!!

    So what if it has variable valve timing. So, it advances the ignition curve after 6000 RPM. My vacuum advance does the same thing after 2500 rpm - and it cost me $0.25 of rubber hose.

    I'm sorry if I sound sarcastic, but I just don't see anything more special about a 240-horse V-TEC Honda than a 405-horse LS6 Chevy. For a 4-cylinder, it's powerful, I'll admit. But so is my '99 CBR900RR - 130 horses. Now THAT's what Honda should stick to. Wheelies at 45mph... mmmm!!!

    It's VTEC, too, by the way, but the '01 RVT1000R is a Honda V-Twin, non-V-TEC, and it's faster than the 929RR. So even Honda can do more with torque than technology!!
     
  21. Re: Re:

    Well, if variable valve timing doe suck so bad, how come BMW, Toyota, Ford, and many otehr car manufacturers use this kind of technology?
     
  22. Re: the engine...

    Never said it sucks, buddy - but thanks for proving my point. It's just not an incredible leap forward by Honda (like you said - many other car manufacturers utilize the same thing).

    Honda incorporates something called "Electronic Lift Control" as well, which basicly means it's an overhead cam shaft and it's got variable valve timing. It allows the valves to achieve greater max lift above 6000 RPM. But it still hasn't won any races.
     
  23. Re: the engine...

    i agree its not an incredible leap, but i think the whole point of this thread was to admire that much power out of something that small. its like mini-me on roids.
     
  24. Re: the engine...

    It was Honda who made it first, or should say, one of the first ones. that's the "incredible" point.
     
  25. Re:

    No, Honda didn't make it first, that's what I was trying to tell you. American V-8's have utilized Timing Advance as the engine revs up since the 50's - a vacuum line measured engine vacuum, pulling weights apart that advanced the timing curve inside the engine's distributor.

    In the 80's, the TPI engines had the same thing - except it was electronically controlled, hence the "electronic valve timing." In the late 80's/early 90's, Chevy's LT1 motors used sensors to measure the engines status and vary the timing accordingly - hence "variable valve timing."

    Electronic lift control is interesting, Dodge started doing it in their trucks in 1996, I don't know when Honda started. I'll just rely on my valve springs and pushrods.

    That's all I'm trying to say.
     

Share This Page