OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG V6 S2000!
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by PilotSi,Dec 21 2009, 07:53 PM
It is, at its foundation, out-dated. By and large, it offers a less dynamic suspension which is overly compensated for with aggressive static settings. The advantage of a MacPhearson strut based system is only 2-fold: space & cost IMO. Not that I'm saying it doesn't work, over time, R&D has made it worked, just like the Vette has done w/ the leaf springs and Porsche with a rear-engined car.
So it works just as well, but its inferior? Yes, as many people have pointed out, strut/multi-link works because of the refinement it's gone through, but that doesn't make it work worse. Plus, one of the major engineering advantages of Macpherson struts is that they're much easier to refine because when you can isolate something and change one component at a time (not true with wishbone, everything's connected). That lends itself to easier, better refinement. Discounting refinement discounts the third benefit (aside from cost and space) of the Macpherson Strut: ease of modification.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,281
Likes: 119
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Dec 24 2009, 02:29 AM
I would say he's not a dumbass, he's asking a valid question. Just because he doesn't know what you know doesn't make him a "dumbass."
Where the hell would one study for your entrance exam if not on these very forums? You even addressed essentially the same query two posts down
The very short "article" I read did not clarify for me that the S2000 mule in question was RWD or AWD. The engine was mounted longitudinally in the pic, but what does that mean? As as has been said, "nothing." We can only assume that a custom one-off block and transmission were designed and built to accomodate RWD.
Unavoidably, block designs differ between RWD, FWD, and AWD applications. You cannot swap between applications willynilly because of fundamental differences in the way the trans mates with the block and the block to the chassis. A simple adapter is not going to cut it.
So I say it's a valid question that deserves consideration. Anyone who knows anything more than the basics about cars and engines and transmissions would know you can't just mount a FWD engine in a RWD application.
In fact, I would assert that only a "dumbass" would assume it's not a problem.
I would agree that the idea that one particular suspension design is "more advanced" than another is ludicrous. It's what you do with it.
Just because you have "wishbones" doens't mean you have better handling than anything that doesn't. Lots of cars have lots of different suspension designs, and all of them were invented a hundred years ago or more. Same with head designs, whether they be overhead cam or cam in block. It's the specifics of the design that are relevant, not the name we call the parts. Or how recently they were invented.
But I would suggest we as a group refrain from calling people "dumbasses" just as common courtesy. Because quite often the guy throwing out the name is guilty of being one. You know, like ignoring the very simple and obvious fact that the motor mount bosses on a transverse FWD block simply will not mate with anything in an engine bay designed for a longitudinal RWD block. The amount of fabrication to make it work is not trivial. Without even getting into what transmission did Honda have to bolt to said block? What existing 3.7L V6 RWD Honda did it come out of?
Please explain yourself. Because otherwise you are at risk of soundling like a dumbass yourself for ignoring some simple facts that anyone with the kind of experience you claim to have should know.
Or apologize.
Where the hell would one study for your entrance exam if not on these very forums? You even addressed essentially the same query two posts down
The very short "article" I read did not clarify for me that the S2000 mule in question was RWD or AWD. The engine was mounted longitudinally in the pic, but what does that mean? As as has been said, "nothing." We can only assume that a custom one-off block and transmission were designed and built to accomodate RWD.
Unavoidably, block designs differ between RWD, FWD, and AWD applications. You cannot swap between applications willynilly because of fundamental differences in the way the trans mates with the block and the block to the chassis. A simple adapter is not going to cut it.
So I say it's a valid question that deserves consideration. Anyone who knows anything more than the basics about cars and engines and transmissions would know you can't just mount a FWD engine in a RWD application.
In fact, I would assert that only a "dumbass" would assume it's not a problem.
I would agree that the idea that one particular suspension design is "more advanced" than another is ludicrous. It's what you do with it.
Just because you have "wishbones" doens't mean you have better handling than anything that doesn't. Lots of cars have lots of different suspension designs, and all of them were invented a hundred years ago or more. Same with head designs, whether they be overhead cam or cam in block. It's the specifics of the design that are relevant, not the name we call the parts. Or how recently they were invented.
But I would suggest we as a group refrain from calling people "dumbasses" just as common courtesy. Because quite often the guy throwing out the name is guilty of being one. You know, like ignoring the very simple and obvious fact that the motor mount bosses on a transverse FWD block simply will not mate with anything in an engine bay designed for a longitudinal RWD block. The amount of fabrication to make it work is not trivial. Without even getting into what transmission did Honda have to bolt to said block? What existing 3.7L V6 RWD Honda did it come out of?
Please explain yourself. Because otherwise you are at risk of soundling like a dumbass yourself for ignoring some simple facts that anyone with the kind of experience you claim to have should know.
Or apologize.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto
Originally Posted by Mr.E.G.,Dec 22 2009, 02:18 PM
You're preaching to the choir, I was just curious as to what he was referring to specifically. However, you are patently wrong about the leaf springs being archaic. Do we really need to have another thread where rockville and I wind up having a nerd fest about the Corvette's suspension? lol
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,530
Likes: 17
From: Gleening the apex
Originally Posted by Jacques79,Dec 21 2009, 02:21 AM
Z4M is a superior sports car than the S2000.
That being said a V6 AP2 would have been a natural progression for Honda.
However the corparate focus is on fluff clouds and "green" landscapes not hardcore sportscar enthusiasts
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans, LA.
Originally Posted by Popeye,Mar 20 2010, 11:55 AM
I think someone spiked your Molson dude
That being said a V6 AP2 would have been a natural progression for Honda.
However the corparate focus is on fluff clouds and "green" landscapes not hardcore sportscar enthusiasts
That being said a V6 AP2 would have been a natural progression for Honda.
However the corparate focus is on fluff clouds and "green" landscapes not hardcore sportscar enthusiasts
personally I would have liked to see honda take the F20 and turn it in to an I6. it should be fairly simple for the engineers to do, just take the already known definitions of the motor and expand them for two further cylinders. this would result in a 2.5l straight six that should produce an even 300hp and around 190ft lbs. this would give the S the power it needs to stay competitive in the market and still retain that manic personality the S2000 has. the increase in weight would have to be dealt with of course but I would see this as probably the ideal engine for a car like the S2000.
edit: for clarity and to correct my drunken retardation- it would be a 3.0 I6 with 360hp and 230ish tq- all of the other points stand valid except the S would be even more awesome than I just described.
on a seperate note wild turkey turns me in to a ****** idiot.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
From: Lone Tree, CO
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Dec 21 2009, 04:59 AM
Superior interior, superior engine, aguably superior suspension, and yes, it has a BMW badge. Surprisingly, some people don't see added value in buying a car from the same people who made their lawnmower. They appreciate a little focus from their manufacturer.
The S2000 is awesome for what it is, but it isn't the best ever of anything in the universe. It's purely a performance car that is bested by all kinds of cars from all kinds of companies. That doesn't devalue it, it places it on a spectrum. There are superior cars at everything the S2000 does well. That's why people can afford them. If it was better than all other cars ever, hands down, it would cost more than all other cars ever.
The S2000 is awesome for what it is, but it isn't the best ever of anything in the universe. It's purely a performance car that is bested by all kinds of cars from all kinds of companies. That doesn't devalue it, it places it on a spectrum. There are superior cars at everything the S2000 does well. That's why people can afford them. If it was better than all other cars ever, hands down, it would cost more than all other cars ever.
I don't think anyone is saying the S2000 is the best ever of anything in the universe. However it is CLEARLY the best purely sports car ever made. Period.