04 vs 03 Dyno test on vtec.net
11-08-2003, 07:11 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not doubting this dyno, although it'd be nice to see others, but i'm wondering is why none of the magazines reviews commented that the 2004 seems faster than the pre 2004?
i can possibly see honda underrating the 2004 if there's going to be a next gen in 2005. they wouldn't want 240, 260, 280...from marketing perspective going from 240 to 280 would be more dramatic. i don't buy the insurance reason.
i can possibly see honda underrating the 2004 if there's going to be a next gen in 2005. they wouldn't want 240, 260, 280...from marketing perspective going from 240 to 280 would be more dramatic. i don't buy the insurance reason.
11-08-2003, 07:25 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Livermore
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really wasnt expecting to see figures like those but I hope they are typical and not some freak motor.
That lump in the torque curve at 3000 RPM is definitely noticeable in every gear.
That lump in the torque curve at 3000 RPM is definitely noticeable in every gear.
11-08-2003, 07:44 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Forest Hills
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comparison is more important than the actual numbers... Whether it's 240whp or 24,000whp, the fact of the matter is that the '04 has 20+ more hp than the '03.
11-08-2003, 08:00 PM
#25
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
The car does make more power, period.
The car does make more power, period.
11-08-2003, 08:02 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, it's raining like crazy in the bay area...got nothing to do but think about this...so let's assume that the 2004s are 260/265HP at the crank...how will this change your mind? or will it change your mind at all?
i didn't like the 2004 not because of the decreased redline (not directly at least). i didn't like it because i thought there was enough torque so increasing the displacement to get some more torque i thought was unnecessary. but if they also increased the hp i'm i'm happy with this. the mixture and timing changes seems more aggressive from the article too, which is a plus in my book.
since i haven't driven one i'd guess i'd be hard to say....the suspension tweaks i don't really care either way, since i'll probably get some aftermarket stuff anyways.
so it boils doing to some minor stuff - the gauge cluster i don't like at all.
the wheels are nice, the cosmetic changes are nice.
the lost of the redline...it's definitely fun being able to rev it. my fd revs to 8k already and i wish i would have an extra grand to play with, even if doesn't make me faster (not pro racer, fun factor).
since i'm not really looking to make my s2000 fast, i guess i think the pre2004 is still a better choice for me since i have the fun/wow factor of the little engine that could.
but definitely with this increased power, if it holds true, a person looking to buy the fastest car he/she can afford with all the qualities of the s2000 should probably go with the 2004s.
i didn't like the 2004 not because of the decreased redline (not directly at least). i didn't like it because i thought there was enough torque so increasing the displacement to get some more torque i thought was unnecessary. but if they also increased the hp i'm i'm happy with this. the mixture and timing changes seems more aggressive from the article too, which is a plus in my book.
since i haven't driven one i'd guess i'd be hard to say....the suspension tweaks i don't really care either way, since i'll probably get some aftermarket stuff anyways.
so it boils doing to some minor stuff - the gauge cluster i don't like at all.
the wheels are nice, the cosmetic changes are nice.
the lost of the redline...it's definitely fun being able to rev it. my fd revs to 8k already and i wish i would have an extra grand to play with, even if doesn't make me faster (not pro racer, fun factor).
since i'm not really looking to make my s2000 fast, i guess i think the pre2004 is still a better choice for me since i have the fun/wow factor of the little engine that could.
but definitely with this increased power, if it holds true, a person looking to buy the fastest car he/she can afford with all the qualities of the s2000 should probably go with the 2004s.
11-08-2003, 08:10 PM
#27
Registered User
Other test data will be coming. In the first couple of gears, its back and forth. The 04 pulls when both cars are in the same gear, but it shifts so much sooner. When it does, the 00 pulls back thanks to the additional redline and taller gears. Plus, the acceleration differences in cars are very small in first gear if traction is an issue, which it is if you launch these cars hard.
The 04 does not feel 20 hp faster to me, but it is heavier and much of that mass is in the wheel/tire combo which magnifies the effect. This negates some of the power gain, but nonetheless, the 04 is faster at virtually any speed.
UL
The 04 does not feel 20 hp faster to me, but it is heavier and much of that mass is in the wheel/tire combo which magnifies the effect. This negates some of the power gain, but nonetheless, the 04 is faster at virtually any speed.
UL
11-08-2003, 08:14 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about swamping the 2003 wheels onto the 2004 to see if you can feel the diff 
i noticed that it's not a production 2004....in light of the RX-8 underrating due to emissions i would if the 2004 you got might not be emissions legal? just a thought....honda is smarter than mazda and didn't want to say 260hp and then be screwed by CA emissions?
i noticed that it's not a production 2004....in light of the RX-8 underrating due to emissions i would if the 2004 you got might not be emissions legal? just a thought....honda is smarter than mazda and didn't want to say 260hp and then be screwed by CA emissions?
