04 vs 03 Dyno test on vtec.net
Originally posted by SJSHARKS
If those numbers are accurate, the 2004 S2000 would be very close to NSX like performance.
If those numbers are accurate, the 2004 S2000 would be very close to NSX like performance.
Originally posted by SJSHARKS
If those numbers are accurate, the 2004 S2000 would be very close to NSX like performance.
If those numbers are accurate, the 2004 S2000 would be very close to NSX like performance.
Yeah, 3.0L numbers are highly probable.. 1/4mile around 13.6 @ 105mph..???
actually for the most part, the existing 00-03 s2ks can give an nsx a run for its money. 3.0 vs 2.0, stock for stock.
I'm not talking about just in a straight line either.
IMO of course.
I'm not talking about just in a straight line either.
IMO of course.
You gotta remember that the NSX engines were underrated too - by about 15-20 hp on the 3.2 liter motors. No way an 04 S2K is getting into the 12's near 110 mph (as some stock 3.2 NSX's have).
UL
UL
http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.p...934#post2493934
Many of the same points covered in the above.
My thinking about "underrated":
1) It is not about insurance (
2) If the #'s are true, then 266/2.2 = 120.9/liter, so much for that whining.
3) If true, where are the perf numbers benefits in the preliminary mag tests?- they do not seem to show the benefits - are the engines too green, or have they not done true instrumentation tests?
4) Dynos can vary car to car, test conditions to test conditions, dyno to dyno
5) Ron Bauer and Banannie have real-world comments that performance is up - period. Even with less than optimum tires and alignment settings - hard to argue about that.
6) The NSX posts high 13's, 5.0 to 60 (at least my 1995 NSX-T did with the 3.0 engine - not sure about later 3.2l cars, but where has an S2K come close to that without FI?
7) What does the NSX's body have to do with acceleration numbers? In handling, the S2K and the nsx are close - I Owned an NSX, and am close to owning an S2K, but have lots of seat time in several 01-02's.
Many of the same points covered in the above.
My thinking about "underrated":
1) It is not about insurance (
2) If the #'s are true, then 266/2.2 = 120.9/liter, so much for that whining.
3) If true, where are the perf numbers benefits in the preliminary mag tests?- they do not seem to show the benefits - are the engines too green, or have they not done true instrumentation tests?
4) Dynos can vary car to car, test conditions to test conditions, dyno to dyno
5) Ron Bauer and Banannie have real-world comments that performance is up - period. Even with less than optimum tires and alignment settings - hard to argue about that.
6) The NSX posts high 13's, 5.0 to 60 (at least my 1995 NSX-T did with the 3.0 engine - not sure about later 3.2l cars, but where has an S2K come close to that without FI?
7) What does the NSX's body have to do with acceleration numbers? In handling, the S2K and the nsx are close - I Owned an NSX, and am close to owning an S2K, but have lots of seat time in several 01-02's.
Originally posted by asu_lee
I am waiting for a brillant response from secret AP1.
I am waiting for a brillant response from secret AP1.
The "truth" about the MY04 is coming out, and most of the gloom and doom is being exposed for what is was - sour grapes and resistance to change. That is a two-sided coin - example? I will be replacing the RE050's at 3 years, worn or not, with a dry-optimized pair od shoes like Kumho Extsa's, or Michelin Pilots, etc. Or Pirellia PZero Rosso Asimmetrico's.





