S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

04 vs 03 Dyno test on vtec.net

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 12:25 PM
  #61  
Hyper-X's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
Default

My S2k bought used had 7500 miles and although the power was always there, the engine seems to "wanna spin" easier now. It could be the syn oil I'm using, it could be broken in better, it could be purely psychological. However, my understanding about hi-revving engines, they need to be run in a lot more than normal cars. I theorize that this still applies to the MY04.

Regardless of what UL has found, even he knows that it's not the absolute rule about the MY04 as it will require more time and more cars to come up with a basis in order to form an accurate statement regarding the 04's performance #'s.

The problem is, the MY04 isn't just a different engine swapped into a MY00-03... it involved a lot more changes that may contribute to the 04's (good, bad, so-so) performance.

Let's just be patient, and someone who's within driving distance to UL's shop please take his free offer to have your car dyno tuned so we can acquire more information.
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 12:27 PM
  #62  
Road Rage's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 2
From: Midlothian
Default

Originally posted by ttb
i have no comment on the dyno...but you have to get it through your head that more horsepower does not mean it is not "dumbed down, softened."
Be fair - lots of the MY04 naysayers pointed to no increases in power as part of their head and finger wagging - it is not dumb to produce more useable power top to bottom. Ultimate has said that, and Ron Bauer and Banannie have shown it in autocross. If by softened you mean not causing me to piss blood when I am done driving, or soaking my seats when the rear end tries to come around, then those are "softenings" perfectly fine with me, and I daresay, others.

Plus, there are plenty of mods for the 00-03 that try to do just that - correct the handling and torque and shifting bugaboos.

I am trying to be fair - not sure the RE050's are the best answer for me, but I do not use the car as a daily driver, or in rain or snow. So that may have been a very intelligent "soft" decision by the MY04 project team at Honda - just because I have different prefs, you won't see me posting acid about "RE050's suk".
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 12:38 PM
  #63  
nastinupe1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,984
Likes: 0
From: Alpharetta, GA (ATL)
Default

Ok... I'm no dyno guru, but if I am reading this right, then the MY04 should really have a documented hp 288 hp instead of 240 hp?

All I can say is wow!!!

Then, WTF!!! Why didn't Honda advertise this?
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 12:44 PM
  #64  
Road Rage's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 2
From: Midlothian
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nastinupe1
Ok... I'm no dyno guru, but if I am reading this right, then the MY04 should really have a documented hp 288 hp instead of 240 hp?
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 12:46 PM
  #65  
fantaS2K's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
Default

So why keep 2 versions if the 04 is superior?
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 01:43 PM
  #66  
PedalFaster's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,014
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
Default

Originally posted by Road Rage
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?
Don't forget that, due to the shorter final drive and reduced redline, the '04 needs an extra shift before 60 mph. Per Ultimate Lurker:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
In the first couple of gears, its back and forth.
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 01:51 PM
  #67  
Road Rage's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 2
From: Midlothian
Default

Originally posted by fantaS2K
So why keep 2 versions if the 04 is superior?
Why indeed? What is your point? I luv these posts where the reader is supposed to infer my what poster is trying to say.

Maybe it is for the fuel economy - maybe some markets are more receptive to change than others - maybe the xtra cost of making the 2.2l (due to the dummy head step) precludes it - maybe eventually all the markets will get the same 2.2L engine, when supply kewep sup with demand - maybe the mfr concentrates on its #1 market first.

Who knows, and in mycase, who cares? I bought a car with a 2.2L engine where once a 2.0 resided. I have done this many times before. I had a 1967 427 L-79 Corvette, then a 1971 454 LS6, then a 1992 5.7L LT1. So? They were all great cars in their own ways, and I loved them all.
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 02:11 PM
  #68  
R11's Avatar
R11
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Default

The one mag article that put out the comparison numbers used 03 numbers from an earlier test... months ago. It was not a back to back test and may not have even used the same drivers. Quite likely different conditions too so there's just way too many variables in that case to make any valid conclusions about what they came up with. As I recall their braking numbers showed a large increase in stopping distance on 04 which I find highly unlikely as well.

Oh that Honda, what the hell were they thinking? I just knew they were scheming ways to cover up this most disastrous hack job they did on the 04.....

This is seriously bad news.... Now it's going to be even harder to get the kind of price I want to pay on an 04

ron
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 02:13 PM
  #69  
fantaS2K's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
Default

Originally posted by PedalFaster
On other threads, speculation has been for fuel economy / engine size tax reasons. The '04 gets incrementally worse mileage than the earlier cars according to Honda's numbers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Road Rage
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2003 | 02:17 PM
  #70  
TurboVtk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,054
Likes: 0
From: Bronxville/NY
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nastinupe1
Ok... I'm no dyno guru, but if I am reading this right, then the MY04 should really have a documented hp 288 hp instead of 240 hp?
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 PM.