2.0 vs 2.2

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Feb 21, 2005 | 07:29 PM

#21

Warren J. Dew

Registered User

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 1,135

Likes: 0

From: Somerville, MA, USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodaking663rd' date='Feb 21 2005, 07:38 PM

i do like the wheels of the older models better but i must say the interior of the 04's look quite a bit better.

I bet if you offer to trade your wheels for a set of the older wheels, you'll find plenty of takers!

Feb 21, 2005 | 07:44 PM

#22

RazorV3

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2002

Posts: 7,046

Likes: 0

From: VA is for hustlaz

Quote:

Originally Posted by nalVle' date='Feb 21 2005, 08:02 PM

just search the board, its been covered a thousand times. yeh they make the same hp at the flywheel, but its been said that the 2.2l puts more power to the ground (on the dyno). i would rather own the 9k motor; its more worth it than an extra 9 ft/lbs of torque, and a couple more ponies on the dyno.
-Chris

this doesn't make sense. it's not like the drivetrain of the 04+ s2k is more efficient, since its putting down more hp at the wheels if it makes the same hp at the flywheel as a 00-03 model. i think honda just underrated the hp at the crank for whatever odd reason.

Feb 21, 2005 | 07:55 PM

#23

S2KANDRE

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2004

Posts: 4,088

Likes: 0

From: Los Angeles

Quote:

Originally Posted by METATRON' date='Feb 21 2005, 02:41 PM

9000 RPM=

Feb 21, 2005 | 08:53 PM

#24

SilverKnight

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 10,418

Likes: 0

From: Seattle

This thread again hmmm. Times are all the same. To the user above who stated 0-60 is slightly faster? Please provide facts since your car has to shift an extra to get to 60 and if you can beat 5.2 seconds I give you a cookie

Here are some actual statistics which don't mean much in the real world but.... from MT Magazine February, 2000 for a MY00

13.8 trap speed 100mph.

0-60 5.2

I'm sure all the cars are the same roughly. Weight is also a little bit of an issue. The early s2000s, MY00 point in case were about 2755. Small weight increases came on the later years.

Appearances are subjective. Some people like pre04 some like 04+. Pick which ever you like and you will be happy

Feb 21, 2005 | 08:55 PM

#25

SilverKnight

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 10,418

Likes: 0

From: Seattle

Arnold has some huge tits BTW damn.

Feb 21, 2005 | 10:10 PM

#26

Warren J. Dew

Registered User

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 1,135

Likes: 0

From: Somerville, MA, USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverKnight' date='Feb 21 2005, 09:53 PM

I think that was me, though I didn't say the difference was meaningful; I doubt it is. My source is the March 2005 Road & Track, which tests the 2005 at 5.4 seconds 0-60 while listing a previous test of the 2003 at 5.5 seconds 0-60. Quarter miles were 13.9@100.2 for the 2005, 14.1@99.2 for the 2003. All of these are within the error bands for the tests.

I doubt that I personally can beat Honda's advertised 6.2 seconds, much less Motor Trend's 5.2 seconds, for the 2.0L. As long as I can beat Chevy Suburbans off the line, I'm happy.

Feb 21, 2005 | 11:28 PM

#27

ayS

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2001

Posts: 3,210

Likes: 0

From: San Diego, CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren J. Dew' date='Feb 22 2005, 07:10 AM

As long as I can beat Chevy Suburbans off the line, I'm happy.

Feb 21, 2005 | 11:37 PM

#28

TwistedS2k

Registered User

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 848

Likes: 0

From: ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverKnight' date='Feb 21 2005, 09:55 PM

Arnold has some huge tits BTW damn.

and a tiny dick

Feb 22, 2005 | 07:39 AM

#29

honda606

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 5,937

Likes: 7

From: houston

[quote name='SilverKnight' date='Feb 21 2005, 11:53 PM'] I'm sure all the cars are the same roughly. Weight is also a little bit of an issue. The early s2000s, MY00 point in case were about 2755.