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

All 240 ponies?

Thread Tools
 
Old Jun 26, 2007 | 05:17 PM
  #51  
Dave-ROR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,029
Likes: 1
From: Tampa
Default

Originally Posted by Sabre,Jun 26 2007, 01:26 PM
And then to confuse you MORE, technically the AP2 (2004+) comes with 237, not 240 due to a change in the ratings system.
*AP2 Owners*
Actually that's only 2006+ as the rating system was not changed until 2006.
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2007 | 05:40 PM
  #52  
sprix!'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 2
From: Atlanta, GA
Default

I am fairly sure the ratings system changed with the introduction of AP2 in 2004 actually.
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2007 | 08:40 PM
  #53  
GrandMasterKhan's Avatar
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,149
Likes: 17
From: Raleigh, NC
Default

lets not forget the Ap2 also dynos MORE than the ap1s. So if rated on the same system to the flywheel the AP2 2.2 would make more HP than the ap1 2.0

I also find it hard to believe that no one has run the f20c and the f22c1 on an engine dyno to get actual flywheel hp for each of these engines. Seems pretty common with domestic v8s. So why hasnt anyone done it with hondas?
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2007 | 12:26 AM
  #54  
Kenn's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Default

I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant.. But if AWD lose 20% power.. How come they are faster than rwd and fwd? Or are they not ?
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2007 | 04:16 AM
  #55  
overst33r's Avatar
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
From: Palm Harbor, FL
Default

Originally Posted by screaminyellow,Jun 26 2007, 02:32 PM
The reason the loses are different between MR's and FR's like Iam7head explained is because there is more drive train weight to turn in a FR. ( I.E. longer drive shaft, larger axles, and usually a larger tranny! More rotational weight = more power loss. That is why front wheel drives are usually the lowest loss and all wheel drives are highest!
His post came across to me that FR and RWD are a different setup... now if he said RR then yes... but he listed two different losses for the same drivetrain...
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2007 | 05:35 AM
  #56  
Fronks2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Kenn,Jun 27 2007, 12:26 AM
I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant.. But if AWD lose 20% power.. How come they are faster than rwd and fwd? Or are they not ?
Uhhh.....bro, your generalizing drivetrain setups to a degree where you're comparing apples and hamburger meat. A 400whp RWD car will be "faster" than a 200whp AWD any day. AWD loses 20% to parasitic drivetrain loss because it has to transfer the horsepower to 4 wheels as opposed to 2.
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2007 | 05:52 AM
  #57  
CKit's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,729
Likes: 8
Default

Generally (for high hp cars) AWD will give you a faster 0-60 time but a lower trap speed in the 1/4 mile compared to RWD.
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2007 | 06:26 AM
  #58  
KstreetDC's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, VA
Default

Originally Posted by GrandMasterKhan,Jun 27 2007, 12:40 AM
lets not forget the Ap2 also dynos MORE than the ap1s. So if rated on the same system to the flywheel the AP2 2.2 would make more HP than the ap1 2.0

I also find it hard to believe that no one has run the f20c and the f22c1 on an engine dyno to get actual flywheel hp for each of these engines. Seems pretty common with domestic v8s. So why hasnt anyone done it with hondas?
Good post. Many have speculated that the AP2 puts out 250 or so at the flywheel. Here is a quote from Sport Compact Car that I found interesting:

It's a total lie. Honda says the second-generation S2000 is a kinder, gentler car. Bullshit. Don't believe it. The S2000 is still the real deal, a sports car stripped to a core of dynamic purity. That said, Honda has made a long list of changes to the S2000 for 2004, including an increase of engine displacement, meant to make the car friendlier on the street. And the changes do make the two-seater a bit easier to live with, but to say the roadster has cast aside its hyperactive ways is like saying Barry Bonds no longer hits for power.

To improve torque output, Honda engineers have stroked the all-aluminum four-cylinder 6.7mm to deliver another 160cc of displacement and a slightly undersquare configuration. By Honda's measurement, there's still 240 hp at your command, only it arrives at 7800 rpm, some 500 rpm lower than previously delivered. This is because the increase in piston speed from the long-stroke layout would stress the internals to the breaking point at a higher rpm. It's one of those physics things. The engine's redline has also been lowered 700 rpm to 8000 rpm.

It worked. The new engine shows an increase in output of between four and 10 percent across the powerband, and Honda's dyno curve shows a big improvement in torque at 3500 rpm, where the engine really starts to pull. Our chassis dyno backed up those claims. The 2.2-liter made 210 hp at 8000 rpm at the rear wheels, compared to the 203 hp at 8500 rpm that the old 2.0-liter delivered, and 146 lb-ft of torque at 6400 rpm, compared to 136 lb-ft at 6300 rpm. Sure, peak power remains the name of the game here, but there's obviously more power than Honda is telling us, and the improved midrange is nice around town.

As before, the power is tough to access at the dragstrip, because the clutch starts to fade into lifelessness after just a couple of high-rpm launches. And, just as before, you either have to drop the clutch and live with the inevitable wheelspin, or start with a modest number of rpm and wait for the VTEC to pull you out of the hole.

Fortunately, the S2000 now accelerates quicker. It pulls to 100 mph in 15.10 seconds, which is 0.2 seconds quicker than before. And there's also an improvement in roll-on acceleration, the kind of performance you feel on the street, because it accelerates 0.18 seconds quicker to 70 mph from 50 mph. Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
zzkamikazezz
UK & Ireland S2000 Community
9
Feb 21, 2013 04:58 AM
LeeJay-B
UK & Ireland S2000 Community
20
Mar 17, 2012 08:24 AM
gello2024
S2000 Talk
32
May 6, 2009 11:55 AM
timrocks311
S2000 Talk
5
Oct 25, 2005 05:41 PM
mikecl713
S2000 Talk
10
Jul 29, 2003 07:10 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:01 AM.