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

Car & Driver comments on 2004 S2000

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 02:34 PM
  #41  
bjohnston's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
Default

Originally posted by VTECnology


It will not be iVTEC equipped. It will remain an Fseries. F22C. It's not an all new car, it's just updated.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but how can you know this for sure? Nothing has been published on this to date, as far as I am aware.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 02:38 PM
  #42  
bjohnston's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
Default

Originally posted by JsnS2k
"In my opinion, the most interesting question has not really been addressed. Is the engine going to remain an F20C with old-school VTEC, or are they swapping it out for the new K series with iVTEC? That is a change that could actually affect the car's character, but no one seems to be talking about this."

How wold it effect the character of the car? So long as it is still a vertically apposed engine, and still mounted behind the front axle, what exactly would it change? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I just am really not sure.
With iVTEC, you do not have the pronounced VTEC cross-over point that everyone refers to as "VTECing" etc. The valve timing is constantly being adjusted over the entire operating range, so you will not feel the pronounced rush and change in sound that the current car produces around 6K rpm.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 02:46 PM
  #43  
JsnS2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
Default

Oh ok, so how would it effect the power curve? The car woudl be just as fast I am assuming.

Sorry, never bothered looking into the whole i-Vtec stuff.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 02:59 PM
  #44  
STL's Avatar
STL
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Surf2k
[B]None of the above.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 05:09 PM
  #45  
Russ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
From: Land of the landeaus
Default

A few points....
lightweight 17's are fine but I doubt Honda's choice will be such, since they couldn't manufacturer lightweight 16's for pete's sake. In addition, the rear 16-inch S0-2's weigh, what, 25-lbs?

Whatever gains from the revised gearing may very well be offset by the weight or the tire/wheel combo but we'll have to wait and see on that one. I haven't heard what rubber is going to be planted on the newbie.

I think anyone seriously thinking of buying an S2000 ought to wait it out until the newbie arrives and A/B any remaining '03's vs. the '04. What drew most of us to the car may very well be massaged away from it. What turned others off initially, due to the changes, may be justification for them to return to showrooms.
All I know is, for me personally, I'd pound a dealership down to a $29,500 '03 and put $4K into it and spit out any '04 you're going to throw at me. Figure the newbie is still going to have the pansy stock exhaust and lunch-box intake. There's at least 6-7hp they're ignoring right there. For $4K, you'd have a great exhaust, lighter tires/wheels, intake, gears, revised suspension, pulleys, etc. IOW, a better sportscar. Then again, that's assuming there are more hardcore mod monkeys like me out there.
If you're buying one with resale as your primary concern, wait for the '04 but I'd go with a frosted '03 piece of cake anyday.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 06:02 PM
  #46  
Flite's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,582
Likes: 0
From: middle of a corn field
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bjohnston
[B]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but how can you know this for sure?
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 08:39 PM
  #47  
6sigma's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 390
Likes: 1
From: TH
Default

IMO, the rumored changes can be summarized as follows:

more displacement (2.2 versus 2.0 liters) = good
a little more torque = good
a little more elbowroom = good
a modest face lift = maybe good, maybe bad
lower revs = very bad
softened suspension* = maybe good, maybe bad, maybe no difference, but probably not good

* who knows what 'softened suspension' means anyway. It may be related to the 17" wheels, as suggested previously, and end up not really worse. However, were I comparing two sports cars and car B had a 'softer suspension' than car A I would count that as a negative, all else equal.

Does anybody know anything about the Potenza RE050 tires? Are these more or less performance oriented than the S02? Are they available in sizes to fit the 00-03 cars?

It's fun to guess, but we'll know the truth very soon.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2003 | 09:58 PM
  #48  
ttb's Avatar
ttb
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

how you figure more displacement is good?
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2003 | 06:38 AM
  #49  
SJSHARKS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: STOCKTON
Default

Originally posted by VTECnology


because the F20C (F22C) is longitudenly mounted and set up for rear wheel drive....the K series is simply not. Now it's very possible that Honda could put an iVTEC head on the F22 but I can promise you it will nothing in common with the Kseries in layout or construction. I can assure you though (I'd bet big big money on it) that the S2000 will remain regular old VTEC. Why? the press release simply says "10% increase in displacement". I think the addition of an iVTEC head or even more so, a whole new motor would be mentioned. If this was an all new S2000 I would consider the iVTEC to be a possibility but it's not. It's just an update.
The latest edition of Honda Tuning Magazine did report that the 2004 would have IVTEC.

They are the only publication to report this however.

I suspect it might just be a misprint.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2003 | 06:41 AM
  #50  
Sebringer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Default

For all those who are rev happy. Peak hp on the existing motor is 8300rpm and torque peaks long before that- not at the redline 9k. There's a cliff effect after 8300. You gain nothing except more wear and tear on your precious little engine by taking it to 9k. Is that what you want? Reaching peak hp and torque on this engine a little sooner and for a longer duration is a good thing. I don't care how you slice it. Go talk to an automotive engineer if you need further convincing.

Look at the bright side, the new engines may just last longer now!
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43 PM.