i-VTEC
12-01-2001, 12:19 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i-VTEC
Seeing the recent posts about the new 315hp Z3 and the concern that Honda has already gone 'the whole nine yards' with the S2000 you'd think there was reason to believe that what we have is all we're ever going to get?
But surely the new i-VTEC system will be applied to the FC20E? From what I understand, and have been told about, and having driven the new I-VTEC Integra (or ? Accura RSX in the US) it would only make sense for Honda to apply this technology to the S2000? It would have a much broader and smoother torque band and greater top end power + economy. Maybe such a 2003 model will arrive just in time to keep the Germans gasping in its wake
But surely the new i-VTEC system will be applied to the FC20E? From what I understand, and have been told about, and having driven the new I-VTEC Integra (or ? Accura RSX in the US) it would only make sense for Honda to apply this technology to the S2000? It would have a much broader and smoother torque band and greater top end power + economy. Maybe such a 2003 model will arrive just in time to keep the Germans gasping in its wake
12-02-2001, 10:05 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 4,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The iVTEC, initially named HyperVTEC was targeted (among other alternatives like a V5 engine) for the S2000 - but I think they did not get it ready in time and we now have what we have. I would not expect the iVTEC on it's own to give the S2000 any more hp given the same 2 liter engine. However, we may get a fatter torque curve at the lower rpm's.
12-02-2001, 04:24 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rochester
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm skeptical about how much it might buy. Look at the specs of the 2.0 L RSX-Type S with i-Vtec vs the previous GSR without:
RSX: 2.0 L, 200 hp @ 7400, 142 lb-ft @ 6000 (yields 100 hp/L, 71 lb-ft/L)
GSR: 1.8 L, 170 hp @ 7600, 128 lb-ft @ 6200 (yields 94 hp/L, 71 lb-ft/L)
Type-R: 1.8L, 195 @ 8000, 130 lb-ft @ 7500 (yelds 108 hp/L, 72 lb-ft/L)
To be sure, they claim a broader torque band. But is the GSR's that bad to begin with? I've seen dynos on the net that indicate 90% of max at 2500 rpm. So, I'd guess at best you'll see an extra few (single-digit) lb-ft at lower rpm. Thus I really doubt you'd see a marked difference, in either the numbers or feel if it was put into the S2000. Or is there something else at play here?
RSX: 2.0 L, 200 hp @ 7400, 142 lb-ft @ 6000 (yields 100 hp/L, 71 lb-ft/L)
GSR: 1.8 L, 170 hp @ 7600, 128 lb-ft @ 6200 (yields 94 hp/L, 71 lb-ft/L)
Type-R: 1.8L, 195 @ 8000, 130 lb-ft @ 7500 (yelds 108 hp/L, 72 lb-ft/L)
To be sure, they claim a broader torque band. But is the GSR's that bad to begin with? I've seen dynos on the net that indicate 90% of max at 2500 rpm. So, I'd guess at best you'll see an extra few (single-digit) lb-ft at lower rpm. Thus I really doubt you'd see a marked difference, in either the numbers or feel if it was put into the S2000. Or is there something else at play here?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post