JDM power/torque specs for 2004
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 1
From: Azusa
JDM power/torque specs for 2004
Read all about it
bwob = Bob Hall, a primary creative force behind the Miata, turned automotive journalist
bwob = Bob Hall, a primary creative force behind the Miata, turned automotive journalist
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,551
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale
Hard to figure out what exactly those specs mean. Can anyone tell?
"
I'm getting real curious as to how Honda is going to market the 2.2 litre version of the S2000 when it goes on sale late this year. Honda has already filed technical specs on the 2004 model year S2000 and the S2000 2.2 with Japan's Unyusho (Ministry of Transportation) and the information's confusing, to put it mildly.
2003 S2000 (Japanese spec)
250hp at 8300rpm
22.2kg/m at 7500rpm
2004 S2000 (Japanese spec)
250hp at 8300rpm
22.2kg/m at 7500rpm
2004 S2000 2.2 (Japanese spec)
240hp at 7700rpm
22.5kg/m at 7000rpm
Kinda makes you wonder why they bothered? The only other bit of new information the data contains is that the wheel and tire size has been upped to 17 inches, with 215/45 ZRs at the front and 245/40 ZRs at the rear, replacing the 205/55 front and 225/50 16-inchers at the rear.
bwob
"
"
I'm getting real curious as to how Honda is going to market the 2.2 litre version of the S2000 when it goes on sale late this year. Honda has already filed technical specs on the 2004 model year S2000 and the S2000 2.2 with Japan's Unyusho (Ministry of Transportation) and the information's confusing, to put it mildly.
2003 S2000 (Japanese spec)
250hp at 8300rpm
22.2kg/m at 7500rpm
2004 S2000 (Japanese spec)
250hp at 8300rpm
22.2kg/m at 7500rpm
2004 S2000 2.2 (Japanese spec)
240hp at 7700rpm
22.5kg/m at 7000rpm
Kinda makes you wonder why they bothered? The only other bit of new information the data contains is that the wheel and tire size has been upped to 17 inches, with 215/45 ZRs at the front and 245/40 ZRs at the rear, replacing the 205/55 front and 225/50 16-inchers at the rear.
bwob
"
Trending Topics
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
IMO there is only one thoughtful post in the thread:
"You're looking at peak figures. We need to see across the rev-range what the difference is - there could be 10% increase in torque, just not at torque peak. The same is true of hp.
We just have to wait for the dynos."
"You're looking at peak figures. We need to see across the rev-range what the difference is - there could be 10% increase in torque, just not at torque peak. The same is true of hp.
We just have to wait for the dynos."
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
Ortho, beat me to the post.
Bwob is a pretty reliable source.
Does indicate two (JDM) '04 engines, both 2.0 and 2.2. Concurrent or a mid-year replacement?
I don't see anything that says 8000 rpm redline. Though I think it is clear from the 7700 rpm peak that it'll be lower than now. Perhaps 8200.
Pathetic if they can only manage an additional 2 lb-ft out of it and less (JDM) hp. Well, I suppose it could have a fair amount more in the 5000 rpm range where the S2000 is flat.
But first look: very strange and not at all encouraging.
Bwob is a pretty reliable source.
Does indicate two (JDM) '04 engines, both 2.0 and 2.2. Concurrent or a mid-year replacement?
I don't see anything that says 8000 rpm redline. Though I think it is clear from the 7700 rpm peak that it'll be lower than now. Perhaps 8200.
Pathetic if they can only manage an additional 2 lb-ft out of it and less (JDM) hp. Well, I suppose it could have a fair amount more in the 5000 rpm range where the S2000 is flat.
But first look: very strange and not at all encouraging.
