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

Keep the 2.0 and make a 3.0 instead of a 2.2

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 15, 2003 | 06:04 PM
  #11  
Intrepid175's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 0
From: Texas City
Default

Originally posted by Ro_Ja Boy
Dont think it is possible to fit!
Maybe, but if anyone could do it, it would be Honda!

Drive Safe,
Steve R.
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2003 | 06:23 PM
  #12  
s2ktonv's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Default

You wish!!!!
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2003 | 08:21 PM
  #13  
FormerH22a4's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,015
Likes: 2
From: Calgary
Default

I think the lineage of the S will be like of the NSX. The 0.2L increase will hold the model over for a few more years before a revolutionary change.
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2003 | 09:00 PM
  #14  
MrForgetable's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,960
Likes: 7
From: USC
Default

If an S3000 comes out (which I sincerely doubt), we better fasten our seatbelts because one MONSTER of an NSX will be coming out
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2003 | 11:31 PM
  #15  
mikecl713's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,554
Likes: 1
Default

they sacrificed 2 cylinders for trunk space
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2003 | 12:00 AM
  #16  
BDMonk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville
Default

I don't think a huge engine is necessary in this car. I believe a 2.4 - 2.7 liter I6 would fit fine. There appears to be plenty of room under the hood. However, the added torque could make a 6 more appropriate for a stiffer coupe version of the body. I would pay 40,000 for THAT car.
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2003 | 02:19 AM
  #17  
VTEC_Junkie's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,709
Likes: 1
From: Berkeley
Default

naa. a 3.0 v6 would screw with the f/r weight distribution. as for an inline 6, the last 2 cylinders would extend past the front axle and thus destroys the "front/mid engine" characteristic of the car. i'd be happy if they up the displacement to 2.2L using i-vtec technology, maintaining the 9000rpm redline, producing 264hp (to maintain the 120hp/L), and dropping about another 150lbs (although i don't know how or from where).
Reply
Old Aug 17, 2003 | 10:29 AM
  #18  
BDMonk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville
Default

I don't think that the weight distribution would be affected that much by a small I6 or V6. The handling charcteristics of the car could easily be brought back in balance by upping the width of the oddly thin front tires to compensate. Another possibility to keep the weight bias even is relocating the battery to the trunk.
Reply
Old Aug 17, 2003 | 11:00 AM
  #19  
6sigma's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 390
Likes: 1
From: TH
Default

3L V6??? Screw that, make it a 4.0 V8. Mate two F20C into a narrow V8 and shoehorn the damn thing in there. Get a tranny and diff to handle the 450+ HP, and charge $75k for the thing. Think Ferrari, but Honda technology and prices. Why can't Honda, perhaps the world's best engine company, produce a V8 for the street? Their supercar (NSX) needs a V8, not a V6. What other 'supercar' has a NA V6?? I know, I'm dreaming.

Or just put this in it:
http://www.hondaracing.com/pit/index.html
Reply
Old Aug 17, 2003 | 12:16 PM
  #20  
REV IT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
From: NOVA
Default

for some reason, I don't think the hp/liter ratio would be linear. i.e. probably not 360hp just by adding 2 more cylinders. I'm not much an engine guy, but I know synergies aren't always 100% linear.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 PM.