My thoughts and observations on the F22C
10-09-2003, 11:35 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Roswell
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading a lot on the F20C vs F22 debate and I have some stuff that might be of interest to some people. Note: some of this is nothing more than educated guesses. Just seeing what others on S2ki think.
First, I've heard people say that this new engine isnt as "high strung" or more relaxed compared the F20C. I'm not sure I agree with this. Let take a look at the piston speeds of the F22.
Piston speed is calcuated by [(stroke in inches x rpms) / 6]. Using this formula at the fuel cut of 8200 rpms, you get 4879 feet per minute. (By the way, anyone know how yo do this with the metric system?) The old F20C at 9000 rpms is going 4965 feet per minute (THANKS SJSHARKS!). The new engine is doing less work at max rpms. I hope that this means that the aftermarket will allow us to extend the redline with the use of stronger valvetrain. However, even with the taller 6th gear, crusing at a certain rpms isnt necessarily working the engine less. At 3700 rpms, the F22 is going 2201 ft per min, while the old F20C's pistons are moving at the rate of 2261 at 4100 rpms. (I appologize for the previous inaccuracy.)
Honestly, neither the F20 or the F22 are well suited to true high revving. The B16A with a stroke of 77mm, could rev to 9691 rpms with similar pistons speed as the F22C at 8200. They both have rather long strokes compared to their diminuative displacements. A Ford 289 has a stroke of just 2.87 inches while even the F20C has a stroke of 3.31 inches. However, certainly piston speed is not the only thing that dicates maximum allowable rpm. but it is a major part of determining.
Pistons are moving very rapidly on both engines however. Just to give you an idea of the piston speeds of both these motors, most old school mustang guys suggest that you do not exceed 3500 ft per min on a stock motor and 4000 ft per min on built motors. 5000 ft per min is recommended on drag only motors.
I used 8200 and 9000 as the values here because according to Hondanews.com, redline on the 03's was 8800 and fuel cut was 9000. If you are hitting higher rpm numbers than that, its probably due to tach inaccuracy more than anything as Honda tach's (all tach's maybe?) tend to get in accurate at high rpms, perhaps as a safeguard. My ITR can go up to a tach indicated 8700 rpms, but once someone plugs in a V-AFC, it reads 8400 rpms when my tach says 8700. OR even assuming that fuel cut is at 9200 as some have said, the fuel cut for the 04's will probably be higher than 8200 as well.
Second, according to hondanews.com, the duration on the intake and exhaust camshafts for the high rpm lobe have been DECREASED. With the added displacement, these should have been increased if anything, if they wanted high rpm power. There is no mention of changes in lift on the cams. I think this means that those seaching for more high end rpm power, will see more gains off say Toda cams than on the old F20C. Duration on the Low rpms lobe intake side has been increased while the duration on the exahust has been decreased to create more overlap- which should result in more torque at low to mid rpms.
Third, torque per liter is WORSE on the F22C than the F20, which wasnt that good at torque per liter anyway. The F20C produces 76.6 ft/lbs of torque per liter (used 1997 ccs of displacement, not 2.0L) and the F22C produces 75.1 ft/ per liter. This leads me to HOPE that there is more to be had out of this engine as horsepower is a derivative of rpms, but torque is amount of power that the car is really making. Note, acceleration is determined by the amount of torque that a car puts down AFTER being multiplied by the gear ratios, which gives the F22 the advatange but at the same time, the lower redline makes it have a disadvantage as the driver will have to shift much sooner with the more agressive gearing contributing to even earlier shifting.
I have mentioned this before but Honda's up to something on the rating as well. They claim 240 hp at 7800 rpms, using the formula to calculate hp, this would require 161.6 ft/lbs of torque. Peak torque is only 162 ft-lbs at 6500 rpms. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THIS ENGINE'S TORQUE CURVE CAN BE THIS FLAT, and if so, shouldnt it read peak torque as being 162 from 6500 rpms to 7800 rpms? I can only hope that this car is underrated as far as peak torque goes, but sadly there is a possibility of it being overrated as far as peak horsepower goes.
IN CONCLUSION, I believe that this engine is an UNDERACHIEVER compared to the F20. The pistons speeds are slightly lower at fuel cut, makes less torque per liter, and cant rev as high. However, I think this leaves more room for the aftermarket. If the 2 motors use the same bolt-ons, perhaps there is more to gain off aftermarket boltons than there was on the F20. Or maybe Honda used cheaper more restrictive boltons to save money and to prevent the japanese owners and 00-03 owners from feeling they got ripped off. The bigger motor will respond better to more agressive cams and in the case of a centrifugal supercharger (vortech and comptech), where 1/4 of the max boost is achieved at 1/2 the max rpms, boost will come on earlier on the F22's. 8200 rpms is still not bad in the grand scheme of things, but the effect of losing 800 rpms is still to be determined and in the end, F22 will only be slightly faster due to not being able to be in a lower gear as long. THAT IS IF THE RATING OF 240 hp IS CORRECT!!!
Aside from the engine, I think that the 2004 is an upgrade in everyway however. I think the suspension changes will make the S2000 a better handling car rather than worse.
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to get everything out and see what others thought.
First, I've heard people say that this new engine isnt as "high strung" or more relaxed compared the F20C. I'm not sure I agree with this. Let take a look at the piston speeds of the F22.
Piston speed is calcuated by [(stroke in inches x rpms) / 6]. Using this formula at the fuel cut of 8200 rpms, you get 4879 feet per minute. (By the way, anyone know how yo do this with the metric system?) The old F20C at 9000 rpms is going 4965 feet per minute (THANKS SJSHARKS!). The new engine is doing less work at max rpms. I hope that this means that the aftermarket will allow us to extend the redline with the use of stronger valvetrain. However, even with the taller 6th gear, crusing at a certain rpms isnt necessarily working the engine less. At 3700 rpms, the F22 is going 2201 ft per min, while the old F20C's pistons are moving at the rate of 2261 at 4100 rpms. (I appologize for the previous inaccuracy.)
Honestly, neither the F20 or the F22 are well suited to true high revving. The B16A with a stroke of 77mm, could rev to 9691 rpms with similar pistons speed as the F22C at 8200. They both have rather long strokes compared to their diminuative displacements. A Ford 289 has a stroke of just 2.87 inches while even the F20C has a stroke of 3.31 inches. However, certainly piston speed is not the only thing that dicates maximum allowable rpm. but it is a major part of determining.
Pistons are moving very rapidly on both engines however. Just to give you an idea of the piston speeds of both these motors, most old school mustang guys suggest that you do not exceed 3500 ft per min on a stock motor and 4000 ft per min on built motors. 5000 ft per min is recommended on drag only motors.
I used 8200 and 9000 as the values here because according to Hondanews.com, redline on the 03's was 8800 and fuel cut was 9000. If you are hitting higher rpm numbers than that, its probably due to tach inaccuracy more than anything as Honda tach's (all tach's maybe?) tend to get in accurate at high rpms, perhaps as a safeguard. My ITR can go up to a tach indicated 8700 rpms, but once someone plugs in a V-AFC, it reads 8400 rpms when my tach says 8700. OR even assuming that fuel cut is at 9200 as some have said, the fuel cut for the 04's will probably be higher than 8200 as well.
Second, according to hondanews.com, the duration on the intake and exhaust camshafts for the high rpm lobe have been DECREASED. With the added displacement, these should have been increased if anything, if they wanted high rpm power. There is no mention of changes in lift on the cams. I think this means that those seaching for more high end rpm power, will see more gains off say Toda cams than on the old F20C. Duration on the Low rpms lobe intake side has been increased while the duration on the exahust has been decreased to create more overlap- which should result in more torque at low to mid rpms.
Third, torque per liter is WORSE on the F22C than the F20, which wasnt that good at torque per liter anyway. The F20C produces 76.6 ft/lbs of torque per liter (used 1997 ccs of displacement, not 2.0L) and the F22C produces 75.1 ft/ per liter. This leads me to HOPE that there is more to be had out of this engine as horsepower is a derivative of rpms, but torque is amount of power that the car is really making. Note, acceleration is determined by the amount of torque that a car puts down AFTER being multiplied by the gear ratios, which gives the F22 the advatange but at the same time, the lower redline makes it have a disadvantage as the driver will have to shift much sooner with the more agressive gearing contributing to even earlier shifting.
I have mentioned this before but Honda's up to something on the rating as well. They claim 240 hp at 7800 rpms, using the formula to calculate hp, this would require 161.6 ft/lbs of torque. Peak torque is only 162 ft-lbs at 6500 rpms. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THIS ENGINE'S TORQUE CURVE CAN BE THIS FLAT, and if so, shouldnt it read peak torque as being 162 from 6500 rpms to 7800 rpms? I can only hope that this car is underrated as far as peak torque goes, but sadly there is a possibility of it being overrated as far as peak horsepower goes.
IN CONCLUSION, I believe that this engine is an UNDERACHIEVER compared to the F20. The pistons speeds are slightly lower at fuel cut, makes less torque per liter, and cant rev as high. However, I think this leaves more room for the aftermarket. If the 2 motors use the same bolt-ons, perhaps there is more to gain off aftermarket boltons than there was on the F20. Or maybe Honda used cheaper more restrictive boltons to save money and to prevent the japanese owners and 00-03 owners from feeling they got ripped off. The bigger motor will respond better to more agressive cams and in the case of a centrifugal supercharger (vortech and comptech), where 1/4 of the max boost is achieved at 1/2 the max rpms, boost will come on earlier on the F22's. 8200 rpms is still not bad in the grand scheme of things, but the effect of losing 800 rpms is still to be determined and in the end, F22 will only be slightly faster due to not being able to be in a lower gear as long. THAT IS IF THE RATING OF 240 hp IS CORRECT!!!
Aside from the engine, I think that the 2004 is an upgrade in everyway however. I think the suspension changes will make the S2000 a better handling car rather than worse.
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to get everything out and see what others thought.
10-09-2003, 11:46 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it, the '04 suspension changes is a downgrade from the '02s, which are downgraded from the '00s.
If you've driven them, you will know. The '00s are
.
Then again, I'm talking about downgrading in terms of pure driving fun. I guess you can say the '04s are upgraded from the '02s which are upgraded from '00s in terms of driving ease and comfort.
In terms of the engine Honda wouldn't give the better stuff to Americans and not themselves, just like any other manufacturer out there. If anyone's getting screwed, it's the N.American. It's highly unlikely that they will make a better motor for us and tune it down to make the Japanese people happy. It makes absolutely no sense.
It's just like the F&F crowd cheering because they got the beasty EJ25s instead of the EJ20s, which are quietly turning in faster lap times.
Anyway, I'm not trying to put down the F22. It's simply because people want different things. European and Japanese paople care about lap times and driving fun, Americans love straight lines. Different strokes for different folks.
If you've driven them, you will know. The '00s are
.Then again, I'm talking about downgrading in terms of pure driving fun. I guess you can say the '04s are upgraded from the '02s which are upgraded from '00s in terms of driving ease and comfort.
In terms of the engine Honda wouldn't give the better stuff to Americans and not themselves, just like any other manufacturer out there. If anyone's getting screwed, it's the N.American. It's highly unlikely that they will make a better motor for us and tune it down to make the Japanese people happy. It makes absolutely no sense.
It's just like the F&F crowd cheering because they got the beasty EJ25s instead of the EJ20s, which are quietly turning in faster lap times.
Anyway, I'm not trying to put down the F22. It's simply because people want different things. European and Japanese paople care about lap times and driving fun, Americans love straight lines. Different strokes for different folks.
10-09-2003, 12:00 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Roswell
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JL,
I have driven a 2000 and while I have not driven a 2002+, I will agree that the 2000-2001's are probably the sharpest feeling. However, on uneven surfaces and over 9/10's driving, I've heard many people complain about a loose back end, snap oversteer, and bump steer. Many of these are caused by driver error, such as getting off the throttle mid corner, yet I believe some of these complaints are legit as many serious autocrossers and track people have the same complaints.
The 2004 does not simply just feature softer spring rates for a better ride. I believe that these changes were made so that the tail slips out more progressively and to reduce bump steer. I cant imagine Honda stiffening the front spring rates by 6.7% to give it a better ride nor do I see the need for chassis stiffening if the whole idea was to make it car softer and less edgy.
I have driven a 2000 and while I have not driven a 2002+, I will agree that the 2000-2001's are probably the sharpest feeling. However, on uneven surfaces and over 9/10's driving, I've heard many people complain about a loose back end, snap oversteer, and bump steer. Many of these are caused by driver error, such as getting off the throttle mid corner, yet I believe some of these complaints are legit as many serious autocrossers and track people have the same complaints.
The 2004 does not simply just feature softer spring rates for a better ride. I believe that these changes were made so that the tail slips out more progressively and to reduce bump steer. I cant imagine Honda stiffening the front spring rates by 6.7% to give it a better ride nor do I see the need for chassis stiffening if the whole idea was to make it car softer and less edgy.
10-09-2003, 12:13 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: STOCKTON
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itr
Could you show your calculations on the piston speed thing.
I'm curious why you use fuel cut-off (8200) on the 04, and only redline (9000) on the 03?
I seem to get higher piston speeds on the 03 than the 04.
Could you show your calculations on the piston speed thing.
I'm curious why you use fuel cut-off (8200) on the 04, and only redline (9000) on the 03?
I seem to get higher piston speeds on the 03 than the 04.
10-09-2003, 03:36 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Roswell
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SJSHARKS,
Ouch, good eye on my calculations. I used a calculator yet stil messed up
. I'm sorry guys. SJSHARKS is correct. Pistons speeds on the F20C are greater in value at 9000 rpms than the F22 is at 8200 rpms. I get 4965 ft per min for the F20 and 4879 is correct for the F22. I'll correct this in my post. Thanks dude!
I used 8200 rpms and 9000 rpms because according to Hondanews.com, these are the fuel cuts for the F22 and F20. Hondanews.com lists 8800 as the redline for 03's. There is a small part concerning this in my first post.
Just in case you still wanted to know, the formula for pistons speeds is [(length of stroke (inches) x rpm) /6 ]. The F22 has a stroke of 3.57 inches and the F20 has a stroke of 3.31 inches.
Ouch, good eye on my calculations. I used a calculator yet stil messed up
. I'm sorry guys. SJSHARKS is correct. Pistons speeds on the F20C are greater in value at 9000 rpms than the F22 is at 8200 rpms. I get 4965 ft per min for the F20 and 4879 is correct for the F22. I'll correct this in my post. Thanks dude!I used 8200 rpms and 9000 rpms because according to Hondanews.com, these are the fuel cuts for the F22 and F20. Hondanews.com lists 8800 as the redline for 03's. There is a small part concerning this in my first post.
Just in case you still wanted to know, the formula for pistons speeds is [(length of stroke (inches) x rpm) /6 ]. The F22 has a stroke of 3.57 inches and the F20 has a stroke of 3.31 inches.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post