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

Official 2004 S2000 Specs by VTEC.net

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 09:11 AM
  #11  
KeithD's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
From: WASTED in Margaritaville
Default

Don't forget LED's will give you at least a 10 oz. weight saving!

Gotta be worth 0.00000001 seconds in the quarter!
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 09:27 AM
  #12  
B.C.'s Avatar
Community Organizer
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 59,877
Likes: 12
From: Area 51
Default

I saw a JAP. Mag. pictures, but can't locate it anymore. Can someone link me.

THanks!
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 09:56 AM
  #13  
pjkwong's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,278
Likes: 0
From: EB
Default

the 10oz. u save is added back by the 17's
probably 4lbs at each wheel heh
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 10:32 AM
  #14  
SJSHARKS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: STOCKTON
Default

Time for a stupid question.

The displacement increases 10%.

The torque increases 5%.

But the HP remains the came.

Do the lower rpms have some bearing on it?
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 11:32 AM
  #15  
gomarlins3's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 23,396
Likes: 108
From: Kuna Idaho
Default

The head lights and tail lights were news to me as well.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 11:35 AM
  #16  
Optikal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 0
From: Bellevue
Default

If the wheels increased an inch... wouldn't that be a tad bit more mass to move? How much could this negate the increased torque? Until the 04 comes out, I doubt I can get a concrete answer to these questions... but, what about some physic answers?
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 11:35 AM
  #17  
Palmateer's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
From: St. Pete, Florida
Default

Sure, you could probably get 350 hp out of it if you could rev it to 12,000 rpm

Originally posted by SJSHARKS
Time for a stupid question.

The displacement increases 10%.

The torque increases 5%.

But the HP remains the came.

Do the lower rpms have some bearing on it?
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 11:38 AM
  #18  
jerrypeterson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,768
Likes: 2
From: Bellevue, WA
Default

Originally posted by SJSHARKS
Time for a stupid question.

The displacement increases 10%.

The torque increases 5%.

But the HP remains the came.

Do the lower rpms have some bearing on it?
Yes.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 11:53 AM
  #19  
SJSHARKS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: STOCKTON
Default

This brings up more questions:

Why does increasing displacement automatically reduce the RPMS?

How did Honda increase displacement? Was it bored or stroked or both, and does it matter with regard to the lower rpms phenomonen if it is one or the other?

If the 2200 was stroked, how is this done? Longer rods, Pistons, does the block need to be given extra height, and what about the crankshaft? Does it need a larger arc?

Actually, there was no mention about the redline being lowered.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2003 | 12:00 PM
  #20  
I dream of S's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 3
From: Spokane
Default

Originally posted by SJSHARKS
Actually, there was no mention about the redline being lowered.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 AM.