No, no, no. Satisfying market demand is watering down, or perhaps selling out.

If Honda were to remove all cup-holders, bump the redline to 10k and increase peak hp by 35hp (but making the car slower), that would be keeping it real or perhaps staying old-school.

Seriously, it would be watering down the car if changes are made that Honda feels will sell more cars, even though they think the changes actually make the car worse. Like when Metallica did Black/Load/Reload.....

Personally, I don't think Honda's watering down the car at all. I think what we've heard so far sound like improvements to the car, from an enthuasiast's point of view. That's why I disagree when people say Honda's watering down the car.

One thing I do agree with zeraful about though, is that it's nice that s2ks are pretty rare.

 

just picked up my 2003 over the weekend. one of the main reasons i got the s2000 was the engine was so cool...240hp, 9krpm, only 2.0 liters. some don't care, but i like little engines that make a lot of power. so the news of increased displacement with same hp isn't good news for me.

would you rather have

A) 2.2 liter, 240 hp, 8.5krpm, a little more toque

OR

B) 1.8 liter, 240 hp, 9.5krpm, a little less toque

i'd said B, so in my eyes it's not good.

 

i'd say B too.

 

Re auto-X: I second the link from Pedalfaster. Check UL's posts:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...threadid=139631
Maybe softer suspension = better grip and response to bumpy real-world roads.

"Range of rpm?" I do agree that the new engine might have significantly more hp where the current engine is weak, ie sub-6000 rpm. Real world should give better performance (unless weight is significantly up?). But reduced redline (I'm convinced it will be) will result in needing to shift at lower road speed which will offset some of the advantage.

Bottom line: My crystal ball says marginally improved performance at the cost of the bragging rights of 9000 rpm and hp/L. Your call if this is a win or loss.

On a related topic, I recall reading that Honda is closing down the plant where they made the S2000 and NSX and moving to one of their existing facilities. Wonder if this had any impact on the changes.

 

actually i choose C..

1L, 240hp, 16krpm and even less torque..

 

I can understand the bragging rights for a 9000 RPM redline, I personally enjoy it, but aren't you dealing with a HP/TQ rolloff after around 8500 RPM? If you get the same HP/TQ at 7800 that you would at 8800 I don't see a point in going any further than 8800 other than to see the tach blink at you and bounce the rev limiter.

 

I have a hard time believeing they are doing this JUST to sell more cars. The volume wouldn't make it a good investment. If they really wanted to make more money they would put the money elsewhere. Personally I feel that this is for honda pride and just to freshen it up, keep people talking. If they wanted to make a lot of money they wouldn't have made the car in the first place. Just like the M3 made the 3 series for BMW and S4/RS4 make the A4 more noticed (argueably), the S2000 makes a name for honda (as does the NSX). Just remember, they did it right the first time, or you wouldn't have bought the car. So I'll put my trust in honda until proven otherwise. Just my two bits! Now if only they'll just give us some pics!!!

 

There are pics, look at the '04 Accord brochure.

 

No mention on the carbon fibre synchros either.
Or the revised rear end ratio.

 

Do you guys remember the '95 M3?

It was 240hp out of a 3.0L engine.

In '96 they went to 3.2L engine.


The HP rating was the same, but the torque went up.