That Honda concept has a hardtop. Impossible that's a S3000.

The next S will have a Hybird system of some kind and it will be nothing like our awesome S2000.

 

^this...theyd kill it will hybrid technology like they did with the new NSX...and i dont care how efficient and powerful the new NSX is going to be, i think they destroyed the fundamentals behind it by making it with hybrid technology

 

So why am I not driving an S2200?

It looks like someone mashed an RX-8 front, S2000 Characteristics, and Civic rear fenders.

No thanks.

 

i doubt we will ever seen anything like the s2000 ever again, any car with it's purity is history. i like this concept in general, however, not as the next milestone in Honda's history.

 

Taking a harder look at it, I'm seeing a lot of Hyundai genesis coupe

Plus, it looks bloated.

Honda has so much fail going on when it comes to fun performance cars. I can't believe they created the NSX, S2000 or Acura Interga.

I weep for us Honda purists.

 

The days of Honda performance cars seem to be gone. Honda today just isn't what it used to be.

Hopefully good sales of the BRZ/FR-S duo will push Honda back into the sports scene. Until then, we can only dream.

I feel Honda's new slogan should be: "Honda - Dreams of Power"

 

You're not driving an "S2200" because they didn't want the moniker changed 4 years into the production run, as the 2.2L was a band-aid for bitching old(er) people used to GM's 3800 S2 Supercharged V6s in their Bonnevilles and Monte Carlo "SS"s (random references, but so true) who bitched about their S' not having enough torque. The ones who never had enough sense to look and realize three things before buying the S : 2L Inline-4, less than 170 lb-ft, 9,000 rpm redline with peak power at over 8k. All they saw was 240hp and were like "wow, that little thing has as much power as my antique boat anchor. It should be able to "BURN EM". And then they realize that it actually has to be beat hard to operate as intended, isn't made for drag racing (stock anyway) and requires more skill than most have to drive it correctly. And then "It sucks out of the hole-needs more torque". The very people who have no business in an S2K.. In truth the design flaws (oil consumption specifically) were likely the main culprit, but wait... Most of the other side of the ocean got the updated F20C til 09. Maybe the design wasn't the culprit... Sorry to rant lol. Been waiting on something to be said about the badging nomenclature forever and here it is. The S should have been left alone with the F20C IMO- it's better that way. Want more mid range? Buy a GT500. Again, Sorry to rant .. (Not really )

But I do agree with everyone about the artist's concept in this post: Not likely an S, considering the lineage of the S being all roadsters. A new S that didn't look radically different from the AP1/2 with a hybrid version of the C32B would be bad ass! Especially if they could keep the curb weight after full fluids below 2,800lb..

 

You're not driving an "S2200" because they didn't want the moniker changed 4 years into the production run, as the 2.2L was a band-aid for bitching old(er) people used to GM's 3800 S2 Supercharged V6s in their Bonnevilles and Monte Carlo "SS"s (random references, but so true) who bitched about their S' not having enough torque. The ones who never had enough sense to look and realize three things before buying the S : 2L Inline-4, less than 170 lb-ft, 9,000 rpm redline with peak power at over 8k. All they saw was 240hp and were like "wow, that little thing has as much power as my antique boat anchor. It should be able to "BURN EM". And then they realize that it actually has to be beat hard to operate as intended, isn't made for drag racing (stock anyway) and requires more skill than most have to drive it correctly. And then "It sucks out of the hole-needs more torque". The very people who have no business in an S2K.. In truth the design flaws (oil consumption specifically) were likely the main culprit, but wait... Most of the other side of the ocean got the updated F20C til 09. Maybe the design wasn't the culprit... Sorry to rant lol. Been waiting on something to be said about the badging nomenclature forever and here it is. The S should have been left alone with the F20C IMO- it's better that way. Want more mid range? Buy a GT500. Again, Sorry to rant .. (Not really )

But I do agree with everyone about the artist's concept in this post: Not likely an S, considering the lineage of the S being all roadsters. A new S that didn't look radically different from the AP1/2 with a hybrid version of the C32B would be bad ass! Especially if they could keep the curb weight after full fluids below 2,800lb..
[/quote]

Since you went there:

F22 = more power (look at dyno charts), more torque, exceptionally higher midrange/area under the curve, ability to rev to 8500 and maintain the same piston speed of the F20 at 9000 (so you only have 500 more rpm at that point -- I realize this is stock vs. modded but it's worth mentioning nonetheless), and last but not least the country of origin got it. JDM S2000s had the F22 from 2006 to end of production. Probably the only reason the F20c was maintained in markets like the UK were due to taxes based on engine size. Sub-2000cc engines, I believe, are quite less expensive to own in regards to taxes (someone overseas please correct me if I'm wrong).

Sorry to rant lol. Been waiting on something to be said about the 9k god motor forever and here it is.

 

Amazing story bro.

My point was, Honda doesn't *HAVE* to put a 3000cc in a car they named the "S3000" (if that ever happened) because drumroll.... they haven't followed that nomenclature throughout the years as proved by my 2200cc'd s2000.

(even the s800 didn't technically have quite a 800cc motor either, though, 790 is obviously very close).

But once again, amazing rant, glad you got that off your chest. Seems like that's just been boiling and boiling in there.

 

for me it looks more like a mixture of CRZ and FRS...