The S2000 needs a V6
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: New Milford
I love my S2000 its a great car and I love the Handling and the performance and the way it looks plus I love reving to 9000 redline all the time and Vtecing.. Can you imagine Honda making a better S2000 with a 11000 or 13000 redline and more Hosepower and like a F1 race car Paddle shifters on the steering wheel wow if honda did that it would be more F1 inspired...Just like Michael Shummacher but in a Honda not a ferrari...I love the high revs its fun and the sound is amazing.. I hope the future of the S2000 can be improved to a more advanced version that keeps the same principles of the creation that Honda has inspired to build...Honda has made a great car and to make it even better make a future S with more power and even better Handling and keep the real sports car image alive future model S2000 R 
That will eat BMWS and Vettes on the track as well as on the street!
That will eat BMWS and Vettes on the track as well as on the street!
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 1
From: You wish
What an amusing little thread. Note to nastinube, your premise isn't a bad one, but your approach sucks. Telling people you don't know that they're in denial is either a) a trolling ploy b) horribly insensitive c) ignorant.
That said, more torque isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are so many variables involved, you could talk for days about just how it should be executed. Beig has raised some excellent points on what it would cost in a variety of ways, so I won't rehash that. I will say that after spending a week in a CL-S 6-spd, I took some rough measurements to see if I could shoehorn the J32A2 into my S2K with a bell housing adaptor. Suffice it to say, I don't think it will fit - the width between the shock towers is just too narrow. Maybe if you were really creative... But its a great engine, and it might be worth another 100 lbs of weight. If Honda had put that engine in the car, I don't think the price would have been much higher, but the car would have gained even more weight and size than a simple aftermarket swap would indicate (I'd say between 175-250 lbs) for reasons Beig pointed out. Interestingly enough, that would have put the S2K within about 100-150 lbs of the old M Roadster, with similar weight distribution and similar whp numbers (the old E36 3.2 put down closer to 260 hp). Guess if I really wanted that sort of thrust, I already had the option when I bought my S...
Why I find this thread interesting is it embodies so very much of what this car, Honda and car enthusiasts are about. Many of us are never satisfied, even with a great car. So the desire to improve our cars is great. However, its rare that I wait for the manufacturer to do so. If I had waited for a glass rear window, I would have missed out on 2 years of driving fun! You make your choices...
And if you knwo anything about Honda, as others have pointed out, you know that they will always opt for the smallest engine possible that will do the job. If the US hadn't been their #1 market, we might still be waiting for a V6 Accord - they had to be brought kicking and screaming into the V6 era. And once they got acclimated, they put out a great engine, but it was becasue the market had to have it. Considering the sales of the S2K, I don't think the market is demanding a V6. Even more amusing to me, is that Honda is often criticized by less informed individuals as having no soul, no history, no heritage or character. And yet, here we have an example of where someone (nastinube in this case) has completely missed a very evident part of that heritage. And character wise - for better or worse, I'd say the F20C has more character than any other engine in the Honda lineup. The J32A2 sounds sweet and purrs when cruising. The C32 in the NSX rips, but none have quite the visceral punch of the F20C (and admittedly after hearing that punch for 500 miles on the freeway you might not appreciate it - but that's part of character).
And finally, lets talk about balance. I wouldn't bitch a bit if I walked into my garage tomorrow and my S2K had some 20 lbs-ft more torque below 7000 rpm. However, if that torque compromised the balance of the car, I would be pissed. That's why I love this car. I've owned faster cars (still do). I own cars that ahve more absolute stick. I own cars with more satisfying midrange thrust. But I have never owned a car that is so well balanced, in every aspect, as the S2K. Get out on a twisty road and let it loose and it just works so perfectly you can't help but be smitten - that is why its a great car, above any other reason.
UL
That said, more torque isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are so many variables involved, you could talk for days about just how it should be executed. Beig has raised some excellent points on what it would cost in a variety of ways, so I won't rehash that. I will say that after spending a week in a CL-S 6-spd, I took some rough measurements to see if I could shoehorn the J32A2 into my S2K with a bell housing adaptor. Suffice it to say, I don't think it will fit - the width between the shock towers is just too narrow. Maybe if you were really creative... But its a great engine, and it might be worth another 100 lbs of weight. If Honda had put that engine in the car, I don't think the price would have been much higher, but the car would have gained even more weight and size than a simple aftermarket swap would indicate (I'd say between 175-250 lbs) for reasons Beig pointed out. Interestingly enough, that would have put the S2K within about 100-150 lbs of the old M Roadster, with similar weight distribution and similar whp numbers (the old E36 3.2 put down closer to 260 hp). Guess if I really wanted that sort of thrust, I already had the option when I bought my S...
Why I find this thread interesting is it embodies so very much of what this car, Honda and car enthusiasts are about. Many of us are never satisfied, even with a great car. So the desire to improve our cars is great. However, its rare that I wait for the manufacturer to do so. If I had waited for a glass rear window, I would have missed out on 2 years of driving fun! You make your choices...
And if you knwo anything about Honda, as others have pointed out, you know that they will always opt for the smallest engine possible that will do the job. If the US hadn't been their #1 market, we might still be waiting for a V6 Accord - they had to be brought kicking and screaming into the V6 era. And once they got acclimated, they put out a great engine, but it was becasue the market had to have it. Considering the sales of the S2K, I don't think the market is demanding a V6. Even more amusing to me, is that Honda is often criticized by less informed individuals as having no soul, no history, no heritage or character. And yet, here we have an example of where someone (nastinube in this case) has completely missed a very evident part of that heritage. And character wise - for better or worse, I'd say the F20C has more character than any other engine in the Honda lineup. The J32A2 sounds sweet and purrs when cruising. The C32 in the NSX rips, but none have quite the visceral punch of the F20C (and admittedly after hearing that punch for 500 miles on the freeway you might not appreciate it - but that's part of character).
And finally, lets talk about balance. I wouldn't bitch a bit if I walked into my garage tomorrow and my S2K had some 20 lbs-ft more torque below 7000 rpm. However, if that torque compromised the balance of the car, I would be pissed. That's why I love this car. I've owned faster cars (still do). I own cars that ahve more absolute stick. I own cars with more satisfying midrange thrust. But I have never owned a car that is so well balanced, in every aspect, as the S2K. Get out on a twisty road and let it loose and it just works so perfectly you can't help but be smitten - that is why its a great car, above any other reason.
UL
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,610
Likes: 1
From: Clearlake, CA
More torque would be nice at the track...along with more HP. But jeez...for standard driving I have a very hard time not looking like I'm racing from every stop light, as is!
And I don't _ever_ VTEC from a light -- I get apx 26mpg in city driving if that's any indication. (apx 30 highway, and apx 14 track).
Anyhow, I'm not in denial...I just love shifting my S2k
And I don't _ever_ VTEC from a light -- I get apx 26mpg in city driving if that's any indication. (apx 30 highway, and apx 14 track).
Anyhow, I'm not in denial...I just love shifting my S2k
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
From: palo alto
i thought i had run into bieg before.....at a lotus club meeting!!!!!!
a long time ago,most likely before bieg was born, a fellow could purchase a factory-tweaked lotus elan for not much less than a 289 cobra..both new...[if you could find a dealer]....two different approaches to the same goal;to go as fast as possible.the lotus followed chapman's credo;as much power as available with as little weight as one could get away with..everything stressed to the max[and sometimes beyond, as us former lotus owners realized]....the 289,well, was about a lot of reliable horsepower with a light but perhaps not too sophisticated chassis.the result was two cars that had similar performance with quite different approaches.
where the s2000 comes in is the seemingly steadfast owner group that seems to consider it some form of holy icon to be coveted as originally designed...much akin to the lotus guys that cling to the original concept.[even tho a mazda powered unit is faster,it's heresy.]
where the cobra comes into the story is that an original,unmolested 289 is still a pretty well behaved car,despite it's unfortunate possession of too much horsepower for a car it's size.
rest assured honda will give the s2000 upgrades that will keep it's character and performance if perhaps not it's number of cylinders.
and yes,i own and drive an s2000...i love it but i don't consider it to be the zenith of automobile design or performance..even at the price. it will be around a long time and will evolve.just wait.
a long time ago,most likely before bieg was born, a fellow could purchase a factory-tweaked lotus elan for not much less than a 289 cobra..both new...[if you could find a dealer]....two different approaches to the same goal;to go as fast as possible.the lotus followed chapman's credo;as much power as available with as little weight as one could get away with..everything stressed to the max[and sometimes beyond, as us former lotus owners realized]....the 289,well, was about a lot of reliable horsepower with a light but perhaps not too sophisticated chassis.the result was two cars that had similar performance with quite different approaches.
where the s2000 comes in is the seemingly steadfast owner group that seems to consider it some form of holy icon to be coveted as originally designed...much akin to the lotus guys that cling to the original concept.[even tho a mazda powered unit is faster,it's heresy.]
where the cobra comes into the story is that an original,unmolested 289 is still a pretty well behaved car,despite it's unfortunate possession of too much horsepower for a car it's size.
rest assured honda will give the s2000 upgrades that will keep it's character and performance if perhaps not it's number of cylinders.
and yes,i own and drive an s2000...i love it but i don't consider it to be the zenith of automobile design or performance..even at the price. it will be around a long time and will evolve.just wait.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,446
Likes: 1
From: West Mids.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jschmidt
[B]Boy, don't mess with the zealotry!
I too would like more torque. That doesn't mean I don't like my car.
It sounds like some are saying that the car is as good as it could ever be? Just because you are satisfied? Silly logic (or perhaps Honda worship) at work.
[B]Boy, don't mess with the zealotry!
I too would like more torque. That doesn't mean I don't like my car.
It sounds like some are saying that the car is as good as it could ever be? Just because you are satisfied? Silly logic (or perhaps Honda worship) at work.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
From: :spam:u
UL brings up an excellent point about "Character". For years I have listened to Brit Bike, Car, Italian Bike, car enthusiasts pointing to the oil spot on their garage floor or their electrical systems that don't work when it rains and saying it is "Character". Hondas (and most Japanese cars in general) have always been tagged with the "no character" label by euro fans and car magazine reviewers.
SO they build the S2000, a car with CHARACTER in capital letters and what do you guys complain about? It could use more torque, it needs a clock/plusher carpets/etc.....
It is designed to be a minimalist sports racer for the street. VERY, VERY Nich Market as Cedrick says.
Sure anything can be improved and designs evolve but you all will be bitching when they raise the price and install a larger engine. Sure the Z-3 with the four cylinder was lame but it was a lot cheaper than the M edition that came later on. Most people will also say that the M version of the Z-3 was not as nicely ballanced as the non-M version of the 6 cylinder Z-3. A case of a little too much HP for the chassis/suspension. Look at how much more money that M edition will cost.
Do you want that torque enough to pay 10 grand more and then have a car not as nicely ballanced to drive? More torque will require a bigger engine and all new beefier components everywhere else in the car. That will cost in both weight and dollars.
For what it is worth instead of lamenting about what could have been or dumping thousands in mods to try to make the car something it is not I will be taking the Skip Barber 3 day racing school in September. That way I can maximize my enjoyment of ANY car I happen to own for the rest of my life.
"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life"
SO they build the S2000, a car with CHARACTER in capital letters and what do you guys complain about? It could use more torque, it needs a clock/plusher carpets/etc.....
It is designed to be a minimalist sports racer for the street. VERY, VERY Nich Market as Cedrick says.
Sure anything can be improved and designs evolve but you all will be bitching when they raise the price and install a larger engine. Sure the Z-3 with the four cylinder was lame but it was a lot cheaper than the M edition that came later on. Most people will also say that the M version of the Z-3 was not as nicely ballanced as the non-M version of the 6 cylinder Z-3. A case of a little too much HP for the chassis/suspension. Look at how much more money that M edition will cost.
Do you want that torque enough to pay 10 grand more and then have a car not as nicely ballanced to drive? More torque will require a bigger engine and all new beefier components everywhere else in the car. That will cost in both weight and dollars.
For what it is worth instead of lamenting about what could have been or dumping thousands in mods to try to make the car something it is not I will be taking the Skip Barber 3 day racing school in September. That way I can maximize my enjoyment of ANY car I happen to own for the rest of my life.
"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life"
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cedric Tomkinson
[B]I don't seriously think anyone is sayng the car is as good as it can be.This thread just reflects the fact that the S2000 satisfies the expectations of the greater majority of the market/consumers it was aimed at... AT THIS TIME
[B]I don't seriously think anyone is sayng the car is as good as it can be.This thread just reflects the fact that the S2000 satisfies the expectations of the greater majority of the market/consumers it was aimed at... AT THIS TIME
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,125
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
The way I see it, the car IS weak below 2000 RPMs, however I don't see a reason to spend much time there anyways... You HAVE to learn how to revmatch downshift in this car, it isn't made for lazy shifting people.
Above 2000 RPMs untill 6000 RPMs, it drives like a 180 HP, 2750 pound car, slightly slower then an Integra GSR. I have clocked mine at 15.3 launching at 5500 RPMs and shifting at 6000 RPMs in each gear. It definately isn't a beast at these RPMs but it can give 99% of cars on the road a run for their money. Past 6000 RPMs, well you know
As for people complaining about the peak torque of the engine, I suggest you start understanding the difference between engine torque and THRUST which accelerates a car. PLEASE read-up on the subject, there are lots of threads on this. Search under, "thrust" or "drive force"...
Above 2000 RPMs untill 6000 RPMs, it drives like a 180 HP, 2750 pound car, slightly slower then an Integra GSR. I have clocked mine at 15.3 launching at 5500 RPMs and shifting at 6000 RPMs in each gear. It definately isn't a beast at these RPMs but it can give 99% of cars on the road a run for their money. Past 6000 RPMs, well you know
As for people complaining about the peak torque of the engine, I suggest you start understanding the difference between engine torque and THRUST which accelerates a car. PLEASE read-up on the subject, there are lots of threads on this. Search under, "thrust" or "drive force"...
