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

The S2000 needs a V6

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 04:44 PM
  #41  
Rick Hesel's Avatar
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,049
Likes: 1
From: Timonium
Default

Amen, Zippy!
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 04:50 PM
  #42  
The Gasman's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59,195
Likes: 1
From: Ventura, California, USA
Default

I agree with the general tone of the thread. The s2000 is not a car to compare with a corvette. Compare it with similar cars in the class range, Boxter, Z3 and you get to the basics....Honda's F1 division saw what the europeans made and one upped them by making the highest HP per litre production engine available, and for at 10-20 k less than the competition. I was reading in a car mag somewhere that if Toyota wins more F1 then they will build a celebratory supercar (sort of why the s2 was built) with a hefty v6 or v8 and call it the new supra....at that time Honda would respond with an s2000 replacement with a bigger engine that as you will see will kick the ever living s**t out of the competition. (as usual)
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:06 PM
  #43  
iLikeBeer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by s2knomore
[B]Man, you guys are really sensitive when someone make a comment about your precious S2000. I mean, the guy is not even bashing the car. Just making some comment on what the car can be improved on. Why do you have to keep telling him to get another car? Maybe he likes everything about the S2k except the engine and would like to make a comment about it. It's juts like some people complained the plastic windows on the pre '02 cars and would be happy to see the change to rear glass window on the newer model.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:06 PM
  #44  
STL's Avatar
STL
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis
Default

Maybe the title of this thread should be: Nastinupe needs to learn how to drive

Checkout: https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...&threadid=70594

Heck, Nastinupe is probably just a troll.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:14 PM
  #45  
Txs2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
From: Dallas
Default

There seems to be a bit of a defensive note to some of these posts, which is surprising given the stellar nature of the S2K - all the major magazines have stated & restated what an awesome buy the S2K is, & it's typically rated as the top roadster, even when compared to cars that cost up to 20k more~ what more needs to be said? I just traded from a torque-laden 99 Trams Am Ws6 6spd and am thrilled with my S - it's simply more "fun" to drive, and I imagine that's the same story for many. Now I guess I've added to this thread, but really, the "fun" issue should put this discussion to rest!
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:20 PM
  #46  
schwett's Avatar
Registered User
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 458
Likes: 1
From: San Francisco
Default

torque is exciting, yes. if the car had more low end torque, would it be better/faster to tool around in? yes. but if that low end torque came at the expense of high end torque? absolutely not - that sweet high revving and light engine is the reason to buy any performance honda!

the corvette is faster than an s2000, but both are fast cars when driven properly. consider the following :

153 lb-ft of torque * 3.13 (1st gear) * 4.1 (final drive) / 2800 (weight) *1.073 (tires at 837 revs/mile vs 780)= .75

350 lb-ft of torque * 2.66 * 3.42 / 3200 = .99

a big difference, to be sure, but hardly what you'd expect from a motor almost three times as large. gearing and light weight make up for a lot of torque, and we can afford the short gearing because our redline is 50% higher.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:36 PM
  #47  
stockae92's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,006
Likes: 0
From: socal
Default

what about if we make a rev-loving DOHC VTEC V6 engine that makes a 220+ lb ft torque and close to 300 hp. for the sake of balance, we mount the engine just before the rear axle, make it a rear wheel drive, 6 speed manual ...

oh ... right ... we already have an NSX for that ...

i am prefectly happy about the S2K engine.

and yes, the engine is 1 of the reasons why i purchased the car and i KNOW what i am getting into BEFORE buying.

and of course i want more~ (who won't?!) ... more hp, more torque, more mpg, more free time to drive, more sun block, more money $$$ ~
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:48 PM
  #48  
Ajjra's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn
Default

I don;t think a V6 would have the same high-rev sound. V8's are throaty, the I-4 in the S2000 sings at high rpm. V6's never seem to have an attractive tone.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:49 PM
  #49  
Schatten's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,936
Likes: 2
From: Austin
Default

Troll A L E R T

I'm not sure which this user has experience with: FWD Civic or RWD Vette.
Which do you think?
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2002 | 05:57 PM
  #50  
peterpan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
From: 50miles east of Dallas
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schwett
[B]torque is exciting, yes. if the car had more low end torque, would it be better/faster to tool around in? yes. but if that low end torque came at the expense of high end torque? absolutely not - that sweet high revving and light engine is the reason to buy any performance honda!

the corvette is faster than an s2000, but both are fast cars when driven properly. consider the following :
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 AM.