The S2000 needs a V6
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally posted by peterpan
I wonder what some of you might say if Honda upped the displacement to 2.2l or 2.3L in the near future. You guys are going to bash the S2300 because the car has more useable torque?
I wonder what some of you might say if Honda upped the displacement to 2.2l or 2.3L in the near future. You guys are going to bash the S2300 because the car has more useable torque?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: nyc
Originally posted by carlson
By looking at the specs, you should have known that the S2K, in terms of top end acceration, is like a Integra/RSX on steroid. Off the line is still not quick (Normal street start). Most N/A 4 cylinders are like that.
If you need torque, wait 8 months for the 350z convertible.
By looking at the specs, you should have known that the S2K, in terms of top end acceration, is like a Integra/RSX on steroid. Off the line is still not quick (Normal street start). Most N/A 4 cylinders are like that.
If you need torque, wait 8 months for the 350z convertible.
Former Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,175
Likes: 0
From: Erock is da shizzle
I can simply say this..if you can drive the S2K at 90% plus of what it is capable of, you can blah blah blah about torque all you want...
My guess it that you could barely navigate around a parking lot, much less then a track...So you go out and get the most out of the S2K before whining that it has no torque..Then maybe..Just maybe someone here will listen to you, instead of thinking well I guess you can imagine what most of us are thinking
My guess it that you could barely navigate around a parking lot, much less then a track...So you go out and get the most out of the S2K before whining that it has no torque..Then maybe..Just maybe someone here will listen to you, instead of thinking well I guess you can imagine what most of us are thinking
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Well Im assuming that he drove just and stock low end model of the Vet......
For the S2000 having a for cylinder with 240 hp that can move the car from 0-60 in 5.8 sec is vevy good. The Vet has a V8 345 hp that can get from 0-60 in 5.05 sec. Im sorry but I think Honda has done a great job with this engine, and for the price difference between both cars you can't go wrong with the S2000. With the money you will save put some nice mods in the S2000 and wave good bye the those Vets.
For the S2000 having a for cylinder with 240 hp that can move the car from 0-60 in 5.8 sec is vevy good. The Vet has a V8 345 hp that can get from 0-60 in 5.05 sec. Im sorry but I think Honda has done a great job with this engine, and for the price difference between both cars you can't go wrong with the S2000. With the money you will save put some nice mods in the S2000 and wave good bye the those Vets.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
From: san leandro
Personally I love my low end torque, and I see why some of you guys want it. But as some pointed out the S2k is not meant to be a drag racing car. The S2000 is a beautiful well balanced car. Personally I think my car is the most beautiful, well balanced amazing car japan ever built...yet every time I see an S2k, I say.."Damn, I wish I could have one of those too".
I have a 94 RX7 with 300 HP to the wheels, and hella more torque than a S2000, yet when I went to the track (I am new this is my first time) all the S2k guys I went with ran faster than me. Driver has alot to do with it. In the end, LOOKS, Handling and FUN to drive are the most important factors of a car. And I would take a S2000 over any corvette ANY day of the week.
However, A V6 would be sauce for the goose.
I have a 94 RX7 with 300 HP to the wheels, and hella more torque than a S2000, yet when I went to the track (I am new this is my first time) all the S2k guys I went with ran faster than me. Driver has alot to do with it. In the end, LOOKS, Handling and FUN to drive are the most important factors of a car. And I would take a S2000 over any corvette ANY day of the week.
However, A V6 would be sauce for the goose.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
From: palo alto
why settle for a V-6????...seems to me honda ,of all people,could whip up a 2.6 V-8..NA of course....i'm sure they could make it real light[uhhh...don't they make,like,racing engines????]and plenty torquey..imagine a cosworth V-8 in your s2000...i do believe one quick spin would change many minds about the "magic" of the four....[is anyone here old enough to have driven a 912 and a 911 back to back when new? i did and it was a piper cub and a f-18.....]we'll just have to see...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
From: :spam:u
You guys should be carefull what you ask for....
The S2000 was designed to be a 2 liter car. To get substantially more torque you either have to go to forced induction or larger displacement. Both methods add weight and not just in the engine bay (if it is done correctly). For Honda adding more torque requires that you start beefing up all the drivetrain components to maintain a certain level of reliability. This adds weight. That weight has to be managed once it is set in motion. That requires heavier suspension components. It also requires beefier brakes. All of these changes add weight. Pretty soon the S2000 would weigh close to what a Vette weighs. Remember that all these changes make it MORE EXPENSIVE also.
Weight begets more weight and it all started with wanting more torque. You CAN'T just change one part of the equation.
When engineers and car designers talk about a well ballanced automobile they are not just talking about the weight distribution. They are talking about the ballance between power/weight/size/expense.
Colin Chapman (Lotus) changed the way racing cars were designed. He showed that weight reduction was worth more than HP. Think of the power to weight ratio, - An increase in HP only pays dividends when you are at the RPMs that produce it. Weight reduction pays dividends at ALL RPMs. Weight reduction also pays off with better brake performance and better handling, something increasing HP has no effect on. So the moral is spend the money on making it light. That is what Honda knew and what the S2000 reflects because the key to making it light is make the engine as small and power efficient as possible. The S2000 fits that bill perfectly.
Anyone who does not believe this should look at the ultimate race cars, F-1 machines. Small displacement, high HP engines that rev to 18,000 RPMs and have lots of gears. What they don't have is mega torque.
So what I am trying to tell you is that the S2000 is more brilliantly designed than many of you realize. It is closer (design philosophy wise) to a pure race car (F-1 Machines) than almost anything else out there.
The S2000 was designed to be a 2 liter car. To get substantially more torque you either have to go to forced induction or larger displacement. Both methods add weight and not just in the engine bay (if it is done correctly). For Honda adding more torque requires that you start beefing up all the drivetrain components to maintain a certain level of reliability. This adds weight. That weight has to be managed once it is set in motion. That requires heavier suspension components. It also requires beefier brakes. All of these changes add weight. Pretty soon the S2000 would weigh close to what a Vette weighs. Remember that all these changes make it MORE EXPENSIVE also.
Weight begets more weight and it all started with wanting more torque. You CAN'T just change one part of the equation.
When engineers and car designers talk about a well ballanced automobile they are not just talking about the weight distribution. They are talking about the ballance between power/weight/size/expense.
Colin Chapman (Lotus) changed the way racing cars were designed. He showed that weight reduction was worth more than HP. Think of the power to weight ratio, - An increase in HP only pays dividends when you are at the RPMs that produce it. Weight reduction pays dividends at ALL RPMs. Weight reduction also pays off with better brake performance and better handling, something increasing HP has no effect on. So the moral is spend the money on making it light. That is what Honda knew and what the S2000 reflects because the key to making it light is make the engine as small and power efficient as possible. The S2000 fits that bill perfectly.
Anyone who does not believe this should look at the ultimate race cars, F-1 machines. Small displacement, high HP engines that rev to 18,000 RPMs and have lots of gears. What they don't have is mega torque.
So what I am trying to tell you is that the S2000 is more brilliantly designed than many of you realize. It is closer (design philosophy wise) to a pure race car (F-1 Machines) than almost anything else out there.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
You can count me as one who is NOT in denial.
I would not expect a Viper to be a good winter car in 2 feet of snow anymore than I would expect 149 ft-lbs. of torque to slosh my brains to the back of my head.
The S2000 is the Honda way, light, nimble, and precise.
If it is not for you, it is not for you, but don't be claming we are in denial, we read all we could find and then we got into this web forum that allowed us to learn more about the car than the average dealer knew. Most of us went in with our eyes wide open.
I would not expect a Viper to be a good winter car in 2 feet of snow anymore than I would expect 149 ft-lbs. of torque to slosh my brains to the back of my head.
The S2000 is the Honda way, light, nimble, and precise.
If it is not for you, it is not for you, but don't be claming we are in denial, we read all we could find and then we got into this web forum that allowed us to learn more about the car than the average dealer knew. Most of us went in with our eyes wide open.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: Nashville
You guys are funny. And yes, I did post the thread about the RWD and FWD, only because I am not use to the feel of the car yet. It's getting there, but I was weened off of FWD cars. But concerning this thread, I just wanted to see what kind of responses I would get if I made that comment. Think about it. When BMW first came out with the Z3, the 1.9 was a 4 cylinder. The owners complained about the lack of power. So in response, BMW changed the 1.9 to a 2.3 as well as added the M Roadster to the line up. If everyone keeps blindly praising this car, instead of making comments like we need a clock, and the radio has no bass, then Honda will never know. But for all it's worth... the engine is a marvel and I love to drive with the radio off just to listen to it purr. But nevertheless, getting the torque up to around 210 couldn't hurt. And I am sure that if Honda gave us the option of a V6 or a 4 cylinder, all the guys with the smart mouths praising the 4, would probably get the 6. And yes, the corvette was a money issue. The corvette convertible was over $15,000 more expensive. Not to mention, I like the suspension of the S2000 much better. Also, the corvette's interior looks cheap. The S2000 is the best car for the money, but drive a Cl S-Type and you will know what I am talking about. And for everyone talking about me buying an NSX. I don't have $86,000 to spend on a car... yet. But if I did, I would probably by a used F348.