S2ks are in trouble
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 75
From: Los angeles
i have both the evo and s2k. both cars are great. i had the evo years before i hade the s2k. before i bought the s2k i knew it was going to be a very very slow car in terms of acceleration. but i bought the car for the convertible, great handeling and for the good looks. and of course the s2k will soon be boosted, then it will be perfect
i agresss the s2k is very slow and under powered but i dont understande what the big deal is. a turbo or sc can solve the problem right away. i mean a used s2k is like 10K and a simple custom turbo kit can be have for a few thousand and your good to go
i agresss the s2k is very slow and under powered but i dont understande what the big deal is. a turbo or sc can solve the problem right away. i mean a used s2k is like 10K and a simple custom turbo kit can be have for a few thousand and your good to go
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 8kGoodENuff,Nov 6 2008, 10:12 AM
Tell me if you guys see something wrong here:
Honda S2000 CR (what honda considers to be their best S2k from the factory)
S2k CR: 13.8 @ 100.8
This is where it starts to get sad:
Chevy Cobalt SS: 13.9 @ 104.0 (mind you the high time is probably due to FWD)
Mazda Mazdaspeed 3: 14.1 @ 101.3 (mind you the high time is probably due to FWD)
Subaru WRX: 13.8 @ 101.0 (mind you... not an STI)
Worst of all = Mitsubishi Lancer RALLIART: 14.1 @ 97.2 (this is pretty damn close to a regular stock S2k) A LANCER RALLIART?????????? This just isn't right.
Honda better do something about this fast. Our S2ks are really no longer considered fast and the worst part about it is that most think they are really fast, and when they outrun us in say their Cobalt SS... that's pretty embarrassing.
NOTE: Information was taken out of Road & Track (Dec 2008). Models listed above are the most recent releases of each model.
Honda needs to come through.
Andre
Honda S2000 CR (what honda considers to be their best S2k from the factory)
S2k CR: 13.8 @ 100.8
This is where it starts to get sad:
Chevy Cobalt SS: 13.9 @ 104.0 (mind you the high time is probably due to FWD)
Mazda Mazdaspeed 3: 14.1 @ 101.3 (mind you the high time is probably due to FWD)
Subaru WRX: 13.8 @ 101.0 (mind you... not an STI)
Worst of all = Mitsubishi Lancer RALLIART: 14.1 @ 97.2 (this is pretty damn close to a regular stock S2k) A LANCER RALLIART?????????? This just isn't right.
Honda better do something about this fast. Our S2ks are really no longer considered fast and the worst part about it is that most think they are really fast, and when they outrun us in say their Cobalt SS... that's pretty embarrassing.
NOTE: Information was taken out of Road & Track (Dec 2008). Models listed above are the most recent releases of each model.
Honda needs to come through.
Andre
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
From: Caribbean - Trinidad
I think a lot of ppl. must agree with the OP, since a lot of YOU have made "speed" alterations (whether they work or not 
) like I/E/H, FI. Unless you are coming from a faster car already, when you first get the S, it IS a fast car. Then over time it becomes "slower" because you are now accustomed to its speed, and econo boxes are faster (both in a straight line and in the twisties), so we feel it's time for something with more grunt.
Problem with the S is that it looks fast, was once a "halo" car, so ppl. like to point at it and jeer when their average sh1tbox can beat it. Of course, we know as owners, they are missing the point.
For those who say the car was not designed to drag, but only for the twisties, rubbish. Are you then contending that a mazdaspeed3 was designed to drag? As far as I know, no contemporary road car was designed for drag racing, so we are all in the same boat. So this fact should not be used to explain away why the S is not faster in a straight line. It is not faster because it does not have the power to be faster, no matter how well you launch.
As far as adding power to the S, be it from the factory or after market, so many ppl. have done it, and FI hiccups aside, I don't hear them complaining that the car is now unbalanced, as in too much power for the handling capability.
So yes, Honda could have done it themselves if they wanted to without upsetting the precious balance so many ppl. cling to as an excuse why more power is a bad thing (when $$ usually is the problem). But Honda didn't because it is there philosophy to design a car that AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, is so far ahead of the competition, doing more with less, that they just leave it largely untouched until the replacement is released 10 years or more later. During this time, yes all sorts of cars move on, but this seems to be the Honda way, love it or hate it.
Could it use more power? I am fine still with stock power. Does it bother me who is faster? No, just have to ignore the jeerers, or if you know them, offer them a drive to shut them up.
) like I/E/H, FI. Unless you are coming from a faster car already, when you first get the S, it IS a fast car. Then over time it becomes "slower" because you are now accustomed to its speed, and econo boxes are faster (both in a straight line and in the twisties), so we feel it's time for something with more grunt.Problem with the S is that it looks fast, was once a "halo" car, so ppl. like to point at it and jeer when their average sh1tbox can beat it. Of course, we know as owners, they are missing the point.
For those who say the car was not designed to drag, but only for the twisties, rubbish. Are you then contending that a mazdaspeed3 was designed to drag? As far as I know, no contemporary road car was designed for drag racing, so we are all in the same boat. So this fact should not be used to explain away why the S is not faster in a straight line. It is not faster because it does not have the power to be faster, no matter how well you launch.
As far as adding power to the S, be it from the factory or after market, so many ppl. have done it, and FI hiccups aside, I don't hear them complaining that the car is now unbalanced, as in too much power for the handling capability.
So yes, Honda could have done it themselves if they wanted to without upsetting the precious balance so many ppl. cling to as an excuse why more power is a bad thing (when $$ usually is the problem
). But Honda didn't because it is there philosophy to design a car that AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, is so far ahead of the competition, doing more with less, that they just leave it largely untouched until the replacement is released 10 years or more later. During this time, yes all sorts of cars move on, but this seems to be the Honda way, love it or hate it.Could it use more power? I am fine still with stock power. Does it bother me who is faster? No, just have to ignore the jeerers, or if you know them, offer them a drive to shut them up
.
well said 
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,074
Likes: 0
From: All up in your inner tubes. Whatcha gonna do sucka?
Originally Posted by trinis2001,Nov 10 2008, 03:59 AM
I think a lot of ppl. must agree with the OP, since a lot of YOU have made "speed" alterations (whether they work or not ) like I/E/H, FI. Unless you are coming from a faster car already, when you first get the S, it IS a fast car. Then over time it becomes "slower" because you are now accustomed to its speed, and econo boxes are faster (both in a straight line and in the twisties), so we feel it's time for something with more grunt.
Problem with the S is that it looks fast, was once a "halo" car, so ppl. like to point at it and jeer when their average sh1tbox can beat it. Of course, we know as owners, they are missing the point.
For those who say the car was not designed to drag, but only for the twisties, rubbish. Are you then contending that a mazdaspeed3 was designed to drag? As far as I know, no contemporary road car was designed for drag racing, so we are all in the same boat. So this fact should not be used to explain away why the S is not faster in a straight line. It is not faster because it does not have the power to be faster, no matter how well you launch.
As far as adding power to the S, be it from the factory or after market, so many ppl. have done it, and FI hiccups aside, I don't hear them complaining that the car is now unbalanced, as in too much power for the handling capability.
So yes, Honda could have done it themselves if they wanted to without upsetting the precious balance so many ppl. cling to as an excuse why more power is a bad thing (when $$ usually is the problem). But Honda didn't because it is there philosophy to design a car that AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, is so far ahead of the competition, doing more with less, that they just leave it largely untouched until the replacement is released 10 years or more later. During this time, yes all sorts of cars move on, but this seems to be the Honda way, love it or hate it.
Could it use more power? I am fine still with stock power. Does it bother me who is faster? No, just have to ignore the jeerers, or if you know them, offer them a drive to shut them up.
) like I/E/H, FI. Unless you are coming from a faster car already, when you first get the S, it IS a fast car. Then over time it becomes "slower" because you are now accustomed to its speed, and econo boxes are faster (both in a straight line and in the twisties), so we feel it's time for something with more grunt.Problem with the S is that it looks fast, was once a "halo" car, so ppl. like to point at it and jeer when their average sh1tbox can beat it. Of course, we know as owners, they are missing the point.
For those who say the car was not designed to drag, but only for the twisties, rubbish. Are you then contending that a mazdaspeed3 was designed to drag? As far as I know, no contemporary road car was designed for drag racing, so we are all in the same boat. So this fact should not be used to explain away why the S is not faster in a straight line. It is not faster because it does not have the power to be faster, no matter how well you launch.
As far as adding power to the S, be it from the factory or after market, so many ppl. have done it, and FI hiccups aside, I don't hear them complaining that the car is now unbalanced, as in too much power for the handling capability.
So yes, Honda could have done it themselves if they wanted to without upsetting the precious balance so many ppl. cling to as an excuse why more power is a bad thing (when $$ usually is the problem
). But Honda didn't because it is there philosophy to design a car that AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, is so far ahead of the competition, doing more with less, that they just leave it largely untouched until the replacement is released 10 years or more later. During this time, yes all sorts of cars move on, but this seems to be the Honda way, love it or hate it.Could it use more power? I am fine still with stock power. Does it bother me who is faster? No, just have to ignore the jeerers, or if you know them, offer them a drive to shut them up
.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 6
From: Northeast Jersey
Originally Posted by Lithium Lotus,Nov 9 2008, 07:51 PM
No, slow is having 98hp at the crank. I know, I drove a 91 Plymouth Acclaim with 98hp and a 3-speed auto back in the day.
Drove that amazing car for 5 years and loved every moment of it.
Andre
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,368
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by riceball777,Nov 10 2008, 02:05 AM
i have both the evo and s2k. both cars are great. i had the evo years before i hade the s2k. before i bought the s2k i knew it was going to be a very very slow car in terms of acceleration. but i bought the car for the convertible, great handeling and for the good looks. and of course the s2k will soon be boosted, then it will be perfect
i agresss the s2k is very slow and under powered but i dont understande what the big deal is. a turbo or sc can solve the problem right away. i mean a used s2k is like 10K and a simple custom turbo kit can be have for a few thousand and your good to go
i agresss the s2k is very slow and under powered but i dont understande what the big deal is. a turbo or sc can solve the problem right away. i mean a used s2k is like 10K and a simple custom turbo kit can be have for a few thousand and your good to go
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
From: Lehigh Valley, PA
The S2K has been out for ten years, and hasn't been upgraded in power. If you really wanna complain, you need to complain about the fact that this car has been out WAYYYY too long.
it never was, nor ever will be a straight line, go fast car. The Mazdaspeed 3, Cobalt, ect ect, and not only faster in a straight line, they don't require nearly the same amount of skill to go fast in.
The S2K proves there is so much more to a car then speed. Not sure why anyone would complain.
my only complaint, is that they are still making this car. That in itself is a tragedy to me, but that's how it goes.
it never was, nor ever will be a straight line, go fast car. The Mazdaspeed 3, Cobalt, ect ect, and not only faster in a straight line, they don't require nearly the same amount of skill to go fast in.
The S2K proves there is so much more to a car then speed. Not sure why anyone would complain.
my only complaint, is that they are still making this car. That in itself is a tragedy to me, but that's how it goes.
