Stock 2.0 and 2.2 Dynos?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,615
Likes: 1
From: North Richland Hills, TX
120hp/L is easy, motorcycle engines far surpass it no problem. There's no benefit to maxing hp/L when displacement isn't limited by class rules, tax structures, or similar considerations.
Consider the C6's LS2...big engine, but the driving experience is awesome. Has tons of power @ every rpm. Could they have made 400HP w/ a smaller engine? Sure. Would there have been any real advantages? Doubtful. The LS2 is compact, lightweight, reliable, sounds great, and generates better real world fuel economy than either the F20C or F22C. Not to denigrate the S2000's 2 engines (which are both great), just pointing out that worrying about HP/L in a US street car is silly.
Consider the C6's LS2...big engine, but the driving experience is awesome. Has tons of power @ every rpm. Could they have made 400HP w/ a smaller engine? Sure. Would there have been any real advantages? Doubtful. The LS2 is compact, lightweight, reliable, sounds great, and generates better real world fuel economy than either the F20C or F22C. Not to denigrate the S2000's 2 engines (which are both great), just pointing out that worrying about HP/L in a US street car is silly.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
From: Martinsburg WV
120hp/L is easy, motorcycle engines far surpass it no problem
There's no benefit to maxing hp/L when displacement isn't limited by class rules, tax structures, or similar considerations.
Could they have made 400HP w/ a smaller engine? Sure.
We in America believe that bigger is always better. I am pointing out technology. Engineering. The hp to liter numbers shows how far ahead of the game Honda is. It doesnt take much engineering to pop out 400HP from a 6 liter engine
. If 120HP per liter was so easy the C6 should be pushing around 700HP. I think they are a lil short.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
Originally Posted by GrandMasterKhan,Nov 6 2006, 10:38 PM
alot of good 9k does you when the power falls flat on its face after 8400 rpms. 
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 1
if i remember correctly the AP1 HP is rated on the old SAE reading. The HP does not include loads like the A/C. I believe the new SAE reading is with all the load on the engine. I'm sure theres a better way to explain this.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,648
Likes: 1
From: Culpeper Virginia
I enjoy these threads for some reason. I love both AP1 and AP2, both are S2000's. I could have bought an '04 for a little more than what I paid for my AP1 but I didnt' want the AP2 for a couple reasons...
The 2.2 liter motor was developed for one reason: Increasing the S2000's Market Share in the United States! Japan's domestic market newer S2000's are still using tuned F20C motors! Americans want frills and driveability, not a track tuned motor and suspension, they want something softer, plusher, more 0-60 running torque...enter the 2.2 liter USDM AP2. That's all there is to it really. The knowledge of having 3,000 rpms of high output VTEC band to play with instead of 2,000 rpms was all I needed to know about the differences between the two motors to pick the AP1.
- J
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
From: Martinsburg WV
The 2.2 liter motor was developed for one reason: Increasing the S2000's Market Share in the United States! Japan's domestic market newer S2000's are still using tuned F20C motors! Americans want frills and driveability, not a track tuned motor and suspension, they want something softer, plusher, more 0-60 running torque...enter the 2.2 liter USDM AP2. That's all there is to it really. The knowledge of having 3,000 rpms of high output VTEC band to play with instead of 2,000 rpms was all I needed to know about the differences between the two motors to pick the AP1.
