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

is this true

Thread Tools
 
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 05:01 AM
  #21  
steven975's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
Default

Originally Posted by hicabi
The more feasible thing to do is to find a stock AP1 more powerful than a stock AP2 somewhere. And even that has little point. The statistical fact is that an average AP2 puts down more power than the average AP1. That's it.
I'm not contesting that, most AP2 engines do put out more power than an AP1. Put them in an identical car, and the cars are neck and neck. The wider powerband seems to cancel out the added power and torque.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 05:24 AM
  #22  
drobinson1692's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 425
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by JDMricist
^Wouldn't that mean 11 = 12?







Just saying....
lol yes. if it was 2-11 then you'd have a valid post.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 05:48 AM
  #23  
JackS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,075
Likes: 3
Default

I've never been in or driven an AP1 but have the feeling that the added torque is more practical on American roads since it is continuly present regardless of RPM. It would have been interesting if Honda had actually reduced the redline to 8k in the later models and even more usable torque and we actually had to choose between 3 iterations of this engine instead of two. My guess is that there would be 3 distinct differences of opinions.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 11:11 AM
  #24  
steven975's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
Default

well, then, of course. If you reduced the 2.0L to 8K then the 2.2L is better (identical weight and external dimensions, etc).

In the rest of the world, the S2000 was 2.0L right up to the end. I think Japan went 2.2L in 2006, but the rest of the world (with some exceptions) stayed at 2.0L.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 12:22 PM
  #25  
kaissi's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
From: Coto De Caza
Default

Originally Posted by steven975
well, then, of course. If you reduced the 2.0L to 8K then the 2.2L is better (identical weight and external dimensions, etc).

In the rest of the world, the S2000 was 2.0L right up to the end. I think Japan went 2.2L in 2006, but the rest of the world (with some exceptions) stayed at 2.0L.
Totally

If Honda woke up and noticed 2.2 8k is better, then why did they keep 9k 2.0 for EDM?
They even did a Special Edition white 2009!!! AP1, yes the chassis code for 2009 EDM start JHMAP1

Apparently it's a matter of preference.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 12:55 PM
  #26  
hicabi's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by rob-2
Originally Posted by hicabi' timestamp='1349674435' post='22066071
[quote name='steven975' timestamp='1349558387' post='22063892']
True, displacement tends to do that, all else equal. Still, no one has proven that any one engine actually performs any better or worse in the real world.
Right, because that's an impossible thing to do. To prove that, one has to dyno all S2K engines ever produced under the same conditions. So the fact that no one has proven something impossible is a moot point.

The more feasible thing to do is to find a stock AP1 more powerful than a stock AP2 somewhere. And even that has little point. The statistical fact is that an average AP2 puts down more power than the average AP1. That's it.
AP1 vs AP2 has been done on the track and they're head to head. No difference.
[/quote]

So much goes into track times, it's almost irrelevant when it comes to HP at the rear wheels. Larger rev range with appropriate shift points can be huge advantage for the less powerful AP1 (by saving shifts, and hence interruptions).
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 04:29 PM
  #27  
TVPincDoc's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 420
Likes: 2
From: Livermore
Default

Originally Posted by S2K_@L3X
Originally Posted by TVPincDoc' timestamp='1348507047' post='22034339
[quote name='TougeS2k' timestamp='1348504008' post='22034168']
true, but the 9k rev (which i almost never use ) is cooler
Yeah, what's the fun of a "high rev'ing" engine that redlines at only 8.2k? Even my M3 redlines higher.
ok an e92 gets to 8400rpms whats the fun of only redlining at only 8.4k? my ap1 redlines higher, dont matter if i got less power than a m3
[/quote]
You're preaching to the choir. I have a 2003, so mine also goes to the full 9k rather than the adulterated 8.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 05:48 PM
  #28  
s2000maniac's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 15
Default

My AP1 goes to 9300k rpms.
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 06:48 PM
  #29  
hicabi's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Default

Anyone enjoying high rpm's, definitely check out motorcycles at some point. Most sport bikes, even a decent standard bike will:

1. Rev over 10K rpm
2. Do 60mph in first gear through sixth gear
3. Accelerate 0-60mph in about 3 seconds
Old Oct 8, 2012 | 07:36 PM
  #30  
s2000maniac's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 15
Default

Originally Posted by hicabi
Anyone enjoying high rpm's, definitely check out motorcycles at some point. Most sport bikes, even a decent standard bike will:

1. Rev over 10K rpm
2. Do 60mph in first gear through sixth gear
3. Accelerate 0-60mph in about 3 seconds
Well duhhh......
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
badboy00z
S2000 Modifications and Parts
57
Nov 27, 2021 01:29 AM
sfphinkterMC
S2000 Forced Induction
4
Apr 23, 2008 08:30 PM
qbmurderer13
S2000 Talk
18
Oct 20, 2007 10:13 AM
timrocks311
S2000 Talk
5
Oct 25, 2005 05:41 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:19 PM.