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

Weight Distribution

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 12:34 PM
  #1  
jdnissanz's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Arrow Weight Distribution

I thought the Honda S2000 had 50/50 weight distribution and that is why it was amazing at handling, but went on honda.com and found out my 05' was 49/51 weight distribution and I was wondering if they just changed that for the 04' 05' models or was this how it always was? BTW...Anyone know the reason to why the car is now a different weight distribution if it did really change...Thanks in advance for all the info that will be provided.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 12:40 PM
  #2  
YellowS2kPwr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,906
Likes: 1
From: Chicago
Default

Pre 04's were 50/50, no idea why they changed it.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 12:52 PM
  #3  
jdnissanz's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Default

DIMENSIONS: BODY/SUSPENSION/CHASSIS


TRIM LEVEL
Starting MSRP
S2000
$33,150


High X-Bone Monocoque Frame Standard

Independent In-Wheel Double Wishbone Suspension with Coil Springs Standard

Stabilizer Bar (mm, front/rear) 26.5 / 25.4

Electric Power-Assisted Rack-and-Pinion Steering (EPS) Standard

Steering Wheel Turns, Lock-to-Lock 2.6

Steering Ratio 14.9

Turning Diameter, Curb-to-Curb (ft.) 35.4

Power-Assisted Ventilated Front Disc/Solid Rear Disc Brakes (in., front/rear) 11.8 / 11.1

Alloy Wheels (in., front/rear) 17x7.0 / 17x8.5

Bridgestone Potenza RE050 Tires (front/rear) P215/45 R17 87W / P245/40 R17 91W




DIMENSIONS: INTERIOR MEASUREMENTS


TRIM LEVEL
Starting MSRP
S2000
$33,150


Headroom (in.) 34.6

Legroom (in.) 44.3

Shoulder Room (in.) 50.7

Hip Room (in.) 49.8

Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 5.0

Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 44.8

Seating Capacity 2




DIMENSIONS: EXTERIOR MEASUREMENTS


TRIM LEVEL
Starting MSRP
S2000
$33,150


Wheelbase (in.) 94.5

Length (in.) 162.2

Height (in.) 50.0

Width (in.) 68.9

Track (in., front/rear) 57.9 / 59.4

Curb Weight (lbs.) 2835

Weight Distribution (%, front/rear) 49 / 51
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 02:10 PM
  #4  
Warren J. Dew's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
From: Somerville, MA, USA
Default

I can think of a couple of changes that would have switched weight to the rear:

- the larger wheels and tires probably added more weight to the rear than the front, since the rear wheels are wider.

- the larger displacement shortened the piston rods, which may have reduced the front weight.

If they beefed up the differential, that would have increased the weight in the rear, too.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 03:03 PM
  #5  
Fongu's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa
Default

OK, lets get practical. We're talking 1% change. That's what, 28 lbs. That's margin of error. That's less than 1/2 a tank of gas. Can you seriously feel the handling difference in from full tank to 2/3's full. Very few will be able to tell, fewer will be a good enough driver be effected by it.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 04:01 PM
  #6  
oknessad's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: Madison, Wisconsin
Default

Fongu I was just going to say that.... Gas alone changes the distribution a few percentage points at every fill up.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 04:22 PM
  #7  
Stratocaster's Avatar
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,399
Likes: 19
Default

Hey, Hold on just one Minute!

It has always been 49/51!

2001 49/15 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2001
2002 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2036?mid=200...c&archives=2002
2003 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2003
2004 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2004
2005 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2005

All of the above links are to Honda's own news site.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, there is very little differance in the car as a whole from year to year. Yes they have changed some of the bolt on parts, but the car as a whole is the same.
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Mar 26, 2005 | 04:26 PM
  #8  
PdC's Avatar
PdC
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Default

Originally Posted by Stratocaster,Mar 26 2005, 08:22 PM
Now that the cat is out of the bag, there is very little differance in the car as a whole from year to year. Yes they have changed some of the bolt on parts, but the car as a whole is the same.
Nah! The 04-05s are much better!
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 07:06 PM
  #9  
ayS's Avatar
ayS
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,210
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Stratocaster,Mar 27 2005, 01:22 AM
Hey, Hold on just one Minute!

It has always been 49/51!

2001 49/15 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2001
2002 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2036?mid=200...c&archives=2002
2003 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2003
2004 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2004
2005 49/51 http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2071?mid=200...c&archives=2005

All of the above links are to Honda's own news site.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, there is very little differance in the car as a whole from year to year. Yes they have changed some of the bolt on parts, but the car as a whole is the same.
it's always been 49/51.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2005 | 07:23 PM
  #10  
xviper's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 37,305
Likes: 18
Default

We just say "50/50" for ease of conversation. Good Lord, why would anyone blow a nut over 1%. I can change wt. dist. of the car if I ate a super large pepperoni pizza by myself. And I can change it back after I take a big dump.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:47 PM.