Well, if you read this thread, many say torque is not an issue with the car.

Some people just don't get what the S2000 is, other do...those that do don't care about 0-60 or 1/4 mile times...that's not what the car was built for. There is more to a car than straight line speed...

Like I said...if the car has a lower redline, I won't be buying it. If they gave it a higher redline, I will be the first @ the dealership trading in for a new one.

 

Dude, calling people stupid for having an opinion is stupid..have a good life.

 

BTW, that Mopar is not a stock car...modified S2000s are pulling way more than 1G...

 

So take your 2 quotes and put them together ... and voila, you have a whole new meaning to your statement don't you.... It is very easy to change the meaning of things if you break sentances out.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ldogdotcom
[B]So you're telling me that if the new S2000 came out, and was the same weight, pulled 1G, was quicker 0-60 and was quicker in the 1/4 mile, all at the expense of 1000 rpms, you wouldn't get it? That's just plain stupid.

 

[...and now back to our regularly scheduled programming...]

I for one am only happy that were Honda to "change" the mechanics of the F20C's engine...I would believe that The Bruised Banana would only be that much more of a sweet automobile 20 years from now.

I've often posted that, barring wrapping my S around a tree or something , I look forward to hundreds of thousands of miles with my S and looking fondly on it many years down the road. The idea that mine will have "that certain something" (high-revvin' FUN ) designed into it, will only make my memories that much sweeter.

Oh...and I don't pull a boat with The Bruised Banana...so I really couldn't care less about low-end torque .

- Dave

 

Message boards can be so funny. How come so many threads deteriorate into little more than adolescent bickering? I think Ldogdotcom needs a little more fiber in his diet. It's really not too hard to understand. Different people enjoy different characteristics in cars. Some like revs, some not so much. If some like revs for the sake of revs, what's the problem with that?

 

Take the Civic SI for example.... they took a great car as is, put in a bigger engine for more torque and ended up with a slower car with a lower redline! I like the looks of the new SI better inside and out but not the new engine! Maybe that's why the U.S. sales of the SI suck? I sure hope Honda doesn't do that to the S2000! Of course we would all like a better looking S2000 with a bigger engine but not at the sacrifice of redline and performance, and please don't put in a soft and cushy suspension

 

This is for those who want a high redline:$185,000, 250mph top speed Marine Turbo Tech motorcycle!
320hp at 52,000 rpm's/425fpt at 2000rpm's! 0-227mph in 15second's flat! Oh and it has an engine from a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter. It is featured in this month's Playboy!

 

There are other nice motors featured in this month's Playboy as well...like The Girls of Starbuck's

 

Preference for a high redline can be an irrational thing (the noise, the sensation etc), but it is not a coincidence that the F20C, with its 9000rpm redline, produces 240 hp from just 2 liters - power doesn't come free, and more revs mean more power. If the engine is to produce similar or more power with a lower redline, as you suggested, it would most likely mean an increase in capacity or force-induction, both of which entail compromises in weight, efficiency or reliability. It seems that Honda chose a small capacity and high reving engine to keep the engine relatively compact, with subsequent benefit in overall weight, weight distribution and hence handling, at the expense of the torque figure looking not so impressive on paper. For many people, stating a preference for a high redline is a shorthand way of saying they prefer something fast and athletic, as opposed to big lumbering diesels with plenty of torque and understeer.