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

as the years roll by, acceleration stays the same

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 05:49 PM
  #21  
Saki GT's Avatar
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 36,017
Likes: 226
From: Queen City, NC
Default

[QUOTE=i_heart_my_DB8,Sep 4 2007, 08:27 PM]

Yeah.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 07:11 PM
  #22  
JustinsanE's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Default

[QUOTE=RED MX5,Sep 4 2007, 05:30 PM]Roadsters have NEVER been about raw power or speed.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 07:28 PM
  #23  
CKit's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,729
Likes: 8
Default

Originally Posted by boofer,Sep 4 2007, 09:53 AM
you can't really get more HP out of a N/A 4-banger though, can you? bolt-ons to the existing engine provide negligible benefits at best, so you'd have to go FI. i'm sure some of you have done that, but that has to decrease the overall lifespan of the engine, right?
Quite a few of us have done that. And I'm quite happy to decrease the life of my engine from 200,000 miles to 120,000.

For the enjoyment I get with the SC, the "shortened" lifespan is worth it.

Let's see.... I put on 40k miles in 6 years... so only 12 years left on the engine....
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 07:33 PM
  #24  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Originally Posted by JustinsanE,Sep 4 2007, 08:11 PM
Sorry couldn't resist. Me and my dad built cobra kit car and that car is an insanely fun car, mostly because of all that power with ~2000 lbs to move, with handling to boot. If you think the s gets sideways with ease, one little twitch of your foot makes you do the merry go round with this baby.
Even with the Cobra, most people consider the small-engine 289 version to be the classic expression of the car, with the best overall balance. The 427 was faster, though.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 07:58 PM
  #25  
Ch0pper's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 2
From: Shreveport, La
Default

Bitch, bitch, bitch, if you don't like it, get something else for ****s sake.
This is a great car, and I personally don't care that a 350z has more power. If I wanted soemthing bulky, I'd hang around a weight watchers convention.
Nothing against the thread starter, but a lot of whiny replies.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 12:19 AM
  #26  
Mystiqueskillz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,431
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

You bought you S2000 knowing what it is capable of so whats the point?
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 12:41 AM
  #27  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Let's pretend Honda did come up with some sort of bigger-engine S2000. Call it a 340 HP 3.2 V6. Now the driveline has to be heavier, the chassis needs to be strengthened, and so the weight goes up to 3100. Still a significant power/weight increase. The car will be faster.

It's now a $41K car.

At that price point these days, it needs a retractible hardtop to compete. Bigger wheels, too. That adds another $2K and 150 pounds and takes away half the trunk space.

Now you have a $43K, 3250 lb car with about a 55/45 F/R weight distribution.

That still might be a nice car, and it will probably be a faster one.

But I predict that most of the auto world would be saying, "well, it's faster, but it's just not the fun little go-kart of a roadster that the old S2000 was...."

But hey, it will beat those 350Zs in the street races!
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 12:49 AM
  #28  
sleeper_s2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: NYC
Default



enjoy the car for what it is. i had to make the choice between a 350Z and S2000 and it was easy. there's just something about the fun factor/go kart/top down/spin it to 8k(or 9K)/uncompromising/purist tendencies of the car
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 01:24 AM
  #29  
mister x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,798
Likes: 6
From: Honolulu
Default

I'm OK with the S2K's horsepower. No need to get caught up in a big dick contest, after all anything more than a mouthful is a waste.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 04:24 AM
  #30  
rnye's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,852
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
Default

I don't think putting a V6 in the car is neccessary.

Like others have said, a small, efficient turbo ala Acura RDX (Put the car at the 300-320hp mark), lower compression ratio, slight suspension/wheel upgrade, and a beefier rear end. Price it at 38K and call it a day.

No need to remake the car. Look at the old Z cars or Supras. There were many differences between the N/A and their turbo counterparts, from brakes, engine compression, suspension differences, transmissions, etc...

With a little R/D, Honda could have made a screamer from the factory. Of course, this would have had to been done in 2004/05 range to see any gains sales wise and image wise. But then again, it took them 15 years to kill the NSX, so is it completely unlikely/out of the question to launch an Uber-S2000 for 09/10? They won't. We all know that. But it doesnt hurt to dream.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:45 PM.