Pardon the simple question... what are the salient differences in engine design that would allow some small engines (I'm thinking of the 2.0L from the Evo) to generate 300hp/300ft-lbs with factory backing while others (ours in the S2k) do not?

I'm assuming (and I recognize this is a big assumption) that the S2000's engine off the factory floor wouldn't handle the ~ 300 ft-lbs torque output quite as reliably as what's in the Evo, just because it hasn't been engineered to do so. IF that assumption is correct (let me know if it isn't) then what are the engineering differences between these blocks?

 

Phoenix,

Are you asking why the S2000 doesn't come with a turbo? I'm not quite sure I understand your question.

 

Really quickly, i guess you just want the differences.
Main thing is Iron block (evo) vs Aluminum (S2000) iron weighs more but can take more abuse and pressure than an Aluminum (lighter) block.

The STi block is aluminum but has Iron sleeves and supports so its "Semi-closed" while the Evo engine is a fully closed Iron block... I dont own an S2000 but I'm assuming that its an open deck (aluminum) design.

 

Yup, the block is aluminum, and the cylinder walls in the S2000 are either coated with or made entirely of fiber-reinforced metal (FRM). The walls are damn thin, as you can see in the exploded view below. Look carefully at the intersection of the 1-2-3-4 cylinders!! .

If this is phoenix's question, then that's the right answer, silverbane. The engine was designed for minimal weight and maximum NA horsepower. Folks who have really tried to do serious FI in the S2000 have paid a ton of $$ to rebuild their blocks.

 

Yes! That was my question. My apologies for being vague.

So, this being the case, any idea what the approximate weight savings is of an iron block over aluminum? I guess I'm trying to get some insight into the decision process behind the f20's design. You're right, the space between the cylinder walls is not too substantial... what would the weight gain have been were the engine engineered to handle forced induction stresses (even if it didn't actually have FI) ?

 

Phoenix, I can't answer those. You have to remember that the engine design team had a serious bug up their collective patootie to get maximum NA performance in the lightest possible package. They also wanted that 9K redline which meant light, "slipper" pistons and mass reduction on all the reciprocating parts.

I remember reading somewhere that Honda management had hoped to showcase some future technology with the F20 that they'd planned to incorporate in everyday cars over time. I don't know if that was ever accomplished, but certainly i-VTEC is fairly common in the Honda engine lineup these days (though VTEC didn't originate in the S).

Anyway, that's the extent of my knowledge. Best wishes.

 

Very informative. I'd often wondered why the s2k can't push boost like the other 4 pot engines too. Now I know. Too bad

 

I love my S but if I would know how hight tuned it is in stock form and that there is no "space for aftermarket" I would never buy it. Adding an exhaust and cold intake in any car gives you lot of gains, but in the S, it just gives you a better sound. The japs have created a stock monster and there is nothing we can add to it. Even a 4k s/c does not help at all, just take a look at the 0-60 or 1/4 times.it simply sucks

 

If all you care about is 0-60 and 1/4 mile then you bought the wrong car. You have no one to blame but yourself.

As an owner of an SC'd S with an attention span longer than 13 seconds I really appreciate what the SC does for the car.

 

120 hp/liter stone stock, and you thought there would be a lot of room for cheap, easy improvement?