I wouldn't worry too much about weight increases. The chassis/body is something like 600kg, while the engine/gearbox is something like 158kg (Note: from memory, so that could just be the engine.). Even if the engine/gearbox were 10% heavier, it wouldn't be that bad in the scheme of things.

The Feels 2.3L stroker kit keeps the same rev limit, but there little point using it - it runs out of puff sooner than a standard engine, which peaks @ 8300 or so.

Mugen developed a 2.2L stroker kit that never made it to market. Perhaps that's the route Honda will go. If you take the example of the oil bolt recall, I think Honda have got a really good handle on the F20C's reliability, and where they can/can't push the limit a little more.

Don't forget it's possible to get to circa 160ft/lbs of torque while still 2L with bolt ons. If the 2.2L is aiming for 150ft/lbs, they could hit the 250bhp figure quoted, have more torque across the rev range and still have a reliable level of tune everywhere. But probably be slower than a well tuned F20C.

And that's igoring i-Vtec which could help smooth the torque curve out even more and allow for a different cam profile while keeping similar top end gains. There's lots of options - just have to wait and see what they've picked.

-Brian.

 

The torque delivery is a good point.

I'd forgotten that the early 1.6 MX-5's were set up like the S2K - the torque built with the revs. This makes the car feel faster/more exciting than it really is. They were actually dangerously gutless below 2000 rpm, the engine would bog down like a two stroke.

The 1.8s (and later 1.6s) were more normally cammed. The car felt stronger across the bulk of the rev range, but definitely less of a shove at the top end of the rev range.

There are plenty of options for Honda, you pays your money and takes your choice....

 

I might be wrong here. but i think the 2.2l engine would used the same engine block as the 2 litre. Its just a matter of boring out the block and fitting slightly larger pistons ect ect.

so i dont think that the engine would be that heavier.

Man just hope its in the cabrio. tried the 2l engine. was not impressed. Ok for a 2L engine, but honda must take their finger out and put competitive engines in both the nsx and the s2k.

But lets wait and see.

RP

************************************************** ************************
Ricardo,

I think you'll find that the 3.2 engine in the NSX is already competitive. Although it's quoted as 276 bhp if you drive one you'll realise it is clearly more powerful - just read Autocar's head to head road test of the new NSX against an Evo Vi in April 2002. Let me quote:

"It's a sensational drivetrain: one that draws and stands comparison with the very best efforts from Italy. A decade's worth of engine management nouse has made the NSX's low speed manners seem quite ordinary; it's anything but when you open the throttles wide, though. Then it's all induction noise; a gorgeous scream from just behind the passenger's seat, and one that builds with the power delivery until an 8,000rpm cut-off....... It feels massively quick too. The urge is more than subjective and the inlet bark is justified by a 4.8 0-60 run and a 10.9 0-100 spint. In fact this car is so much quicker, so much more urgent in any gear than the previous NSX, it deserves a differenet name. No engine modifications, my foot."

regards

 

A bit off topic here.. but it makes me laugh when Honda say the s2k engine is pretty light(150kg)... The K series Rover engine is only 90 odd Kg for the 1.8 version !

I think Honda Help develop it too !

 

The Rover is light, but it was designed as a 1.1-1.4 litre!

The 1.8 is very long stroke. I understand they have cylinder liners extending into the crankcase to make it work.

The problem is, that with a large reciprocating mass and a light, relatively flimsy block, the moving bits tend to shake the non-moving parts about a bit. This is why the Rover unit sounds (and feels) so rough. It's still not a bad unit, though.

 

Oh, & according the the AR web resource, it was an entirely British effort too!

 

Whilst the 2.2 engine may well add extra torque - extra capacity is going to mean the following - longer stroke crank (faster piston speeds) and/or increased bore (heavier pistons). The end result of either would more than likely mean a lower rev limit and IMHO that would spoil the S experience.

My miles consist of loads of driving in traffic, blasts along motorways and country road thrashes - I can honestly say the "lack" of torque has never been a concern.

If one wants a car with more torque - don't buy the S - buy another car.

Me, I'll stick with me bubbly chocolate...

 

nice to see another Mac user

 

On the record or off the record there is no mention of this change of engine from honda uk.

Heresay and speculation (mind you what else is the web for!?!)

why would you change the S engine when it has just won another award for the x time in succession?


imo the engine is for a different car to the range....coupe?!! but I dont think we will see it for at least 2 yrs.

 

My dealer raised to topic of the 2.2l with me last week,

he pointed out that the S2000 is now the oldest car in honda's range !