JimUK

When i got mine in January i was genuinely suprised how well the S pulls off Vtec.. More than enough for regular driving and when you need to get a proper move on, keep it going above 6k... It picks up far better at lows speeds in 2nd and 3rd (20ish mph) than my Passat 2.0TDI 140 which doesnt do anthing until it gets to about 2k and can sometimes catch you out when say turning up a steep hill in 2nd, one in particular where the S pulls up the hill even in 3rd...

Boab01

It wasn't a jockmeet then - dropping out of VTEC usually costs you about half a mile

Lurking Lawyer

It depends entirely what your point of reference is and what you've been used to driving in the past.

I came to the S2000 from a 1.8 MX5 (around 140 bhp) so the power on tap below 6,000 rpm was still no more than I had been used to, and perhaps even more. (I'm sure I've read somewhere that peak power output before VTEC kicks in was around 180, not 150-ish, but I have no idea which is correct).

It would probably feel rather gutless if you've been used to a turbo-charged engine or a six-cylindered NA engine.

There's a lot of rubbish written about S2000s by people who have tested it for half a day and don't really "get" it. Best policy is just to ignore it - WE all know better.

chilled

That particular incident wasn't but I can keep up on a Jockmeet out of VTEC. It's all about carrying your speed through the corner. Must come up North and do another at some point. Now the fecking midges have gone.

JimUK

I'm sure evo magazine ran a full rolling road test at different revs and it was about 150bhp before Vtec and less than that at some lower revs.. I'll try and dig it out but it was a about 3 years ago.

Like you say, its all relative to what you've been driving before hand...

chilled

I thought it was 180bhp at 6k.

aldfort

Does this not depend on vehicle age? I thought they had re-mapped later cars to make a "smoother" transition into VTEC. I certainly don't notice any sort of kick as VTEC comes in. Power delivery seems smooth and fairly progressive right up to the red line. (OK I'm old and not clogging it enough )

I also agree that in everyday give and take driving the car is more than quick enough to hold it's own. TBH If i've got the roof down, which is most of the time, I really could not care less if I lose out in the traffic light grand prix.

Have got caught out once or twice exiting sharp bends and finding I'd not changed to a low enough gear to really power away as I'd intended. However I'm getting better at that.

S2Harv

It's quite simple to calculate to be honest:-

Vtec kicks in at 5850 is it?

At that point the car produces about 135 ft/lb doesn't it?

So 135 / 5252 * 5850 = 150 BHP.

Now lets see what it makes at 6500 rpm where a lot of cars are at their maximum power.

Torque at that point is say 140 ft/lb (Vtec already kicked in a bit)

So 140 / 5252 *6500 = 173 BHP

That sounds more like it, plenty so pace I'd have thought.

Now the full 237BHP is right proper quick :-)

WRumbled

The reason that it attracts so much criticism is that, because it has so much power, it is always compared to bigger engines.

Take the Z4 for example. You don't compare it with the 2.2; you compare it with the 3.0 straight-six.

Compared to most 237bhp motors, it does lack torque.

Compared to most NA 2 litre motors, it doesn't.

Who, amongst us, cares?

Mike9000

Point taken. BUT I just get F***ED-OFF with dickhead journos slagging the motor off as being 'gutless' when for a 2L NA motor it AIN'T!!

Mike