I'm ****ING SICK of reading how one needs to rev the bejesus out of the S2000 to make any sort of semi-respectable progress along the road

So far as I am concerned, the motor does pretty bl**dy well for a TWO LITRE ENGINE below 6K revs. If I go out for a drive and change up at 3-6K revs (which you might as well/have to do in most real-world traffic conditions), I find the performance at least equal to most other 2 litre NA engines out there. The only reason it RELATIVELY-SPEAKING feels a bit gutless lower down is because it performs so well high up the rev range.

My recent cars have included a Z4M and a SLK 55 AMG and I'm still genuinely amazed at how well the little S engine pulls even lower down in the rev range.... FOR A TWO LITRE ENGINE! Remember, it's only 2L and geared for 170-ish in 6th. I'm full of admiration for how well this little motor performs RIGHT ACROSS the rev range.

Rant over

 

In fact it's far better in this respect than most 2L NA engines.

 

I've been saying this for years on internet fora. The S will pull more than adequately from 30mph in 5th gear (about 2krpm) all the way to 125mph (about 9krpm). Inflexible, I don't think so. OK it might not get from 30 to 50 in 5th as quickly as a turbodiesel but it doesn't need to, if their is a hurry, then in the real world, everyone is going to use the appropriate gear for the job. That's why all the "performance" diesels have 6 speed boxes, if the were as torquey and wonderful as we're told, they'd only have 3 or 4 speed boxes. The truth is that they aren't because the power (and it's power that counts, not torque) band is so narrow.

I've never understood the writing that suggests in the real world it's nice to be able to overtake without changing gear, I presume this is the "real world" of road testing on deserted moors roads. For most busy urban and suburban driving (which is of course what most people do for most of the time), lots of torque is pointless, progressive, increasing power delivery is what really counts.

 

My Primera is far worse for lack of torque low down, and that's 2.0 N/A. The S isn't bad at all, it just doesn't pull low down like a lot of other car with similar peak bhp figures - i.e. turbo nutter barges.

 

Cheers for the support. But 125mph at 9K in FIFTH? My car will nudge 120 in FOURTH. I'll hold my hand up and admit I've not redlined the car in fifth (yet) but I'd be guessing more like 135-140?
Mike

 

I think below the power band it's pathetic. The only advantage it has is the revs available.

On the track it is really hard work to keep the thing on the boil.

 

I'd agree in first gear, after that its fine as I tend to leave it in a low gear anyway, humming away.

I've never found it difficult to keep on the boil, either hard driving or on the track. I guess sometimes coming out of really tight corners in second it can take a few moments till you hit that magic 6k.

TBH though I prefer it over loads of grunt then nothing. Ala diesel

 

You are almost certainl right, I haven't been that fast that often But you see what I mean.

 

The power delivery below 6000 rpm is fairly standard for a not turbo 2l engine eg current 2l lump in citroen produces 143bhp and S produces 150 ish.

150 bhp is perfectly adequate for pulling the weigth at NON sports car speeds IMOHO.

 

It is about 140mph in 5th. 6th is gutless above 140mph.

I agree with the OP. Certainly on track driving, dropping out of vtec slightly but not having to change gear so often can gain you time.

And I remember my first meet. People couldn't believe I was keeping up without using vtec (was still running the car in )