I drove an S2000 this weekend

[sportyaccordy]

It's true, they have no torque whatsoever...I never realized how crucial torque is to the sensation of speed. It didn't pull any harder than my Accord. Nice cars though...

[gasoline]

It's true, they have no torque whatsoever...I never realized how crucial torque is to the sensation of speed. It didn't pull any harder than my Accord. Nice cars though...

Then why did Car and Driver ejaculate when they reviewed it? Has to be handling, because I seem to remember they were rather mellow about the lack of torque.

[MX793]

It's true, they have no torque whatsoever...I never realized how crucial torque is to the sensation of speed. It didn't pull any harder than my Accord. Nice cars though...

Putting around at 3000 RPM, it probably isn't much quicker than your Accord at similar speeds.  Drop it down a gear or two, get the revs up to 6000+ and stomp on it and I guarantee it'll throw you back in your seat much harder than your Accord.

[SVT666]

Putting around at 3000 RPM, it probably isn't much quicker than your Accord at similar speeds.? Drop it down a gear or two, get the revs up to 6000+ and stomp on it and I guarantee it'll throw you back in your seat much harder than your Accord.

What the point then?  I would rather have an engine that would rip from any rpm, not just over 6000rpm.  Seems kinda useless to me.

[SVT_Power]

What the point then?  I would rather have an engine that would rip from any rpm, not just over 6000rpm.  Seems kinda useless to me.

seems like no replacement for displacement for you then

[sportyaccordy]

Putting around at 3000 RPM, it probably isn't much quicker than your Accord at similar speeds.? Drop it down a gear or two, get the revs up to 6000+ and stomp on it and I guarantee it'll throw you back in your seat much harder than your Accord.

Oh I got on the hot cams...it's not a fluke, as I've ridden in an equally powerful DOHC VTEC Accord...the sensation of speed is just not there with these wind up motors. This isn't to say they AREN'T more powerful than less powerful cars, but they definitely don't feel like it...

And the ride quality is pretty choppy as well. My Accord isn't as low as it is in the sig, but it's on a pretty stiff aftermarket suspension...and it's nowhere near as crashy as the S2000, plus at 6-7/10ths it's not too far behind in handling. The S2000 doesn't feel stable...

Again, nice cars though...

[ro51092]

[quote auth :praise:or=HEMI666 link=topic=6793.msg312054#msg312054 date=1166475391]
What the point then?  I would rather have an engine that would rip from any rpm, not just over 6000rpm.  Seems kinda useless to me.

335i.

[SVT666]

335i.

Yes.  335i is a kickass car.  I have yet to drive one but a coworker ordered one for January delivery.  He said I can drive it when he gets it.  He said the one he test drive ripped from every rpm.  Sounds like fun to me.

[cozmik]

When I was looking into the S2000, I thought it pulled pretty well down low. And once you hit 6 grand, the car flies. If you get on it, you can break tires in the 1-2 and 2-3 upshifts. I took it home overnight even, so I had a good deal of time in it. 

One thing about the S2000 though is that it is a pretty fuel sensitive engine. It revs so high, and has such a high compression ratio, that anything less than good quality 93 octane will sap a good amount of performace. Most car dealerships put the cheapest stuff they can find in their cars. So that could have been an issue.


I should also ask what year it was. Was it a new one? I think it was 2005 that Honda changed the engine in it. It went from a 2.0L to a 2.2L. The 2.2L has a 1k RPM lower redline a about 16 lb/ft more torque.

[MX793]

What the point then?  I would rather have an engine that would rip from any rpm, not just over 6000rpm.  Seems kinda useless to me.

It's a technological showpiece.  Outside of displacement-limited environments (primarily found in the racing world), there's really not much reason to make a motor like the S2000's.  You can get similar performance results at a lower cost by simply using more displacement or forced induction.  You'll also get what most folks consider a more flexible powerband for daily driving (more power available at RPMs that most people tend to operate at "normally").

[sportyaccordy]

When I was looking into the S2000, I thought it pulled pretty well down low. And once you hit 6 grand, the car flies. If you get on it, you can break tires in the 1-2 and 2-3 upshifts. I took it home overnight even, so I had a good deal of time in it. 

One thing about the S2000 though is that it is a pretty fuel sensitive engine. It revs so high, and has such a high compression ratio, that anything less than good quality 93 octane will sap a good amount of performace. Most car dealerships put the cheapest stuff they can find in their cars. So that could have been an issue.


I should also ask what year it was. Was it a new one? I think it was 2005 that Honda changed the engine in it. It went from a 2.0L to a 2.2L. The 2.2L has a 1k RPM lower redline a about 16 lb/ft more torque.

This was an OG 2.0L no traction control '01 model. I didn't want to really rip into it as it is a friend's car...I blew my last motor up with my hard driving.

And chirping tires isn't big news...granted FWD/RWD/w/e...I chirped the tires on my 150HP Accord almost on a daily basis on the 1-2 shift.

It's a technological showpiece.  Outside of displacement-limited environments (primarily found in the racing world), there's really not much reason to make a motor like the S2000's.  You can get similar performance results at a lower cost by simply using more displacement or forced induction.  You'll also get what most folks consider a more flexible powerband for daily driving (more power available at RPMs that most people tend to operate at "normally").

As an engineer I can definitely appreciate the motor in that regard. It produces numbers for sure. But that sensation is just not there. My friend has an Altima 3.5 SE, automatic, and while it was a little opened up (intake, exhaust) it definitely *felt* faster than the S2K. It's that third derivative of time vs. distance change...a variation in the torque curve peaking at a high value that I think provides the sensation of speed. "Coming on cam" I believe it's called. The S2K doesn't do that....it just winds up linearly, gets a slight kick when VTEC engages and keeps on with the linear pull.

Beyond that and the un-Hondalike ride and lack of stability I was pretty impressed. However I think their next S would be better served with a fixed roof, a back seat and a high winding J-series V6...

[cozmik]

You should try driving one of the updated S2000s with the 2.2L. It also had suspension revisions and VSA added to it (though I could never get it to activate, not that it needed it).

[Raza]

I've wrung out some high strung engines, and some low revving torquey engines, and I have to say I'm a revver.  But I haven't driven the S2000 2.0 or 2.2.  That's not to say that an engine like the LS2 isn't ridiculously impressive.

[r0tor]

if you didn't beat on it you didn't even get to experience 60% of what it has to offer 

[MX793]

But that sensation is just not there. My friend has an Altima 3.5 SE, automatic, and while it was a little opened up (intake, exhaust) it definitely *felt* faster than the S2K. It's that third derivative of time vs. distance change...a variation in the torque curve peaking at a high value that I think provides the sensation of speed. "Coming on cam" I believe it's called. The S2K doesn't do that....it just winds up linearly, gets a slight kick when VTEC engages and keeps on with the linear pull.

I think it's the relative flatness of the torque curve that's to blame.  I believe it's a positive torque slope (increasing thrust with RPM, and thus speed, in a single gear) that gives you the sense of speed, and the steeper the slope the faster the car will feel.  The S2K's torque curve is pretty flat from 3K to 6K RPM and after the cam changeover it is still fairly flat.  According to SCC's dyno (measured at the wheels, so the numbers don't line up with factory claims), at 3K it's making around 113 lb-ft and just before the cam switchover it's making maybe 120.  After the changeover, it jumps to 130, ramps up to about 136 at 6300 RPM or so, and then gradually tapers off (though it's still making about 129 lb-ft at peak power). 

[Onslaught]

I've only driven one and I liked it. But then again I like rotary cars so torque isn't needed for me to have fun.

[sportyaccordy]

if you didn't beat on it you didn't even get to experience 60% of what it has to offer 

Oh I definitely took it to 9K more than once...

I think it's the relative flatness of the torque curve that's to blame.  I believe it's a positive torque slope (increasing thrust with RPM, and thus speed, in a single gear) that gives you the sense of speed, and the steeper the slope the faster the car will feel.  The S2K's torque curve is pretty flat from 3K to 6K RPM and after the cam changeover it is still fairly flat.  According to SCC's dyno (measured at the wheels, so the numbers don't line up with factory claims), at 3K it's making around 113 lb-ft and just before the cam switchover it's making maybe 120.  After the changeover, it jumps to 130, ramps up to about 136 at 6300 RPM or so, and then gradually tapers off (though it's still making about 129 lb-ft at peak power).

Again it's that wind-up sensation...those Altimas have a good variation of torque in the powerband, so the sensation of speed is there....

And HA @ the peak torque...a fellow Accordian made close to that with 9.2:1 comression and I/H/E...they were definitely a good 60-70WHP short of the S2K's 200 though...

Again they're fast...but they just don't have that butt-clenching grunt. It's a different kind of fast...

[Soup DeVille]

How do you even begin to get a feel for how a sports car handles at 6 or 7 tenths?

How do you even know you're at 6 or 7 tenths until you know where 11/10ths is?

[Raza]

How do you even begin to get a feel for how a sports car handles at 6 or 7 tenths?

How do you even know you're at 6 or 7 tenths until you know where 11/10ths is?

If it's a good sports car, you know where you are at all times. 

[cozmik]

Oh I definitely took it to 9K more than once...

Again it's that wind-up sensation...those Altimas have a good variation of torque in the powerband, so the sensation of speed is there....

And HA @ the peak torque...a fellow Accordian made close to that with 9.2:1 comression and I/H/E...they were definitely a good 60-70WHP short of the S2K's 200 though...

Again they're fast...but they just don't have that butt-clenching grunt. It's a different kind of fast...

Peak torque on an S2000 with the 2.2L is only 166 lb/ft. Same as the 2.4L in the Accord and CR-V, but still not an extreme amount.

[Soup DeVille]

If it's a good sports car, you know where you are at all times.?

Not until you know what it can do. People are used to judging the limit of cars by what they've driven before- by body roll, by seat of the pants butt-o-meters, by under or oversteer characteristics if they're a decent driver, by slip angle and controlability of the slide if they're a little more than decent; but ultimately you can't step out of an Accord and into something you've never driven before and know what it can do until you re-calibrate your butt-o-meter by seeing how far the dial goes up.

And the S2000 is no exception: I campaigned one in Solo II for 2 and a half years, and put more than 40,000 miles on one before I sold it.

[Soup DeVille]

Peak torque on an S2000 with the 2.2L is only 166 lb/ft. Same as the 2.4L in the Accord and CR-V, but still not an extreme amount.

The cars are geared drastically different.

[Raza]

Not until you know what it can do. People are used to judging the limit of cars by what they've driven before- by body roll, by seat of the pants butt-o-meters, by under or oversteer characteristics if they're a decent driver, by slip angle and controlability of the slide if they're a little more than decent; but ultimately you can't step out of an Accord and into something you've never driven before and know what it can do until you re-calibrate your butt-o-meter by seeing how far the dial goes up.

And the S2000 is no exception: I campaigned one in Solo II for 2 and a half years, and put more than 40,000 miles on one before I sold it.

When I find a properly communicative chassis, I feel everything happening.  I'm told I extend my chi to the car I'm driving, whatever that means.  However, finding a car nowadays is that communicative that you can absolutely feel every reaction in the chassis is rare.  They have a term for when it happens: "Lotus Elise".

[cozmik]

The cars are geared drastically different.

Yes, I know, I was just saying, since he mentioned the torque that some accord owners he knows have.

[Soup DeVille]

When I find a properly communicative chassis, I feel everything happening.? I'm told I extend my chi to the car I'm driving, whatever that means.? However, finding a car nowadays is that communicative that you can absolutely feel every reaction in the chassis is rare.? They have a term for when it happens: "Lotus Elise".

Sure, you can feel everything happening- but you don't really know what it means until you find where and when it can't do anything more. I don't know what that chi nonsense is about though...

For instance- say in the car you've been driving you know that when the front starts scrubbing at a certain rate you know you're nearing the hairy edge- although this may be a relaible indicator for that car, it doesn't necessarily mean squat in one with a more rearward weight bias- in fact on nearly exactly 50/50 cars if you set the line nice and smoothly you can get all four tires scrubbing and even sliding while still remaining in control of exactly where the car is going- and there's no way of knowing that until you get the car there.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Sure, you can feel everything happening- but you don't really know what it means until you find where and when it can't do anything more. I don't know what that chi nonsense is about though...

uMM... I'm pretty sure I have car chi too. It's certainly not nonsense. This is my chi mask:? See?? Any FWD car I get into, I can push to the limits and make it do exactly what I want. I don't have enough practice with RWD yet, but that day will come soon enough...? ?

[Soup DeVille]

uMM... I'm pretty sure I have car chi too. It's certainly not nonsense. This is my chi mask:? See?? Any FWD car I get into, I can push to the limits and make it do exactly what I want. I don't have enough practice with RWD yet, but that day will come soon enough...? ?

Spend some time on a track and around people who really know how to drive, Young Grasshopper. Getting spanked by geniunely good drivers (and I'm talking guys like John Heinricy and John Hernandez here) is the quickest way to realize that just because you can outbox the guys at the local gym doesn't make you the second coming of Mike Tyson.

[Raza]

Sure, you can feel everything happening- but you don't really know what it means until you find where and when it can't do anything more. I don't know what that chi nonsense is about though...

For instance- say in the car you've been driving you know that when the front starts scrubbing at a certain rate you know you're nearing the hairy edge- although this may be a relaible indicator for that car, it doesn't necessarily mean squat in one with a more rearward weight bias- in fact on nearly exactly 50/50 cars if you set the line nice and smoothly you can get all four tires scrubbing and even sliding while still remaining in control of exactly where the car is going- and there's no way of knowing that until you get the car there.

I think we're both right; I was just oversimplifying it.  There's sort of this big picture and then the nuanced picture.  I think if you're around cars a lot and have driven a lot of different cars, you can get a feeling for the big picture (that is, the general limits of the car), but you're definitely right in the idea that you really almost have to go beyond the limits to know where the knife edge of the gray area really is.

[Soup DeVille]

I think we're both right; I was just oversimplifying it.? There's sort of this big picture and then the nuanced picture.? I think if you're around cars a lot and have driven a lot of different cars, you can get a feeling for the big picture (that is, the general limits of the car), but you're definitely right in the idea that you really almost have to go beyond the limits to know where the knife edge of the gray area really is.

I'll agree to that; I think.

[Raza]

I'll agree to that; I think.

Do you still have your S2000?