GTP Cool Wall: 2004-2009 Honda S2000

[sparkytooth]

Really cool machine and one of the proper Hondas in my book. Although the NSX is higher in cool ranking and this thing has no Type R version.

Cool.....

 

[JrDarknes]

and this thing has no Type R version.

Really wish they did.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Really wish they did.

Kinda a shock they didn't. Was there a big shakeup in Honda management in the early '00s?

 

[McLaren]

Oh I know how it sounds, seeing how I own a BMW M model But the rabid Honda/VTEC/S2000 types just argue despite all logic, just like Subaru bros and AWD+Turbo=God'sGift etc etc.

Honda people just tend to be the most outspoken about HP/L nonsense and high RPMs in that not thought out way. Of course, the number of Bimmer heads that fundamentally don't understand how VTEC works is obnoxious, to say the least.

It isn't that I think the S2000 is a bad car, it is a solid piece of engineering for sure.

That actually wasn't directed at you. I know your posts enough by now to know there's valid reason & evidence behind them.

It was more directed towards our Murica/V84lyfe members.

 

[edawg456]

Sub zero

 

[Mikeybc]

Solid cool, though I'm a Civic hating Honda fanboy

 

[Bopop4]

The only thing I dislike about this car is that it lost 800rpm from a 200cc increase. (Seriously, I can understand a few hundred rpm, but almost a grand?)

Saves itself due to much improved suspension settings.

It has also aged very well, doesn't at all look like a 15 year old car.


To all those arguing about torque, it really doesn't matter.
What matters is power, gear ratio, and weight.

It goes a helluva lot faster than its torque number indicate, and the second you get to a set of corners, that Camaro is going to be annihilated.



Still needed a Type R spec though.
A 2.0L I4 bike spec motor with 350hp would be awesome in an S2000.

Sub-zero.

Edit: Power matters.

 

[Azuremen]

The only thing I dislike about this car is that it lost 800rpm from a 200cc increase. (Seriously, I can understand a few hundred rpm, but almost a grand?)

Crazy what a 6mm change in stroke does to an engine, right?

To all those arguing about torque, it really doesn't matter.
What matters is power, gear ratio, and weight.

I take it you've also not driven one of these and a more torque car with similar numbers else wise. Torque is very apparent.

Also, it isn't exactly light seeing how they weigh 2700 to 2800 pounds or so, which puts it only a couple hundred pounds under an E36, the same as a Porsche Boxster, just a touch lighter than a Z4, 500 pounds heavier than an NB Miata, and 600 pounds heavier than an MR-S. I don't understand why everyone talks about how light the S2000 is when it was, for a roadster, relatively heavy.

It goes a helluva lot faster than its torque number indicate, and the second you get to a set of corners, that Camaro is going to be annihilated.

And something like an MR-S will stick right to it. As will a Boxster or Z4. Or an old E36. And those last 3 all have similar power with broader and tractable delivery with fewer gear changes needed.

I understand this love for this car, but I feel the amount of armchair racing and stipulation about it is a bit absurd. I wanted one for ages and then I drove one, my friends drove them, and we all ended up with M3's. Why? Because it just wasn't nearly as exciting as it seems on paper.

 

[Bopop4]

I take it you've also not driven one of these and a more torque car with similar numbers else wise. Torque is very apparent.

At low rpm yes, that's when you get less power because of less torque.

But when you're trying to go fast is when it becomes about power.

Example: Vehicle A has more torque and less weight than vehicle B.
Vehicle B's powerband is several thousand rpms higher than A's.

It wasn't even a contest, B left A for dead.
At low rpm A was better, but as soon as you gunned both it was easy to tell what was faster.

The weight point wasn't referring specifically to the S2000, moreso because people assume low torque equals low acceleration.

And something like an MR-S will stick right to it. As will a Boxster or Z4. Or an old E36. And those last 3 all have similar power with broader and tractable delivery with fewer gear changes needed.

The MR-S is light but the power disadvantage it too great.
Again, it was directed at the muscle car people, because if you're using an S2000 for straight line then you're missing the point.

 

[Harry6784]

HP/L is an argument ricers use to justify their 'impressive' 200fwhp. If anything, HP per lb is a much better measurement.

Yet it seems to be not much slower than an LS1 powered F body, so apparently it does go somewhere.

Interesting how you always refer to LS1's when you quote me

They are over a full second slower in the quarter mile than a stock F-Body. A low 14 second pass is right there with V6 Accords and Altimas, so no, it still doesn't go anywhere.

You seem to be neglecting ratios.

And weight? S2k's are a good 700lbs lighter than F-bodies.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

They are over a full second slower in the quarter mile than a stock F-Body. A low 14 second pass is right there with V6 Accords and Altimas, so no, it still doesn't go anywhere.

Again, it was directed at the muscle car people, because if you're using an S2000 for straight line then you're missing the point.

 

[Harry6784]

Exactly, I was proving why S2k's should't be considers straight line monsters.

 

[Tyger]

Cool from me, fun RWD revvy cars that give a lot of bang for your buck. The styling never really blew me away though.

 

[Zenith]

Exactly, I was proving why S2k's should't be considers straight line monsters.

Who said that?

 

[Harry6784]

Who said that?

3. The F20 series engines have a wide power band, so when you floor it, you still have power.

Yet it seems to be not much slower than an LS1 powered F body, so apparently it does go somewhere.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

*quotes*

So... nobody actually did say that, you just inferred it to try to make a point. Gotcha.

A solid cool for the S2000; it's still impressive, it's aged well, and enough of them around these parts haven't been ruined by yo-bros. It's also an important flag in the sand for Honda, seeing as how it's the last performance-minded car they introduced that really drove the point home about them being an engineering-led company - the next decade saw them excise excitement almost completely from their North American lineup.

 

[Zenith]

Neither of those suggest that the S2000 is a "straight line monster."

Azure Flare's post is about having usable power, Azuremen's post is a simple fact. Last time I checked "not much slower than an LS1 F body" isn't straight line monster material.

 

[Harry6784]

Neither of those suggest that the S2000 is a "straight line monster."

Azure Flare's post is about having usable power, Azuremen's post is a simple fact. Last time I checked "not much slower than an LS1 F body" isn't straight line monster material.

When discussing engines and their output figures, straight line performance is usually the baseline for comparison. As such I was proving the fact that when comparing engines, the F20 is nothing special. Azuremen suggested it's "not much slower than an LS1 F-body". So unless he thinks that 1 full second difference in 1/4 mile times are considered "not much slower", then he is correct.

Also a flat torque curve has nothing to do with usable power when you're making 130ft-lbs of torque.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Also worth noting - by gen 4, the F-bodies had mostly outgrown the "American cars are barges" stereotype and could actually put out a surprising amount of cornering force. Whether it's enough to keep up with an S2K I don't know, but they certainly aren't clumsy cars.

 

[Harry6784]

Also worth noting - by gen 4, the F-bodies had mostly outgrown the "American cars are barges" stereotype and could actually put out a surprising amount of cornering force. Whether it's enough to keep up with an S2K I don't know, but they certainly aren't clumsy cars.

Compared to traditional Muscle Cars, F-Bodies can handle corners quite well, but it's still a no contest with a S2k. Around a track, stock for stock, the Honda will humiliate an F-body. The S2000's were designed for carving corners.

But this is stock for stock. Once you start modding anything can happen

 

[Badasp5.0]

Also worth noting - by gen 4, the F-bodies had mostly outgrown the "American cars are barges" stereotype and could actually put out a surprising amount of cornering force. Whether it's enough to keep up with an S2K I don't know, but they certainly aren't clumsy cars.

Yep in SCCA World Challange the Fbody Firebird team in the late '90s surprised a ton of folks.

 

[Azuremen]

At low rpm yes, that's when you get less power because of less torque.

But when you're trying to go fast is when it becomes about power.

Example: Vehicle A has more torque and less weight than vehicle B.
Vehicle B's powerband is several thousand rpms higher than A's.

It wasn't even a contest, B left A for dead.
At low rpm A was better, but as soon as you gunned both it was easy to tell what was faster.

Have you ever driven an S2000, or a car with torque, or a sports car even? I know you race bikes and, if I recall, cart, but you keep talking about these situations where these cars are basically always going all out. In the real world, in real situations, you aren't going to be in that 2000 RPM sweet spot on the S2000. You are overly simplifying the comparison and idealizing the situation to the point of meaninglessness.

Power matters in a race, but torque dictates when and how you can use that power. The S2000's powerband is about 2000 rpms north of an E36 M3's, and they make the same power, but the torque and broader band on the M3 makes it just as fast in a drag race and faster in most real world situations, despite having a few hundred pounds of weight.

Oh, and electric cars would like to have a word about RPMs and power and torque.

The MR-S is light but the power disadvantage it too great.
Again, it was directed at the muscle car people, because if you're using an S2000 for straight line then you're missing the point.

Despite the 100HP difference, the MR-S isn't dramatically slower than an S2000. They also feel similar in terms of grunt below 6500 RPMs, except the powerband on the MR-S broader so you don't feel the need to drop gears to do anything constantly.

 

[Wolfe]

...I was proving the fact that when comparing engines, the F20 is nothing special.

Compared to other naturally aspirated engines with similar displacement, it's plenty special. It's exceptional, both for better and for worse. That you can get more power and torque from a larger engine is self-evident and nothing special. Maximizing torque from a given displacement in a naturally aspirated engine, and stretching the redline out to make the most of the torque you can get, is generally more challenging and requires more of an investment in engineering. Is it worth the trouble? Depends where you live, for one thing, and who you ask. But to some, the effort is more impressive than simply squeezing more cubic inches of fuel-air.

 

[Kent]

Not that my Honda was a racer or anything but it did run the K20 with an 8300 cutoff and 8k redline... That said, it is both a blessing and a curse.
Part of what makes these engines so fun is the feeling of running into that band of RPM and shifting through the gears. 👍
At the same time, day to day driving in that rpm range is annoying to other drivers, sometimes with the wrong cop it can get you a ticket, and tiresome after a bit of time owning the car.

Truth is, torque goes a long way for daily driving and there's a reason you will so often see members on Honda forums (whether it be a Civic Si/Type R, or S2k) posting about their most recent switch to a car with much better torque.

Personally, I loved the Si and had it not been for a horrible driver causing a ton of damage I'd still be driving it... Then again, I wouldn't have had the pleasure of moving into the lower RPM turbo car I drive today.
I guess everything about my experience with a high revving honda was a blessing and a curse.

 

[Zenith]

When discussing engines and their output figures, straight line performance is usually the baseline for comparison.

For engines? No. Maybe you do, but most people don't.

As such I was proving the fact that when comparing engines, the F20 is nothing special. Azuremen suggested it's "not much slower than an LS1 F-body". So unless he thinks that 1 full second difference in 1/4 mile times are considered "not much slower", then he is correct.

He didn't say the F20 was special either. In fact he has said quite the opposite several times in this thread.

You said that the Honda S2000 wouldn't go anywhere with the amount of torque it produces. Azuremen pointed out the S2000 plainly does go somewhere considering it will keep up with an LS1 F body in many straight line scenarios.

Nobody said it has a good quarter mile time.

Nobody said its a straight line monster.

Nobody said the engine is special.

Read what you're arguing against.

Also a flat torque curve has nothing to do with usable power when you're making 130ft-lbs of torque.

When the car weighs 2700lbs 130lb-ft torque is enough to make it move.

 

[Harry6784]

For engines? No. Maybe you do, but most people don't.

The purpose of an engine is to propel a car forward. Just how well it does that is a very accurate indicator of how effective the motor is. Don't see how this is causing confusion. 1/4 mile times are are big factor in evaluating a car's overall performance.

the S2000 plainly does go somewhere considering it will keep up with an LS1 F body in many straight line scenarios.

Oh please elaborate

Nobody said it has a good quarter mile time.

Nobody said its a straight line monster.

Nobody said the engine is special.

Then excuse me for trying to make an obvious point. Stock for stock, S2k's DO NOT keep up with F-Bodies in 'straight line scenarios', simple fact. I don't know why you keep trying to compare the two. I was just bringing figures & numbers in to show just how big the gap between the two are. They were designed for different purposes and thus perform differently.

When the car weighs 2700lbs 130lb-ft torque is enough to make it move.

Exactly, enough to make it move, barley

 

[Slash]

As far as I'm concerned, 1 second in a 1/4 mile time is one hell of a gap. And you sure as hell know it too when you drive both cars.

 

[Zenith]

The purpose of an engine is to propel a car forward. Just how well it does that is a very accurate indicator of how effective the motor is. Don't see how this is causing confusion. 1/4 mile times are are big factor in evaluating a car's overall performance.

A quarter mile time is a measure of a car's ability to move from a stand-still to a place 1/4 mile away.

Quarter mile times are very much about a car's launching capability (read: grip), weight, tires, how the gear ratios are set up, and to a certain extent, the aerodynamics of a car. None of those factors I listed are relevant to the engine itself.

If you want to test an engine, put it on an engine dyno and look at the torque and power curves. There's a reason why this subject is being discussed so much here.

That part about quarter mile times being a affected by grip is a key factor.

Oh please elaborate

I did here.

I'm not sure what computer simulations you are running but Honda S2000's and late 90's to early 00's Camaro SS' will both do 0-60 in about 5 and a half seconds.

Obviously the Camaro will pull away once it finally finds traction, but Azuremen's point wasn't that an S2000 can outdrag a Camaro anyways.

Then excuse me for trying to make an obvious point. Stock for stock, S2k's DO NOT keep up with F-Bodies in 'straight line scenarios', simple fact. I don't know why you keep trying to compare the two. I was just bringing figures & numbers in to show just how big the gap between the two are. They were designed for different purposes and thus perform differently.

Except they do when we measure the time it takes them to go from 0 to 60 miles per hour. Also consider that an F body with a stock LS1 has about the same peak power to weight ratio as an S2000

Exactly, enough to make it move, barley

Well then I guess that statement also applies to F bodies with LS1's. Your words, not mine.

 

[McLaren]

He didn't say the F20 was special either. In fact he has said quite the opposite several times in this thread.

You said that the Honda S2000 wouldn't go anywhere with the amount of torque it produces. Azuremen pointed out the S2000 plainly does go somewhere considering it will keep up with an LS1 F body in many straight line scenarios.

Nobody said it has a good quarter mile time.

Nobody said its a straight line monster.

Nobody said the engine is special.

Read what you're arguing against.

Lol, that's the whole reason he's taking offense to it. If the S2000 doesn't have a good quarter mile, or isn't a straight line monster, then his own personal car (i.e heavy bias) must not either since the S2000 doesn't fall far behind it from the comments he's reading.

As for this 1 second QTR mile, I wouldn't be surprised if his Trans-Am times will come from various drivers on whatever BS forum, & he'll run that against what magazines did for the S2K because chances are, he doesn't want to search to see what those owners got.
Magazine for magazine, Motor Trend ran a '00 S2000 to 60 in 5.8 seconds, & the QTR mile in 14.2 @ 98.1 mph. They put a '00 Trans-Am WS6 to 60 in 5 seconds and the QTR mile in 13.5 @ 107.4mph. For further comparison, they also ran a '00 Camaro SS to 60 in 5.3 seconds and QTR in 13.7 @ 105.6mph.

I don't know what math is taught where he leaves, 14.2 minus 13.5 does not equal 1 full second. It's close, but it's not full, and it says a lot for a little 240Hp 4-cylinder with "no torque" to still fall within' a second's range of 320Hp V8 pushing 345@4400Rpm. But, that's because Harry hasn't driven a S2000 & is doing nothing more than benchmark racing it. Anyone who's driven one knows the car has plenty of power despite what the spec. sheet might say.

As far as I'm concerned, 1 second in a 1/4 mile time is one hell of a gap. And you sure as hell know it too when you drive both cars.

That's a pretty bold statement. Have you driven both to "sure as hell know"?

 

[Slash]

If the F bodies weight was significantly lower, say more along the lines of the S2000, there would be no contest. The F body would win and possibly have the edge to win around a track as well. But the fact is, the S2000 is much more well rounded for racing where as the T/A has ALWAYS been for spirited daily driving, and that's it.

People make them into more, and it's not surprising that they do. But when the car originally came out, it was meant to compete with the Mustang which does exactly what I said it does, and make daily driving a little more for someone who wanted it. The S2000 was intended to do the same thing, and arguably does it better, despite having less power.