GTP Cool Wall: 2004-2009 Honda S2000

2004-2009 Honda S2000


  • Total voters
    134
  • Poll closed .
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.
This argument doesn't work because it wasn't significantly lower. The what if game flows both ways.
 
This argument doesn't work because it wasn't significantly lower. The what if game flows both ways.

The newest F body T/A weighed in at about 3,500-3,600lbs (I'm using this car since it's his personal vehicle, year depending though). This generation S2000 weighed in at about 2,700-2800 lbs. 700 lbs, give or take depending on your model, is a pretty significant number if you ask me.

Pretty sure that's why he said "but the fact is."

Exactly.
 
The newest F body T/A weighed in at about 3,500-3,600lbs (I'm using this car since it's his personal vehicle, year depending though). This generation S2000 weighed in at about 2,700-2800 lbs. 700 lbs, give or take depending on your model, is a pretty significant number if you ask me.
It doesn't matter because the car wasn't lighter at the end of the day. Anyone could just as easily say if they gave the S2000 300whp or built a Type-R model, it would be no contest, either. The only reason you conjured up this scenario is to give the F-Body more credit & your ending statement was to save face by stating, "but the fact is". Exactly, the fact is just that, so why bring up a theory....
 
I'm wondering more why such a benign sentiment as "if the 4th Gen F-Body wasn't such a lardass the S2000 wouldn't be remotely competitive" is worthy of such ire to begin with. It's not like they were even in the same time zone for cross shopping anyway.
 
It doesn't matter because the car wasn't lighter at the end of the day.

That was the point I was making. The S2000 is the better car stock. I'd argue you get more bang for the buck even if it is slightly slower in a straight line.
 
That was the point I was making. The S2000 is the better car stock. I'd argue you get more bang for the buck even if it is slightly slower in a straight line.
It's not the point you made, it's why you attempted to convey a theory to get to it. There was zero reason to do so because it's irrelevant; it goes both ways. Your point was more than clear without it once you stated the actual fact. Read the rest of the post.
 
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.

Even though the engine dictates how much grip the car will have when it launches, the effect of the engine's weight and location on launch grip, how quickly it revs through the gears and the power it has to overcome drag. You're right, not relevant at all.

Except they do when we measure the time it takes them to go from 0 to 60 miles per hour.

0-60 times have to do more with a car's weight than it's engine output. Take a 217hp Lotus Elise S. It has a 0-60 of 4.3 seconds, faster than a 500hp BMW M6. Quite misleading. But take a look at the 1/4 miles times. The lotus runs a low 13 second while the BMW runs a low 12 second quarter. Much more informative statistics. Light cars are quicker out of the hole, doesn't mean the engine is better, simply means there is less mass it's engine has to accelerate.

Also consider that an F body with a stock LS1 has about the same peak power to weight ratio as an S2000

Peak power is a useless measurement when it comes to describing a car's performance. Official specs of both cars:

Honda S2000 AP2:
-237HP @ 7800 RPM
- 2802lbs
- 0.084 hp/lb

page__module__images__section__img_ctrl__img__666290__file__med


Chevrolet Camaro SS:
- 345hp @ 5500 RPM
- 3460lbs
- 0.099 hp/lb

2001CamaroSS_100percStock_8-15-09.jpg


First off, the Camaro has a 18% better peak power to weight ratio compared to the S2000. Second, as I was saying peak power is just a figure manufactures use to sell their cars. Power under the curve is a much more important measurement than peak power. Not only is the Camaro's powerband flatter than the Honda, but the engine produces 35% of it's power after just a third of its revs while the Honda makes 23% of it's total power after a third of its total revs. Even assuming both engines make the same peak power, according to the graphs, the Camaro will still make better power when you need it. And I didn't even talk about the torque difference.

Now can we please stop comparing these two cars.
 
where these cars are basically always going all out.

Exactly, because in a sports car, that's all that really matters.

A regular car is just a tool to get you from place to place, nothing more.

A sports car (A proper one atleast.) is designed to be pushed all out. Looking at the power under 4000rpm on an S2000 should have no meaning because you're not going to be there in sports driving, and in real world driving, you'll have more power than you would ever need.

I have a little 2L I4 and I almost never go over 2500rpm, there's no point.

If I ever do get a sports car, then it'll be optimized for the track, because that's going to be its main duty.


I agree on the M3 having a wider powerband, a torqueier motor running at lower rpms but the same power is going to have a higher average horsepower than one where you have to rev it out.
 
Didn't the Camaro have 325 HP? The Corvette had 345...

Also, I'm still mystified at the people calling the S2000 "the better car" here. The Camaro does have at least a slight advantage in a straight line and is probably more useable in day-to-day driving, as well as being about 30 times more moddable. It's also no slouch in the cornering department itself, so while it might not be quite as sharp as an S2000, it might be surprisingly close even on a track with curves. In any case, 56 or 57% nose weight, and the degraded handling that comes from it, is a price I'd gladly pay for having that lovely V8 in a car that still handles pretty nicely anyway.
 
The 4th gen F-bodies handled pretty nicely, from what I've heard. Muscle cars haven't really had trouble with corners since the late 80s or early 90s. Even a Fox Mustang or 3rd gen can be set up to handle well, but the 4th gen F-cars, and probably the SN95 and SN99 Mustangs as well, could do so from the factory.

Apparently the Camaros and Firebirds did pretty well in SCCA racing back when they were new. Granted, a T-class car isn't perfectly stock, but it's probably pretty close - in fact, I remember reading somewhere that the T classes were created to replace SSA and SSGT because cars were getting too fast for the bolt-in 6-point roll cages used at the time in Showroom Stock classes.
 
The 4th gen F-bodies handled pretty nicely, from what I've heard. Muscle cars haven't really had trouble with corners since the late 80s or early 90s. Even a Fox Mustang or 3rd gen can be set up to handle well, but the 4th gen F-cars, and probably the SN95 and SN99 Mustangs as well, could do so from the factory.

Apparently the Camaros and Firebirds did pretty well in SCCA racing back when they were new. Granted, a T-class car isn't perfectly stock, but it's probably pretty close - in fact, I remember reading somewhere that the T classes were created to replace SSA and SSGT because cars were getting too fast for the bolt-in 6-point roll cages used at the time in Showroom Stock classes.
No. American V8s didn't really start catching up to the rest of the world til' the late 90's, primarily with the C5 Z06 that started doing very well on the track against the Europeans & Japanese. SCCA Racing comparisons don't really mean much once we start talking about cars that were being modified for road racing.

If you think the Camaro was remotely close to the S2000, look at the lap times for the current Camaro against the S2000.
Tsukuba:
'10 SS - 1:10.67
'07 S2000 Type S (CR) - 1:07.72

Willow Springs:
'10 SS - 1:37.70
'07 S2000 Type S - 1:36.67

Only at Virginia was the SS able to run away by 4-5 seconds, but the course has plenty of straights for the car to stretch its legs.
 
Struggling to see how any of this has anything to do with the car's coolness. :lol:

The S2k and Camaro are relatively low down on the coolness ladder compared to other cars out there, specifically because they're an S2k and a Camaro... not because one is faster in a straight line or another is faster in the corners.

The only reason I actually voted this one cool is because it's a 2.2. Because I'm a hipster when it comes to motors.
 
I'm honestly surprised the Camaro didn't absolutely trounce the Honda at Willow Springs, then lose (or come a lot closer to it) at much twistier VIR. As for Tsukuba, of course it'll favor the Honda, I mean come on, it's practically a kart track.

In either case, the Honda must literally handle like a race car to cancel out an almost 200 HP advantage - from a car complimented for its speed and grip by Car & Driver - on Willow Springs.

Also, Camaro at Tsukuba. I suspect those times are from a video game.

And the Camaro is still cooler, because V8.
 
I'm honestly surprised the Camaro didn't absolutely trounce the Honda at Willow Springs, then lose (or come a lot closer to it) at much twistier VIR. As for Tsukuba, of course it'll favor the Honda, I mean come on, it's practically a kart track.

Most likely the Streets of Willow.

In either case, the Honda must literally handle like a race car to cancel out an almost 200 HP advantage - from a car complimented for its speed and grip by Car & Driver - on Willow Springs.

The Camaro is still a lard-ass. I could probably do the same on GT6.

Also, Camaro at Tsukuba. I suspect those times are from a video game.

You can ship a Camaro to Japan, just as an R32 Skyline GT-R can be shipped to the US.

And the Camaro is still cooler, because V8.

'Merica. :rolleyes:
 
In either case, the Honda must literally handle like a race car to cancel out an almost 200 HP advantage - from a car complimented for its speed and grip by Car & Driver - on Willow Springs.
Or it's because Honda is arguably the master at suspension/chassis setups (well maybe besides Lotus). None of the American manufacturers come close to how Honda (or Nissan & Mazda for that matter) builds its chassis & suspension setups in their sports cars to make up any ground lost by the "lack" of horsepower. Where as the Americans for several years were mocked for just throwing horsepower at everything, which they still do for the most part. It hasn't been til' the C6 Corvette & in the last couple years, the Boss 302 that the US manufacturers have really put together a solid track product.
Also, Camaro at Tsukuba. I suspect those times are from a video game.

And the Camaro is still cooler, because V8.
And you're still full of ignorant comments. :rolleyes: You said it yourself, the S2000 does well at Tsukuba because it's a track built for handling over power. The '02 NSX-R with around 300Hp is the 13th fastest car at Tsukuba within' 1.5 seconds of the Spec-V, ZR1, 997 GT2/Turbo & the LP560-4 because again, Honda knows the proper way to build a fast car without needing big V8 or lots of power.
 
I've not had much experience with big, torquey engines, but I have had plenty of experience thrashing the heck out of my parents' Honda Fit. It's not even close to a sports car, but it does have a VTEC motor which loves to rev. And I have to say, I love the character of it. It's so enjoyable to drop two gears and have the engine come alive, changing the character of the whole car. Suddenly it responds to every little change in throttle input, like a great naturally aspirated engine should. I'd imagine that the S2000's engine behaves similarly, and assuming it does, I love it fo rthe engine alone.

It's not a car for outright speed anywhere, rather for driving enjoyment, like an MX-5. The engine is part of the experience; you have to rev it and use the gearbox to get the most out of it, and that appeals to me. I understand why that doesn't appeal to a lot of people, though.
 
Even though the engine dictates how much grip the car will have when it launches, the effect of the engine's weight and location on launch grip, how quickly it revs through the gears and the power it has to overcome drag. You're right, not relevant at all.

Are you serious?

Once again we're left going back to what you said.

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

I did not say that engines are not relevant to straight line performance.

You said that straight line performance is "usually the the baseline" for comparing engines.

Your statement is false because using straight line performance, especially quarter mile times, opens the door for dozens of other factors to affect the outcome. This is why nobody uses quarter mile times to compare engines.

Obviously the engine is a major factor, but it is far from the only one. If you can't isolate the engines as the performance variable, then your test isn't going to give you a good idea of how good the engine is.

How difficult is it for you to take two seconds to actually read what I wrote? Are you purposely straw-manning my arguments or is your reading comprehension really that low?

0-60 times have to do more with a car's weight than it's engine output. Take a 217hp Lotus Elise S. It has a 0-60 of 4.3 seconds, faster than a 500hp BMW M6. Quite misleading. But take a look at the 1/4 miles times. The lotus runs a low 13 second while the BMW runs a low 12 second quarter. Much more informative statistics. Light cars are quicker out of the hole, doesn't mean the engine is better, simply means there is less mass it's engine has to accelerate.

:lol:

You've spent this long trying to convince everyone that quarter mile times are the standard measure of a car's engine and then completely discount 0-60 times for the same reasons why quarter mile times are useless.

I'll take "Going through the motions again" for $400, Alex

Once again, Nobody said that 0-60 times proved that the S2000's engine is as capable as an LS1.

Here is what was said.

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

Notice how we're talking about the car, not the engine?

Reading comprehension. For one second stop trying to defend the LS and actually read what people are saying. You look pretty silly when you argue against nobody.

Honda S2000 AP2:
-237HP @ 7800 RPM
- 2802lbs
- 0.084 hp/lb

Chevrolet Camaro SS:
- 345hp @ 5500 RPM
- 3460lbs
- 0.099 hp/lb

Nice job fudging those numbers. I have access to Google too. 2002 Camaro SS was rated at 325hp. Most F bodies had 310hp.

Also not relevant because nobody is saying the S2000 would win in a drag race. If you'd actually been paying attention to this thread instead of "ZOMG DEFEND THE HONOR OF F BODY" you would know this.

Nobody is saying that the S2000 has a better powerband. A simple fact was stated that the S2000 can keep up with (not beat) an LS1 F-body in straight line situations and it does. If you want to pretend that an S2000 completing a quarter mile 5% slower than an F body is big deal, you go ahead.

Nobody cares what the dude with an F-body and a location of "Your Girlfriend's House" thinks about how cars stack up to an F-body.

Now can we please stop comparing these two cars.

Sure thing, buddy.
 
Didn't the Camaro have 325 HP? The Corvette had 345...

Also, I'm still mystified at the people calling the S2000 "the better car" here. The Camaro does have at least a slight advantage in a straight line and is probably more useable in day-to-day driving, as well as being about 30 times more moddable. It's also no slouch in the cornering department itself, so while it might not be quite as sharp as an S2000, it might be surprisingly close even on a track with curves. In any case, 56 or 57% nose weight, and the degraded handling that comes from it, is a price I'd gladly pay for having that lovely V8 in a car that still handles pretty nicely anyway.

The Corvette had 405hp, The 2002 Camaro SS Blackwing was listed at 345hp.

Are you serious?

Once again we're left going back to what you said.



I did not say that engines are not relevant to straight line performance.

You said that straight line performance is "usually the the baseline" for comparing engines.

Your statement is false because using straight line performance, especially quarter mile times, opens the door for dozens of other factors to affect the outcome. This is why nobody uses quarter mile times to compare engines.

Obviously the engine is a major factor, but it is far from the only one. If you can't isolate the engines as the performance variable, then your test isn't going to give you a good idea of how good the engine is.

How difficult is it for you to take two seconds to actually read what I wrote? Are you purposely straw-manning my arguments or is your reading comprehension really that low?



:lol:

You've spent this long trying to convince everyone that quarter mile times are the standard measure of a car's engine and then completely discount 0-60 times for the same reasons why quarter mile times are useless.

I'll take "Going through the motions again" for $400, Alex

Once again, Nobody said that 0-60 times proved that the S2000's engine is as capable as an LS1.

Here is what was said.



Notice how we're talking about the car, not the engine?

Reading comprehension. For one second stop trying to defend the LS and actually read what people are saying. You look pretty silly when you argue against nobody.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. All I'm saying is that the S2000 WILL NOT keep up with 13 second quarter mile cars as you and others have suggested. I provided 1/4 times, engine breakdowns and still you can't seem to comprehend that simple fact.

I suggest to get off your computer, head to your local drag strip and look at the time some cars posted. Not only will you see that a full second difference is not a negligible '5%' but quite significant. Odds are you might actually see some S2k's go against some F-body's since they're both so common.

Nice job fudging those numbers. I have access to Google too. 2002 Camaro SS was rated at 325hp. Most F bodies had 310hp.

Well then go to Google and find out what "Crank Horsepower" is. Those were the figures that I used for BOTH the Honda and the Camaro. Calculating drivetrain loss, the Camaro's powerband that I posted actually makes in the neighborhood of 350hp. Had I used WHP I would have probably used 310hp/205hp respectively.

Nice try :)

Also not relevant because nobody is saying the S2000 would win in a drag race. If you'd actually been paying attention to this thread instead of "ZOMG DEFEND THE HONOR OF F BODY" you would know this.

Nobody is saying that the S2000 has a better powerband. A simple fact was stated that the S2000 can keep up with (not beat) an LS1 F-body in straight line situations and it does. If you want to pretend that an S2000 completing a quarter mile 5% slower than an F body is big deal, you go ahead.

Nobody cares what the dude with an F-body and a location of "Your Girlfriend's House" thinks about how cars stack up to an F-body.

Notice I didn't 'zoom to defend the honor of the f-body'. Azureman claimed S2000's were nearly as fast as an F-Body and that simply isn't true. I would have done the same had he said Mustangs, Corvettes, Audis, BMW's hell even an NSX. During this whole time I have never made a refrence to the fact that I own an f-body. All the statistics I referenced to were legit and I defended every point without bias.

And '5% slower' is a horrible reference point. Not only are you wrong (14.1 to 13.1 is actually 7%) but nearly 95% of all production cars run a quarter between 10 and 15 second quarter miles. According to that there is a 20% difference.


Nobody cares what the dude with an F-body and a location of "Your Girlfriend's House" thinks about how cars stack up to an F-body.

Apparently you do :lol:

You're the third person that doesn't like my current location. My bad, I didn't know humor was prohibited in this section of the forums...


internet_serious_business.jpg
 
The Corvette had 405hp, The 2002 Camaro SS Blackwing was listed at 345hp.
According to my research, the 2002 Corvette made 350 bhp, and the Camaro SS made 325 bhp. The blackwing you refer to doesn't seem to exist on wikipedia, and from what I can tell is an aftermarket addition.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. All I'm saying is that the S2000 WILL NOT keep up with 13 second quarter mile cars as you and others have suggested. I provided 1/4 times, engine breakdowns and still you can't seem to comprehend that simple fact.

...
And '5% slower' is a horrible reference point. Not only are you wrong (14.1 to 13.1 is actually 7%) but nearly 95% of all production cars run a quarter between 10 and 15 second quarter miles. According to that there is a 20% difference.

Is this the cool wall or speed wall? Cause from where I'm standing, the S2000's supporters in this thread are a lot cooler than people who constantly talk about horsepower and 1/4 mile times.
 
I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. All I'm saying is that the S2000 WILL NOT keep up with 13 second quarter mile cars as you and others have suggested. I provided 1/4 times, engine breakdowns and still you can't seem to comprehend that simple fact.

Of course you don't know what the discussion is. You don't even know what was posted.

You said that the torque output of the Honda S2000 is too low to "go anywhere." You were wrong.

Azuremen pointed out that it goes places nearly as fast as an LS1 F-body. He was right.

Mclaren showed test results showing that an S2000 runs a quarter mile half a second slower than your beloved F-body.

You then said that straight line performance is usually used to compare engines. You were wrong.

If you don't know what we're discussing, go buy this:

025231.jpg


And then come back when you've passed the quiz questions, okay champ?

I suggest to get off your computer, head to your local drag strip and look at the time some cars posted. Not only will you see that a full second difference is not a negligible '5%' but quite significant. Odds are you might actually see some S2k's go against some F-body's since they're both so common.

We are discussing stock cars. I don't care what's at the drag strip.

Well then go to Google and find out what "Crank Horsepower" is. Those were the figures that I used for BOTH the Honda and the Camaro. Calculating drivetrain loss, the Camaro's powerband that I posted actually makes in the neighborhood of 350hp. Had I used WHP I would have probably used 310hp/205hp respectively.

Nice try :)

Calculating drivetrain loss is an inexact science without a chassis dyno and an engine dyno. You used neither to arrive at your numbers. It gets even more inexact when fanboys want to believe their car is putting out more horsepower than it does. Here's are spec sheets from somebody who doesn't have something to defend. None of them say 345hp. These are official ratings that we use to compare the cars. Deal with it.

Notice I didn't 'zoom to defend the honor of the f-body'. Azureman claimed S2000's were nearly as fast as an F-Body and that simply isn't true.

Except he didn't.

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

You seem to be neglecting ratios.

And yet you went around comparing engines still ignoring gear ratios.

I would have done the same had he said Mustangs, Corvettes, Audis, BMW's hell even an NSX. During this whole time I have never made a refrence to the fact that I own an f-body. All the statistics I referenced to were legit and I defended every point without bias.

Except they weren't.

And '5% slower' is a horrible reference point. Not only are you wrong (14.1 to 13.1 is actually 7%) but nearly 95% of all production cars run a quarter between 10 and 15 second quarter miles. According to that there is a 20% difference.

Motortrend results:

'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.

14.2/13.7 = 103.6%

14.2/13.5 = 105.2%

And we're still left with the glaring issue that nobody here cares about 1/4 mile times.

Apparently you do :lol:

No, right now I'm just showing how poor your reading comprehension skills are. This way if I ever see another asinine post from you, I can always refer back to these posts and see how many pages you got through that reading comprehension book. Good luck.

You're the third person that doesn't like my current location. My bad, I didn't know humor was prohibited in this section of the forums...

If you think that's humor then I gotta ask, how's the 7th grade going? Remember, SOH CAH TOA!
 
1. Easy to ignore them, but I think they refer to themselves as "Stance" nowadays.

2. You might be right, but the purpose of this post is to disagree with you.

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

1. I was referring to when this car came out.

2. Around here, yes it did. Or seemed to.

3. If that is the case, why did Honda bump displacement, lower the redline, and increase torque? Even after they did, lack of low end power was a common complaint about this car from what I remember.
 

Latest Posts

Back