Las Vegas TLS

You know it is interesting to look and compare different engines in the different models of Hondas/Acuras.
Acura TLS is a SOHC 3.2 liter V6 that generates 260 HP
Acura RSXS is a DOHC 2.0 liter I4 that generate 200 HP
Acura NSX is a DOHC 3.2 liter V6 that generates 280-290 HP
Honda S2000 is a DOHC 2.0 Liter I4 that generates 240 HP

A couple things I have noticed....
The S2000 engine technology is far above any of the other models Honda produces. If they where to apply that technology to let say the NSX, which I don't know why they have not, that 3.2 Liter engine would produce 384 HP!!, they charge enough for a new one to offset the cost.

Wouldn't that slam the BMW M3 and get them where it hurts?
It would also send a pretty stong signal to all the other comapanys who come out with a more HP vehicles by raising the CC's of the engine. I am a little suprised that the NSX, kinda also like the RL, have not made more significant advances in the past in regards to engine performance. From 1991 to 2001 the NSX engine really canged very little?

The other thing is that the TLS isn't that far behind the NSX as far as HP. I think if the TLS had another 1K of RPM it would be right up there with the NSX?

Beiruty

Having a redline at 9000 rpms with the TL-S will make the cost to make an engine very high or at least would cost more...

You need titanium pistons, rods, reworked engine..

If you have enough money, I am sure you can rebuild a TLS Engine to give you 400 HP. It just costs time and moeny.

Scorpius

I don't think many car companies like the big three are willing to invest that much into research and development. Why design a complex engine when you can get a simple design to do basically the same thing? Hence GM still using the pushrod motors. The consensus is that GM morors and drivetrains are just as reliable as Hondas... Dunno if thats true or not... How can I find out? There is something to be said for simplicity. Same with Chrysler and Ford. They would rather concentrate on outside looks... hence the Aztek and PT...

SCWells72

Well, don't forget that when you're trying to push high horsepower in a naturally-aspirated engine, one of two things generally has to increase: displacement or redline. The S2000 takes advantage of the latter to get 120HP/liter, but it does so at the expense of low-end torque, probably the most (only?!) maligned issue with the S2000.

Honda's taking a new route (for Honda, that is) with the next-gen NSX and RL by dropping a 4.0+L V8 into it. If they apply some of the same engine tuning techniques to the V8 that they have to the smaller engines, I'll be VERY interested to see what kind of power they can make!

DJ Iceman

That NSX engine was pretty revolutionary back in 1991! It's true that Honda hasn't exactly pushed the envelope much since then. The S2000 engine gets high marks for cranking so much power out of such a small displacement, but there's not much to rave about past that. Even my old Integra GS-R, which was a FABULOUS car, needed pretty high RPMs to get up and go.

On the other hand, Honda engines are remarkably reliable. Let's hope they can maintain that quality in the new NSX/RL variant.

T Ho

Having owned both GMs and Hondas for more than 100,000 miles, I can tell you that Honda engines are much more reliable and well-built than the GMs.
Sure, the pushrod design is simple, and as long as GM can keep producing good HP from a simple, existing design, why would they change it?
Does anyone honestly think American car styling is better overall than Japanese designs? Not me- too many gaudy designs coming out of Detroit.

Todd

samkws

GM and Honda and Toyota are well known of their engine's reliability and durability...

my old GM 3.8L(the best V6 they have) never had a problem with winter start up nor i need to wait a min or two for warmup...just bulletproof...and runs like new after 6 years...
i have a uncle and his 3.8L olds 88 is still running gd at 300,000km

but too bad this engine is gonna last until 2008 as they will come out with a new series of engines starting 2004.
so does the chevy small block V8...gotta love their low-end punch

1SICKLEX

Try driving around 9000rpm for a month (that is where peak power is) and you'll understand why NOT. And torque is TOW LOW and that counts for something too. Peak H.P. is not EVERYTHING.

Remember S2000 is really a track car for the street. I am sure most people's 2nd or 3rd car.

ChucksCL-S

Horsepower at high RPM levels is one thing, but torque down low is another. I'd rather have an engine with decent torque as that's where we live day in and day out. Leave a greenlight and what happens? Your tach goes between 1K and 3K as you go thru the gears. Power here is good, but the manufacturers advertise HP as that's what people are looking for in the ads, and that is why S2000 owners may not be so happy as their great power can only be found at really high RPMs. The 3.2 is a great engine, and in the NSX has four cams, probably headers stock and it's own RES already, more fuel and a higher redline due to better internals.

SCWells72

Yeah, it's funny. When most people talk about "power," what they're REALLY talking about is low- and mid-range torque. That's where you get your "pinned-to-the-seat" feeling.

The S2000 has one heck of an engine--no one's going to argue that point--but looks weren't the only reason we went for a Z3 for our "fun car." The Z3 has a much more potent punch off the line than the S2000. Sure, on the track the S2000 will whomp the less stable Z3, but on the road, stoplight-to-stoplight, the S2000 didn't compare to the Z3 in terms of fun factor...

jalalzia

384 HP from 3.2 Litres: yep its already been done on a production car. THe new Mercedes C32 AMG. A new one will set you back only $50,000. 349 hp from a 3.2 V6 and 0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds.
And yes, reinforced crankshaft, pushrods, valve springs and tappets - the works. I am no Mercedes salesman, but with that sort of performance, who needs a salesman!

DJ Iceman

And all you have do is upgrade to the M to beat the S2000 on the track, too!

EZZ

Yeah but the C32 AMG uses forced induction (aka supercharger). I saw a toyota supra with 800hp and its a 3.0 L inline 6. My point is when you begin FI, then its easy to increase horsepower. Honda is unique in that everything is NA. Only BMW gets hp/L ratios like Honda

SCWells72

Well, the M roadster is definitely fast in a straight line, but even it's not as stable as the S2000. The back end tends to break at the limits much less predictably. Don't get me wrong...I'd LOVE to have an M, but it's not quite as stable as the typical BMW, the S2000, or the Boxster S. I'd still take it over either of the latter two, though!

1SICKLEX

I think that is the EXACT reason the M roadster and coupe are some of the last TRUE sports cars left. It has FAULTS for the DRIVER to correct. WHAT FUN!!!!

THe S 2000 interior is weird, M for me anyday!

DJ Iceman

Thanks, 1SickLex!

bobatimez

i don't mean to start the flames, but have any of you actually driven a s2000 hard. not a test drive at the dealer before 600 mi break in period is over, but really at 9000rpms? The M roadster might be expensive enough that it should "beat" lots of things, but it does not beat the s2000 in anything. the new one will beat it in a straight line but it is using over 60% more displacement. check out edmunds.com review of roadsters. the M finished last out of 5 cars.

my only purpose is do not be so quick to buy the ULTIMATE driving machine slogan. "we make great fun cars" would be more appropriate. the s2000 is the ultimate serious track car this side of the ferraris for the money.

Through personal experience, i can tell you that the 9000 rpm tach is not what you think. it doesn't rev like normal. it revs like there is more lubricant on it than your... if the numbers were reassigned to rev only to 6k, you wouldn't know the difference.

let's talk about this, ok?

SCWells72

I've driven the S2000 hard...and I mean HARD! It's a fun car. It's an attractive car. If you can get it at or below MSRP, it's a heck of a deal. However, the roadster we bought was for my wife, and she was in love with the looks of the Z3...nothing to do with the roundel or anything...just the retro looks of that car. It just so happens that it's also a fun car to drive.

In the spirit of being objective, in a previous post I identifed a few of the weaknesses of the Z3, particularly relative to the S2000, but it's not hard to argue that the Z3 is a much better daily driver than the S2000. For my wife that--and her personal aesthetic taste--are what matters.

As for the S2000 being "the ultimate serious track car this side of the ferraris for the money," I don't agree. You're leaving out the Viper, the Z06, the NSX, and a dozen other cars that are 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the Ferrari, but perform well above 1/2 to 1/3 as well on the track.

Las Vegas TLS

One of my points was how different honda makes their car's engines. It is almost that the philosophy changesfrom car to car.
I think the S2000 is probally at the top of the list, when it comes to hi tech, almost motorcycle engine like.

I also wondered when they come out with something really good, the NSX or RL they don't seem to change it very fast in the way of engine advancements? I mean come on would anyone today spend 10k+ on a RL after comparing it to the TLS?
When you compare the S2000 with todays NSX, would anyone spend 50k more on the NSX. The S2000 is no NSX, but for a 50k savings maybe your vote can be swong?

If you look at the mighty NSX engine and compare it to the TLS, I think the best thing the NSX has is a 6 speed transmission and a little less weight. 30 HP is something, but it is not that much.

DJ Iceman

I actually like the S2000 a lot. In fact, that was the car that got my wife and I into the roadster market to begin with. When it first started getting hyped, we got excited, especially when looking at that low, low sticker price! But then we had the same experience with Honda sales people that we had when trying to get a Prelude SH a couple of years earlier. In short, it sucked!

Dealers were demanding a $5K deposit to get put on a waiting list. When a car came in and your name came to the top of the list, you had to take it or leave it, whatever the color. There would be no test drive. There was no haggling on price--MSRP plus $5K.

Now the S2000 price was approaching that of the M Roadster. I'm not sucked in by the marketing slogan "the ultimate driving machine", but I will admit that the snob factor of owning a BMW was attractive. We were also very interested in the SLK230 (the only model available at the time), but it ran $4K more than an M and we just couldn't see that.

In retrospect, I think I'm glad things worked out the way they did. Although I complain that my Bimmer is in the shop so much (and it is!), I would have been pissed spending that much on an SLK230 only to have them come out with higher-performance models a year later. And now that I've seen S2000s on the street, I'm not that crazy about the styling. A buddy of mine took one on a test drive about a month ago and he said he thought the thing was going to rattle itself apart, the ride was so harsh and the interior so plasticy.

Every car has pros and cons. No one vehicle is right for everyone. To bring this back to the original thought (that Honda could make some more powerful engines), as long as Honda cranks up the power and torque without sacrificing reliability, I'm all for it! Emissions and fuel economy are not drivers in my purchasing decisions, but they apparently are to a lot of Honda/Acura's target demographic. Until that changes, we probably won't see a whole lot of GS430/M3/M5/etc.-beating engines from them.

Guest

Not to sway the conversation too much, but as a GS430 owner, the want for even more power becomes addictive so much so that on ClubLexus that is the biggest concern for the next-gen GS-more power. But sometimes unfortunately, inherent problems can occcur, the no-longer quiet interior, rattles, engine problems, etc. These things you don't usually associate with either Lexus or Acura, but can become a problem when you simply bump up hp without alot of research and redesign. And being rather conservative companies, I think they realize what can happen to their excellent reputations when problems arise from overpowered vehicles, so they aren't as quick to jump like MB and BMW.

Las Vegas TLS

samkws

haha..a viper or Z06 will smoke the S2000 even if they shift at 4000rpm...hahahahahahah

bobatimez

i really meant FOR the MONEY. you guys are right mostly. i just mean that as you get up there in price, the high performance cars are vary less. dimishing something or other...

DJ Iceman

Actually, although the bump in HP is on the 2001 M Roadster (the M3 is a different car) and mine is a 2000, I bought mine so early and the 2001s came out so late that it was two years. In addition, it doesn't bother me because the extra power has not translated into increased performance--zero to sixty and quarter-mile times are nearly identical (some sources say faster with the smaller engine because it has more low-end torque). With the Benz, there is a noticeable difference between the SLK230, the SLK320, and the SLK32 AMG!

1SICKLEX

There are just as many people racing their Zs and S2000s as people in X5s and MDXs going off road.

Most people bought the Z3 for the same reason they bought a S2000, because 1 is a BMW and the other is a Honda, I am POSITIVE few people cross shopped.

I think that and STYLING is what the majority of people bought the cars for....

DJ Iceman

I will agree with your first statement (there's not many roadster racers out there), disagree with your second statement (the Z3 and S2000 are comparably-priced 2-seat drop-tops, so I suspect there's more cross-shopping than you think), and agree with your third (people like them for the styling and the fact that both Honda and BMW are respected carmakers).

Personally, though, I like the styling of the SLK and even the Boxster over my M Roadster. It was the sales process factors I mentioned earlier combined with the superior performance of the BMW that drove my decision.

1SICKLEX

I LOVE the 996, I really do not feel the Boxster. Maybe a Boxster coupe (a Coupester!?!) I always liked the SLK because of it's simplicity. I like the Z3 Love the M roadster. The S2000 is probably tied for the Boxster for last. Let us not forget the TT (with the baseball glove stiching).

The TT, Z3 and Benz interiors rock, not so the others. Amazing huh, 10 years ago we had the Miata (the original!) and the Mercury Capri......

SCWells72

Wow! I couldn't disagree more! Every single person that I know with a Z3 or S2000 considered the other car while shopping. Admittedly that's a small sample of the total sum of people who own these cars, but I think in this case it's probably indicative of a pattern.

The market segment in which these cars exist is comprised of the Z3, the S2000, the SLK, the Boxster, the TT roadster, and maybe even the Prowler and Thunderbird. In particular, though, I think people cross-shop the S2000 with the Euro roadsters heavily...

1SICKLEX

Okay then, this might be one of the VERY FEW times I am talking outta my butt