s2200 ivtec 250hp :)
06-20-2003, 01:27 PM
#1
Cost Drivers!!!!
Thread Starter
s2200 ivtec 250hp :)
Secret testing is underway on a more powerful edition of Honda's S2000. Tentatively named the S2200 and set to be unveiled at January's Detroit Motor Show, the newcomer has a 2.2-litre i-VTEC engine producing 250bhp.
06-20-2003, 02:38 PM
#3
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was hoping for a little more but with 240hp, the S2000 rocks. 250hp is going to be sweet. The question is of course torque and weight. How much heavier will the S2200 be?
06-20-2003, 03:33 PM
#5
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
200 lb-ft from 2.4 liters is not easy. 165 pounds is normal and 185 pounds would probably more like in the case of a special 2.4 liter 4banger like in the hypothetical S2400.
06-20-2003, 03:57 PM
#6
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The City of Syrup Screwston, Texas
Posts: 14,078
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by jimcol711
10 measly HP??? put a CAI on a normal S2000 and youll get 10 measly HP. kinda sad. Honda SHOULD be using a 2.4l ivtec with 250 hp and 200 ft lbs
10 measly HP??? put a CAI on a normal S2000 and youll get 10 measly HP. kinda sad. Honda SHOULD be using a 2.4l ivtec with 250 hp and 200 ft lbs
Trending Topics
06-20-2003, 08:40 PM
#8
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would probably be better financially to buy an s2000 now before dealers jack the price up over msrp again for the bestest s2200 unless there is something else to the car. .2l/10hp aint gonna do it by itself. now a coupe at the same weight as the s2k, yes i would be all other that one. 
06-20-2003, 10:56 PM
#10
Cost Drivers!!!!
Thread Starter
you should see a 15-20ftlbs of gain and smooth power delivery. WE'll see if they continue with the f-series to switch to the k series engine.
06-20-2003, 11:30 PM
#11
TQ > MPG
Another concern is rev-ability. It seems to me that S2k owners like the fact that it revs so high. I kinda doubt with extra displacement that the rev limit will be as high as it is now.
06-21-2003, 12:14 AM
#12
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering Honda gets about the same performance out of the 2.0 240hp S2000 as Nissan gets from their 3.5 280hp powered 350Z...an extra 10hp and a little more torque should be cool. The S2000 is a phenominal car and an updated car with more hp should be even better. I can understand Honda's interest in keeping the engine small though. The thing handles better than a midengine because it's so light...making the engine too big will throw off the balance.
So, I think the S2200 should be able to compete with the Boxster S and other roadsters with more HP.
By the way, a coupe sounds interesting but the top itself would add a lot of weight. Plus they would need to add more sound dampening materials so the cabin isn't too loud...an S2200 coupe would be just too heavy in my opinion.
So, I think the S2200 should be able to compete with the Boxster S and other roadsters with more HP.
By the way, a coupe sounds interesting but the top itself would add a lot of weight. Plus they would need to add more sound dampening materials so the cabin isn't too loud...an S2200 coupe would be just too heavy in my opinion.
06-21-2003, 02:03 PM
#13
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
considering the s2k was designed as a roadster first, i don't think the weight would go up. a cars weigth usually goes up when going from coupe to convertible - the mustang is heavier in convertible form due to extra bracing needed etc to cut the top off, but a car designed as a convertible 1st like the c5vette doesn'tget heavier when in coupe form-vert is same weight as hardtop, the z06 is even lighter.
06-21-2003, 02:06 PM
#14
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
This move by Honda is not about HP but torque. And it's not only the 200 extra cc. It is also the addition of the iVtec as opposed to Vtec. Also, when I say torque, I dont only mean as extra PEAK torque (I dont expect that to go up by much, maybe another 10lb-ft or even less). What I mean is extra torque elsewhere in the rev band, especially in the middle range and low range.
06-21-2003, 11:10 PM
#16
Drifting
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 46
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
This move by Honda is not about HP but torque. And it's not only the 200 extra cc. It is also the addition of the iVtec as opposed to Vtec. Also, when I say torque, I dont only mean as extra PEAK torque (I dont expect that to go up by much, maybe another 10lb-ft or even less). What I mean is extra torque elsewhere in the rev band, especially in the middle range and low range.
This move by Honda is not about HP but torque. And it's not only the 200 extra cc. It is also the addition of the iVtec as opposed to Vtec. Also, when I say torque, I dont only mean as extra PEAK torque (I dont expect that to go up by much, maybe another 10lb-ft or even less). What I mean is extra torque elsewhere in the rev band, especially in the middle range and low range.
06-21-2003, 11:57 PM
#17
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Rod, I am also looking at the 3.2 TT as a possibility to switch to. I am not sure when exactly it will be in dealer lots. I dont think it is available yet.
06-22-2003, 12:57 PM
#18
The Creator
what are you morons talking about? the s2000 SHOULD NOT have the 2.4L in it.
then it would be like a fucking mr2... a boring piece o shit.
The S2000 motor is what makes the s2000... it is one of a kind. and one of the best in the world.
however, i also dont understand how they bumped displacement by .2 and only got 10 hp?
but i dont care.
the s2000 is the SHIT and is perfect the way it is.
only a DUMB ASS would suggest they put a fucking CRV motor in it
morons.
then it would be like a fucking mr2... a boring piece o shit.
The S2000 motor is what makes the s2000... it is one of a kind. and one of the best in the world.
however, i also dont understand how they bumped displacement by .2 and only got 10 hp?
but i dont care.
the s2000 is the SHIT and is perfect the way it is.
only a DUMB ASS would suggest they put a fucking CRV motor in it
morons.
06-22-2003, 02:01 PM
#19
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by soopa
what are you morons talking about? the s2000 SHOULD NOT have the 2.4L in it.
then it would be like a fucking mr2... a boring piece o shit.
The S2000 motor is what makes the s2000... it is one of a kind. and one of the best in the world.
however, i also dont understand how they bumped displacement by .2 and only got 10 hp?
but i dont care.
the s2000 is the SHIT and is perfect the way it is.
only a DUMB ASS would suggest they put a fucking CRV motor in it
morons.
what are you morons talking about? the s2000 SHOULD NOT have the 2.4L in it.
then it would be like a fucking mr2... a boring piece o shit.
The S2000 motor is what makes the s2000... it is one of a kind. and one of the best in the world.
however, i also dont understand how they bumped displacement by .2 and only got 10 hp?
but i dont care.
the s2000 is the SHIT and is perfect the way it is.
only a DUMB ASS would suggest they put a fucking CRV motor in it
morons.
Why are they only getting 10hp out of that .2? As it stands the 2.0 in the S2000 has the highest liter/hp ratio of any naturally aspirated piston engine (as opposed to the smaller 1.3l in the RX-8 but that's rotory, not piston). My guess is, it was too hard to squeeze too much more hp out of an engine that small...even if they bumped the displacement a little.
06-22-2003, 03:31 PM
#20
Safety Car
How did they bump the displacement? By opening up the bore or lengthening the stroke? Seems like stroke, if they went for the torque gains, which would cost some in revability.
06-23-2003, 11:14 AM
#21
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Originally posted by jimcol711
10 measly HP??? put a CAI on a normal S2000 and youll get 10 measly HP. kinda sad. Honda SHOULD be using a 2.4l ivtec with 250 hp and 200 ft lbs
10 measly HP??? put a CAI on a normal S2000 and youll get 10 measly HP. kinda sad. Honda SHOULD be using a 2.4l ivtec with 250 hp and 200 ft lbs
07-01-2003, 01:12 PM
#23
Not AtlCl98 or Atl-CL
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bigman
You are looking at it wrong. How come a BMW 330ci with 25 less HP can keep up with the TL-S. Because the power is distributed better than the TL-S. Factory HP is way better than bolted on HP. Bolt ons shift the powerband all the time, and usually never give the flat curve that we need. The 2.4 litre k24 makes more torque down low, but it's hp curve is very peaky and dive. The k20 2.0 makes crap torque, but its hp curve is nice and flat. The 2.2 motor from japan, makes a very lean and flat torque curve while really only diving a little right before v tec kicks in, then maxxing. Its not about 10 horses, it's about how this motor distributes the power. Put an s2000 with a 10hp increase from intake and watch how the s2200 spanks it with the same number of horses.
You are looking at it wrong. How come a BMW 330ci with 25 less HP can keep up with the TL-S. Because the power is distributed better than the TL-S. Factory HP is way better than bolted on HP. Bolt ons shift the powerband all the time, and usually never give the flat curve that we need. The 2.4 litre k24 makes more torque down low, but it's hp curve is very peaky and dive. The k20 2.0 makes crap torque, but its hp curve is nice and flat. The 2.2 motor from japan, makes a very lean and flat torque curve while really only diving a little right before v tec kicks in, then maxxing. Its not about 10 horses, it's about how this motor distributes the power. Put an s2000 with a 10hp increase from intake and watch how the s2200 spanks it with the same number of horses.
Finally, somebody that is not blinded by useless peak hp numbers. Maybe you guys should start arguing that they put the accord v6 in there like the TSX; that should it make it better, right
07-01-2003, 04:37 PM
#25
Shogun Assassin
Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
While I agree the S2000 has one of the if not THE best 4 cylinder engine, don't knock the MR-2 till u drive it. 2200 lbs, nuff said, it is a blast to drive.
While I agree the S2000 has one of the if not THE best 4 cylinder engine, don't knock the MR-2 till u drive it. 2200 lbs, nuff said, it is a blast to drive.
07-02-2003, 12:13 AM
#26
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read a little snippet about the S2200 in the current C&D. Like we've been talking about, the 2.2 will have more torque, a wider power band, and a lower redline. But, they claim it will create the same 240hp. They say there will be slight styling differences and softer suspension.
Considering this is the fourth year of production and it's first restyling, I was hoping for something a little different...the next gen of the S2000, not a refresh. I would expect more changes for a car that's getting a name change. (the Z3 changed to the Z4 and is pretty much a different vehicle.)
Considering this is the fourth year of production and it's first restyling, I was hoping for something a little different...the next gen of the S2000, not a refresh. I would expect more changes for a car that's getting a name change. (the Z3 changed to the Z4 and is pretty much a different vehicle.)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
