Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Integra Type R's, Celica GTS, Prelude Sh, Eclipse GT, Which car is better



  • 181kmiles181kmiles Posts: 29
    thank you for the exact numbers i read the article about a month and a half ago and i lost the magazine( damn) but thanx for the backup and the clarification. i really enjoy listening to an educated mind talk. especially when they know what there talking about. also like i said comparing the ferrari to a honda is like comparing a lion to a house cat. there is not comparison. i would most definatly love to have the modena but i dont have the $$$. the s2000 and other honda products are give good bang for the buck. yes they are moer expensive then the competitor but i would rather pay the extra $2000 or what ever it is for the much better engineeriing of the honda team. they definatly know how to build an engine!! its amazing!!!
  • 181kmiles181kmiles Posts: 29
    how do you think they find torque rating. the higher the horsepower and redline rpms, the higher the torque. i cant think of the exact formula right now but i know that has alot to do with it. so no matter what the higher the horsepower is the higher the torque is. ill admit that honda does have a torque problem in the earlier models. 88-91 honda civics 1.5 liter. they only have 106 horsepower so there really not going to have alot of torque. also to add torque to your pre-91 honda fuel injected 5 spd, add an engine from an automatic car. it has a different distributor that only fits in the automatic motor. if you check out at a honda dealership on a pre-91 honda, and automatic and 5spd have different distributors. the automatic disrtibutor is set up to add more umph to the engine. i dont know how it does but it does. it is set up like that because honda knows you lose alot of power on an automatic in the transmission. so they set up the disributor to compensate. i know someone who did this and his 88 accord lx-i hatchback and that car had more torque than any honda ive ever seen. he raced a 95 honda civic with a 1.6 vtec engine and he one. with the heavier and older car. but this change in disrtibutors only works on a fuel injected pre-91 honda. im not too sure about the acuras but im sure its the same thing. this isnt the cheapest way to fix the torque problem but its the right way. also you cannot put a 5spd engine into an automatic. it will have the opposite effect and ultimatly you will lose torque and we dont want that.
  • The same engineering for a 4 banger is not the same for a 6, 8, 10 or 12 cyl. Look at the V6 accord and NSX for further proof to that. BMW is where it's at when it comes to hp/l when you leave the 4 banger level. If Honda can produce a 360 HP 6 Cyl - I think I might just buy some Honda stock.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Try comparing the characteristics of Prelude 2157 cc/I-4 DOHC VTEC and NSX 3180 cc/V6 DOHC VTEC. You will see how the same engineering concept works! (as you'd expect 1.48 times larger engine to perform). Also, Honda also makes 3180 cc/V6 NSX with 380 HP (that is 120 HP/liter) for GT racing.

    Accord V6 is 3.0/V6 SOHC VTEC, it is not, in anyway, similar to NSX 3.0/V6 DOHC. It is as different, as Accord 2157 cc/I-4 SOHC VTEC (previous generation Accord EX with 145 HP) is from Prelude 2157 cc/I-4 DOHC VTEC (currently 200 HP).

    In fact, Acura 3.5RL runs on 3473 cc/V6 SOHC which is similar to Honda DX 2253 cc/I-4 SOHC in engineering (minus refinement), both develop same kind of HP and torque numbers.

    There are certain design parameters, when kept equal, often results in similar output, regardless of number of cylinders. So if Honda did make a 3.0/V6 DOHC VTEC based on S2K's design, it would develop 360 HP and about 230 lb.-ft of peak torque (knowing that Honda already makes the NSX 3.2/V6 with 380 HP).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    This is another SOHC VTEC design from Honda, and we've seen it only in Civic EX in the USA. It is different from the SOHC VTEC design found in any other Honda/Acura available here. It gets 80 HP/liter in low 6000 rpm. So is this engineering passed onto another engine?
    Honda Inspire/Saber (Japanese versions of the TL with 2.5 and 3.2 liter V6's). The 2.5/V6 uses the same engineering, and gets 200 HP @ 6200 rpm (80 HP/liter), exactly what you'd expect from a V6 engine having displacement 1.57 times that of Civic's displacement (multiply 1.57 by 127 and it is almost 200 HP!!). The difference is in peak torque though, the V6 develops peak torque from about 3000 rpm to 5000 rpm (peak 177 lb.-ft @ 4600 rpm). Now if this design is carried forward to Accord V6, we will have an engine with 240 HP in low 6000 rpm!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    about 210-215 lb.-ft peak torque.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Ridiculous statement my foot. When you tune for high end horse power you do lose low end torque. That's a fact. Ask anyone that tunes engines. There are some mods that allow you to have it both ways, but very few. If you slap a really hot high lift cam in your car that bumps its peak HP by 30, you're going to sacrifice some low end, plus you'r e more than likely going to move it's HP and Torque peaks up the RPM scale a little bit. And just comparing it to one engine (The IS200) is pretty pointless. The IS200 engine isn't exactly a gem in my book. And yes, HP is a function of torque, but just because you've got high HP, doesnt mean you're going to have a lot of torque, which is exactly what Honda illustrates. The Civic si has 160 HP. Sounds pretty good. It's also got 111 lb/ft. Sounds pretty anemic. Yeah, you're right, Honda's have great high end horsepower. But don't kid yourself, they pay the price for it. That price is lack of low end torque. Your precious S2000 engine has it's torque peak at 7500 RPM. Motortrend said they tested the S2000 and if they shifted at 5500 it took it 12 seconds to get to 60. Also, you cant say 'Well, if Honda can make a 2 liter put out 240 HP if they made a 6 liter it would put out 720 HP' Thats a joke. As engines get larger, they get less efficient. It's a lot easier to get a really efficient burn in a cylinder the size of a sake cup than a cylinder the size of a paint can. Sure, they could make a 720 HP 6.0 liter. In a race only car. For a lot of money. So could most other manufacturers. I like Hondas. I think they're great cars. One of my cars IS a Honda, for pete's sake. But just because theyve got the highest specific HP output per liter on a NA engine doesnt mean that they make the best engines in the world. It just means that that's the route theyve chosen. Other manufacturers choose other routes. In the american market a lot of people prefer high torque engines. Many would rather have a 6 cylinder with 170 HP and 165 lb feet than a 4 banger with 170 HP and 125 lb/ft.
    Also, when youre looking at numbers, numbers dont tell anywhere near the whole story, if you're just looking at peaks. A 200 HP peak at 8000 RPM isnt nearly as impressive if it's putting out 150 HP at 7000 rpm, or 100 HP at 3500 rpm.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Well judas, I don't doubt your knowledge, and some of the statements you made are, I agree with.
    So if improving high end performance kills low end torque, where does VTEC come into picture?
    Find me another LEV normally aspirated 2.0 liter gasoline engine, that atleast matches these numbers,
    119 lb.-ft @ 1000 rpm
    138 lb.-ft @ 3000 rpm
    147 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm
    (forget the numbers in the higher rpm).
    I'm sure you're few of those who actually believed MT (or C&D) when they said shifting S2K at 5500 rpm will get 0-60 mph in 12 seconds. 400 lb. heavier Accord coupe does it in 8.1 seconds.
    Civic Si has 111 lb.-ft because an engine with 1597 cc displacement is behind it. Don't get confused as to why Civic Si was faster than Cougar V6 in drag race, just something that actually happens.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Another point Judas,
    What is your basis for saying... "as engines get larger they become less efficient".
    Camry 3.0/V6, 194 HP (non-LEV): 65 HP/liter
    LS400 4.0/V8, 260 HP (pre-VVT version): 65 HP/liter

    GS300 3.0/I-6, 225 HP: 75 HP/liter
    GS400 4.0/V8, 300 HP: 75 HP/liter

    There are hundred of examples I can give to prove my point, can you? Then look at your foot.
  • 181kmiles181kmiles Posts: 29
    ill respond tomorrow to these last posts. its 11 pm right now and im tired. i also have a lot to say about this
    so expect a post from me tomorrow to be posted around 3:30- 4 pm easternt daylight time

    see ya
  • 181kmiles181kmiles Posts: 29
    first things first. you are right in some cases that as an engine gets bigger then the less efficient it is. but doesnt have that much to do with it. when fuel is burned only 30% goes to actually makeing power in the engine. the rest goes to the exhaust and up to 30%of it doesnt even get burned. so whether you have a 1.5 liter engine that gets 40 mpg or a chevy 502 that get 2 gallons per mile, you still have a pig. the internal combustion engine is a dog when it it comes to efficency. it takes true engineering and know how to make the internal combustion engine efficient. thats what honda engineers have. they can take an engine thats a dog and tune it and make it one of the most efficient engines on the market in the world. thats what makes them remarkle. and the fact that they can make a 4 cylinder engine with 240 hp that gets 30 mpg highwayand 25 mpg city. and the s2000 is rated as an ULEV. find another car company that can do that. when motorrend said it takes 12 secs to get to 60 thats because the s2000 engine was mean to accelerate up to 9000 rpms. thats where the peak hp is. the engine can handle it. it was designed to do that. it may take 12 secs but thats because all the torque comes into it at around 4000 rpms. when you shift at 5500 you just arely enter the power band then when you shift you leave it. and you cant very well accelerate when your out of the power band. then the engine has to get into the powerband again. then the same thing happens all the way up the gears. so dont tell me that its not good. you still have 3500 rpms to accelerate with at 5500 rpms.try shifting your honda at 3000 rpms and see how long it takes for you to get to 60 mph
    another reason the s2000 and other hondas have a high hp rating is because of the compression ratio. the lowest i believe on a honda engine is 8.5:1 or 9:1 im not too sure of the numbers if someone wants to look up on that for me. also judas, the vtec is a variable valve timing sytem. (you probably knew that) it is desiged to have a regular "efficient" cam at lower rpms and a "lumpy" cam as you put it at higher rpms. thats what makes the honda engines have higher hp too. and thats what makes it sacrifice higher torqe according to you. and your right
    but i still believe that honda engines are the best engines out there. they may lack torque but they have the higher revving engines and thats what gives them higher speed and better gas mileage. it gives them better gas mileage because at the lower speeds it doesnt have the torque to waste gas. ( i hope what i said made sense )
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Robert, all you're doing is quoting numbers, you're not demonstrating that you actually possess any knowledge. Larger engines are less efficient. That's a FACT. If you knew anything about physics or mechinical engineering you would realize it. There are engines that are bigger than others that have the same HP/Liter ratio, but that's usually becuase they did more tuning to them. And the engines you quoted don't contradict my statement at all. Because for each of them one is a 6 cylinder and the other is an 8, if I'm not mistaken, their cylinder sizes aren't getting any larger. Where's my foot? Where's your brain? Suzuki makes a 1.3 liter that cranks out about 180 HP. Does that make them even better than Honda? According to you guys it does. One of the few people that actually believed MT? Are you one of the people that thinks they faked the Apollo moon landings? I guarantee it's true, because the car has no low end. That's just the way it is, it's the way they designed it.
  • 181kmiles181kmiles Posts: 29
    that is impossible there has never been an engine with more than 120 hp per liter NATURALLY ASPIRATED!!it is a known fact. honda has made an engine with THE MOST hp per liter. ever in the world!! what part of that dont you understand. that suzuki engine was also turbo charged. so its not true hp. the only way to get true hp is naturally aspirated. not turbo not supercharged.
    that is not true hp. its a hp additive so to speek. its just like drinking coffee in the morning to wake you up. once the caffine is over your tired again. its the same thing. so listen to what i say. comprehend what im saying. im talking abou a naturally aspirated engine putting out 120 hp/l. no turbo no surpercharger. obvioulsy you dont possess any true knowledge if you cant understand a simple term like naturally aspirated. thats all were talking about. if you want to compare hp/l in turbo carged or supercharged engines then lets go with a drag racer. it uses a 426 hemi which is 7 liters. but it puts out over 1000 hp. how many hp/l is that figure it out. then you will see that honda is truly superior when it comes to hp per liter. and maybe youll learn a thing or two about true hp that comes from naturally aspirated engines.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    MT didn't test S2000 doing 0-60 in 12 seconds, if they shifted at 5500 rpm, it was their assumption that is not far from what most people would think, before they can actually test one.
    Why don't you want to argue on numbers, where we can have facts and base our opinions on, rather than making unwarranted conclusions… larger engines are inefficient!
    Larger engines can be, atleast, as efficient as their smaller designs, and remember, I did say "atleast". Coming down to practical examples, again, BMW has a design that enables them to get 100 HP/liter from 3.2/I-6. Do you think it would not be possible to get similar numbers, using same design, from a 6.1 liter/V12? (that's about twice the size of original design). Take it from me, 103 HP/liter this time (627 HP for McLaren F1), and that's an existing normally aspirated BMW engine, but neither is street legal.
    Efficiency of an engine really depends on who designs it, and some automakers make a name, most don't.
    If Suzuki makes a reliable, fun to drive 1.3 liter/180 HP engine, normally aspirated, I'll admire their engineering abilities. Efficiency is another way of looking at output. Some engines can develop 100 HP/liter at 7500 rpm, others get it in 8000 rpm, then I'll say, the 7500 rpm engine is more efficient (indicates better torque curve). Similarly, I don't expect a Honda 3.5/V8 to make 120 HP/liter in 8000 rpm, but it can make 115 HP/liter (hence 400 HP), an engine, I'm guessing, will power the 2002 NSX.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Roberts, the S2000 has been tested 0-60 shifting at 5500 rpm. I'm not sure if it was motortrend or not, I'll check the article when I get home. When they launched and shifted at 5500 rpm it produced a 11 or 12 second 0-60 time.
  • navy4navy4 Posts: 44
    Y'all need some prozac....LOL

    Don't forget NASCAR engines, 358 c.i., put out something like 700 hp. And that's to the rear wheel.

    Also, there are some really cool motorcycle engines that scream too. I'm not a stat-dude so I can't quote the hp, but I know it's high.

    The spec, which you touched on, that is most important is what is usable. That spec is LOW END TORQUE. Note I didn't say peak or horsepower, but low end torque. And when you factor that in the choice is not HONDA or ACURA, but Toyota. The reliable Toyota, nice, strong low end torque.

    1181 and robertsmx, trivia time, what does torque do for you, in a car?

    P.S. I like Hondas. too.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    True, Toyota does have (Generally) more low end torque that Honda/Acura/Etc. But if you really want low end go with American (As much as I hate to say it, I almost exclusively drive imports). I'm going to be purchasing a new vehicle soon, probably priced around 25K new, and I keep getting side tracked because the imports I'm looking at in that range (Mostly Celica and GTI) get smoked by comparably priced Stangs (0-60 in 5.5, 1/4 in high 13's). It's hard to argue with that. Might not have the razor sharp handling of a Type R or a Celica, but with the money you save you can definitely find some choice aftermarket suspension add ons.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Before you start calling people "dumb" let facts roll to you first.
    1. There is a difference between motorcycle engine design and car engine design. This would not be true if we were talking Honda's first car, S500 that actually used a motorcycle engine (extremely short strokes allow for high revs, but poor torque). Talk normally aspirated, street legal (to top it off, LEV), that beats S2000's powerplant, in torque output (call it efficiency), as well as HP/liter.
    2. So you do accept that larger displacement need not be inefficient. I wasn't talking truck engines either. For a performance engine, number of cylinders must increase with displacement. But you may still find it difficult to digest that 3.0/V6 based of S2K can produce 360+ HP and 230 lb.-ft torque. Let me know if you can't. I'm sure even Honda will have problem getting 800 HP out of 8 liter/V10, but quite easy for them to do it with 16 cylinders.
    3. Here is my challenge… try it first hand rather than being opinion based, get hold of an S2K, change gears at 5500 rpm, and see if it doesn't fly to 60 mph in under 8 seconds (to be more precise, I'll say, expect 0-60 in 7.6-7.7 seconds. If you can't find an S2K to do it, try Integra GS-R, and shift at same rpm (5500 instead of going to 8000 rpm). Expect 0-60 in this case to be between 8.5-9.0 seconds.
    4. Navy4, torque is converted by engine into what we call "power". I'm sure you'd be coming back with some explanations. A good engine develops good, flat torque from idling engine speed to redline, if you thought there was such thing as "low end torque", time to learn!
    5. Honda engines are more than often misunderstood. Sure, they don't provide Detroit style throttle-in feel, but by no means they lack torque compared to competition with same displacement.
    Toyota 2.2/I-4 DOHC: 148 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm (non-VVTi)
    Honda 2.2/I-4 DOHC: 145-147 lb.-ft @ 2750-4750 rpm (non-VTEC).
    So yes, there is 1 lb.-ft difference between the two! And neither engine is more reliable than the other, but based on sightings, I still see more mid-80 Preludes on road than Camrys.
    FYI, S2000 engine develops atleast 90% of peak torque (i.e. minimum of 138 lb.-ft, remember, we're talking displacement of only 1997 cc here) over about 6000 rpm power band! Now that's racing technology and driveability. It actually develops same torque at 1000 rpm as my Prelude's 2157 cc/I-4!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Judas (post 87):
    How much money are you really saving on getting a $25K Mustang over Celica GT-S or Integra Type-R?
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    The stang is cheaper than the Celica GTS and the Type R. That is how one normally saves money, isn't it? By buying the cheaper one? The Celica base MSRP is 21345, the Stang is 21205. Yeah, only 140 bucks, BUT, right now you can't get Celica GTS's at invoice (At least around here). You can get Stangs for at most a couple hundred bucks over. Probably talking about 1500 bucks in savings. The Type R isnt even close, I believe its base MSRP is 24350, and its going to be going for MSRP. Save at least 4 or 5 grand over that. 4 or 5 grand worth of brakes and suspension in the Stang and the Type R wont be able to touch it anywhere.

    Try first hand rather than be opinion based? It's not an opinion. Ive read it in at least 2 car mags, why would they lie when theyre so pro honda nd even pro s2000? What you're saying is 'I don't want to believe what I read in the respected major auto magazine, I'd rather just go on believing what I think even though it's not based on any facts whatsoever'. Have you timed an S2000? Didn't think so.

    Torque is converted by engine into what we call power? Thats the WORST, most completely incorrect definition of torque Ive ever heard in my life. Torque measures the engines ability to twist, as in turn the drive shaft. It's not CONVERTED by the engine from anything into anything, its PRODUCED by the engine. No such thing as low end torque? Of course there is, it refers to torque at low RPMs. Are you saying there is not low end torque at low RPMs? You're not making any sense. Did you really just say a good engine has a flat torque curve from idle to redline? NO gas engine has a flat torque curve. They all drop off after they peak. That's why they call it a curve, otherwise it'd be a torque line.

    Ill have to check when I get home, but it would really surprise me if the Honda made over 138 lb/ft from 3000 all the way to 9000.
  • 2ndgsr2ndgsr Posts: 3
    Pardon me for butting in here, but I was curious what you mean by there being no such thing as low end torque. The engine's ability to turn its crankshaft is called torque. The engine's ability to deliver that torque is power, (the product of torque and the angular velocity of the crank).

    Very few engines that know of produce a flat torque curves. The inertia of the bits and pieces flying around in the engine (among other things), affect the torque output at different speeds. Diesels for example have lots of torque at low end. Some will pull a truck up a hill at idle. Whereas in the case of my GS-R, (or my girlfriend's new Celica GT-S), unless you scream the don't get a whole lot out of it.

    And then there's the definition of stall torque...but I'm getting off topic.

    Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you meant...
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Couldnt find any road tests in my library that included the torque curve, but I found a european one on line. Its measured in kgm, but it still works for our purposes. According to the chart it tops out at about 22 kgm. 90% of 22 kgm would be about 20 kgm. it drops below 20 kgm at 5500 rpm. 5500 rpm to 9000 rpm = 3500 rpm. A far cry from 6000.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Also according to the chart its making less than 20 hp at 1000 rpm. Doesnt climb past the 100 HP mark until around 4000 RPM. So until you wrap it past about 5000 RPM its going to feel like you're driving a toyota tercel. Remarkable engineering or not, I just can't get too excited about a $32,000 car that gets its doors blown off by a $19,000 Stang. I can see the little yuppie S2000 drivers now. Revving their engines. Wearing their little leather gloves. Feeling the wind in their hair. Then getting torn apart at the dragstrip, the skidpad and the slalom by a Stang with subframe connectors and a $2,000 suspension kit.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Mustang versus high revvers:
    Judas, there is a distinct difference between muscle cars and sports cars, and those who know the difference will not argue the benefits of one over the other.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    They didn't prove what they stated? What do you accept as proof? If they come to your house and show you the time slip? Let you ride in one? THEY tested it. That's what they said it would do. They didn't make it up. They didn't estimated it. They tested it. Why would they lie? How do you know the S2000 makes 240 HP? You don't, you're relying on someone else's testing, just like I'm relying on someone else's testing when I say it takes about 12 seconds for it to get to 60 shifting at 5500 rpm.

    if you thought there was such thing as "low end torque", time to learn!

    Kinda changed your tune here didn't you? In this statement you accuse someone else of being ignorant while being blatantly ignorant yourself. Yeah, of course its better to have a flat torque curve. It's also better to have your torque peak at less than 7500 RPM or whatever it peaks at on the S2000. It's also better to have more than 153 lb/ft of torque when youre selling a 32,000 performance car. The BMW competetion sure has more torque. So does the Boxter, which makes them more fun to drive.

    Yeah, there is a difference between sports cars and muscle cars. I can argue whatever I want to, however, because a) its a free country and b)I could afford an S2000 easily, and when I'm considering purchasing a vehicle I take into account all the different cars that catch my eye. So for me, the S2000 and the Mustang are direct competetion, because I would consider owning both of them.

    Why didn't you address your definition of torque? I'm curious how you're going to clarify that one so that it makes even a small amount of sense. I'm also curious on how you can think you know more than I after that definition.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Why is it better to have torque peak at 4000 versus 7500? Because you dont rev to 7500 every time you shift gears, and if you do you'll kill your engine. Look at the cars youre comparing it to? The SE-R? The G20? The Ford Zetec? These are engines found in 15,000 econo cars, not 32,000 performance cars. And the S2000 isnt meant to compete with the base Z3, its meant to compete with the 2.8 Z3. Give me a break.
    Of course you changed your tune. You said there was NO SUCH THING as low end torque.
    Incredible 153 lb/ft? 153 lb/ft isn't incredible. Its good from a NA 4 banger, but its far from incredible considering a $17,000 POS Pontiac Grand Am has more than that.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Muscle cars versus Revvers:
    I didn't want to argue that but since you insist, keep your hopes high till they are straightened up in some real situations, and if you're really considering S2K versus Mustang, you don't know what you want.

    I don't have another definition of torque, it just means differently to me in that I don't ignore what the engine translates it into. To make it in short, don't make HP look like a meaningless term. There is a reason to why we have two set of measurements for output from an engine, and neither is meaningful without the other. Let me know if engine's capabilities can be deduced from this,
    4.6 liter/V8 SOHC, 302 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm, redline 6000 rpm (Mustang GT). Or,
    3.2 liter/F6 DOHC, 221 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm, redline 7250 rpm (Boxster S)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Do you understand a tiny bit of what I'm saying? There can be a 1.3 liter four banger and a 2.5 liter four banger, they will not develop same torque. Do you think if Honda increased the displacement on the 2.0/I-4, they would still get 153 lb.-ft? Remember, 153 lb.-ft from a 2 liter power plant means 76.5 lb.-ft/liter displacement (and without LEV like most of its competition, it amounts to 80.5 lb.-ft/liter!). If displacement is just bumped up to equal Prelude's (2.2 liter), I'd expect the torque to be between 162-165 lb.-ft.
    Honda could have used the originally intended 2.5 liter engine (220 HP) or even one of the engines they already have as 2.5TL in Japan (called Inspire/Saber). The latter is a three stage SOHC VTEC (identical technology as that in Civic EX) develops 200 HP @ 6200 (compare to Boxster's 201 HP @ 6250 rpm) and 177 lb.-ft @ 4600 rpm (compare to Boxster's 181 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm), but it would make it just another Boxster, not as unique as it stands now, much in line with the first Honda (S500) to celebrate the 50th birthday of Honda as a company (35 years into making cars). It is an F1 car made for the streets.
    Do you think Honda should have used CR-V engine instead, in S2000, since it provides peak torque of 135 lb.-ft at only 4500 rpm (peak power of 146 HP @ 6100 rpm), that would allow less than 12 second run to 60 mph if shifted at 5500 rpm? First I don't understand why anyone buying S2K, for what it is, will want to shift early (unless previous experience was a "low end" car), and second, even if anybody wanted to, they will spend 12 seconds to figure out how to keep the revs below 6000 rpm. Shifting at 7500 rpm delivers you 153 lb.-ft and at 5500 rpm, it will deliver 150 lb.-ft, so go ahead! It is a much better number than that in Camry I-4, and even Accord I-4 at the same rpm.
    Evenif I was driving BMW M3 (3.2/I-6; 236 lb.-ft @ 3750 rpm) or Acura CL-S (3.2/V6; 232 lb.-ft @ 3500-5500 rpm), I would be shifting either of them past 6500 rpm everytime (although the M3 torque falls considerably at that point, to about 190 lb.-ft, and CL-S's to about 205 lb.-ft). To not have to shift leads to the slush box!
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Why do you insist on comparing the engine in the S2000 to cars that have a completely different mission? Comparing the S2000 engine to the Camry, or the Accord, or the CRV, or the G20 or Sentra, is pointless and stupid. Compare the engine to it's competition, which all use 6 cylinders or larger. People don't buy engines, they buy cars. Since the S2000 engine is the best engine ever made would you buy a fullsize truck that had one in it? How about a station wagon with the S2000 engine? All you do is sit there and quote numbers and say how much better the S2000 engine when compared to 4 cylinders in either family cars or cars that cost half as much.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds.

    This is a direct quote from the MT article in question. Doesn't say it was a guess, or an estimate, or anything. They did it. And thats what it was. There went one of arguments.

    Your right, torque is meaningless without taking into account HP as well, and the HP on the S2000 is pathetic below about 6000 RPMS, which is why its 0-60 is so abysmal when you dont redline the engine every time.
This discussion has been closed.