Does the S2000 have traction control?
- Thread starter thepharcyde
- Start date
JRS said:
Just over 20kg difference then, or approx 2% of the weight of the car.
Hmm, now would I choose something that I need to rev to death that has amazing on paper statistics, or a woofly v8 which sounds amazing, has LOTS of tuning potential and torque to die for...
Come to think of it, just what the hell were Honda thinking?
Bearing in mind that the S2000 engine IS very impressive for it's size, couldn't they apply their skills and abilities to a good 3ltr v6/v8 and stuff that in the S2000? Personally I'd love the option of a Japanese reliable v8 in something like the S2000 body and you'd hope that Honda could make it light and reliable.
Am I missing something here, or were Honda smoking too much ganga went they thought it up?
Picture the meeting. Four top Japanese developers in a hostess bar in Shinjuku.
Engineer one: "ha, I haf an idea"
Engineer two "hai, do twell"
E One: "howw about we make a really cool sports car to match the Eunos, but give it some weel getup and go"
E Three: "gwood idea, what you fancy for an engine?"
E One: "was thinking about a nice wee six, would sound gweat"
E Four (very drunk): "naw, stwupid idea, lets do something nobodies ever done before, lets build an low capacity engine with the same go as a biggee one".
E Two: "but why?"
E Four: "cos I'm the boss, and can't be assed to look up the stats for a six"
E One: "boss, tell more..."
E Four: "I was thinking of a nice big iron block (cos I like fat american girls), so we'll use something cheap, gwiv it gweat power at stwupid revs"
E Three: "ok, you the boss..."
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
ScoobyDoo69 said:edit - 69th reply and ScoobyDoo69
Shame yours was the 70th reply then
Simon said:
No-one is arguing the technical achievement of the engine, it really is very impressive when its all put down like that.
Where i (and others) fail to see the point in it though is when you look at 15 year+ old turbocharged designs. We have engines dating from the late 80's which will do 250bhp reliably from 2.0 4-pots, rev beyond 7k, and provide gut wrenching torque from the high 2's in most cases.
Not as involving to drive, but ultimately more usable day to day in a fast road car. As someone who doesnt really give a monkeys about the technicalities, and just wants shed loads of power available to me all the time no matter what i do as i hoon around, the turbocharged designs (including your rover's lump) do me much better than a VTEC design would.
Last edited:
That's becauseSimon said:I remember you commenting at the RR on how you missed just jumping in it and ragging it without worry when comparing to your scooby though
A) I didn't respect it
And more importantly
B) it has a rev limiter that doesn't let the strangled cat mode work until its warmed up
Will Gill said:
I find it highly amusing how blatantly you state your opinion as fact
You didn't like the car so its rubbish, and if anyone disagrees then they are wrong. Ho ho ho.
For you, its completely incomprehensible that the car is any good, despite the fact that for every person who hates the S2000 there is plenty more that dont.
From what I can tell, you are a lazy driver who can't be bothered to actually drive his cars. You expect to just put your foot down and for the car to drives itself. Its clear you are a turbo man born and bred and yet you get upset when a car that requires a little bit of driver input comes into your possession.
What I find highly amusing is that you bought the car. I've driven the S2000 and found it to be a fun, planted drive, that does require more input than some other cars. Why on God's earth you bought it is even more comical than your omnipotent attitude. Did you not even drive it? Do you test drive cars before you buy them or just see what your mates think?
I'm up for changing your avatar to "VTEC troll", you seem to pride yourself on crapping on threads about Honda's.
I'm all up for accepting a different opinion but your sheer arrogance and ignorance is enough to destroy a small country.
The sooner people stop seeing VTEC as a feasible alternative to a turbocharger, the better.
To be fair, that's what you do with VTEC, you just have to wait a bit longer for the power to come. Then you have to change gear. Then you have to change gear again.Gaijin said:
It's no more taxing than driving a torquey car, although it builds your left arm muscles.
That's becauseSimon said:I remember you commenting at the RR on how you missed just jumping in it and ragging it without worry when comparing to your scooby though
A) I didn't respect it
And more importantly
B) it has a rev limiter that doesn't let the strangled cat mode work until its warmed up
Nozzer said:
Thats how I feel about it having driven the CTR. It doesnt need any extra to drive the cars and isnt a matter of wanting to drive the car or being a lazy driver. All you do is thrash the damn thing to go fast and thats the same with any engine.
I used to ride 2 stroke motor bikes and then use my mates 4 stroke bike. Totally different power deliveries but you just thrash the hell out of them no matter what the power delivery is.
Gaijin said:
Not sure I follow what you're saying here Gaijin. Is it your opinion that anyone who doesn't like the whole 'beat the car with a large stick to get to the power' setup is a "lazy driver" for wanting the car to have some get-up-and-go from the bottom end of the rev range? Is that what you're saying?
You lambast Will Gill for his supposed arrogance, and then post that....
Gaijin said:I find it highly amusing how blatantly you state your opinion as fact
You didn't like the car so its rubbish, and if anyone disagrees then they are wrong. Ho ho ho.
For you, its completely incomprehensible that the car is any good, despite the fact that for every person who hates the S2000 there is plenty more that dont.
From what I can tell, you are a lazy driver who can't be bothered to actually drive his cars. You expect to just put your foot down and for the car to drives itself. Its clear you are a turbo man born and bred and yet you get upset when a car that requires a little bit of driver input comes into your possession.
What I find highly amusing is that you bought the car. I've driven the S2000 and found it to be a fun, planted drive, that does require more input than some other cars. Why on God's earth you bought it is even more comical than your omnipotent attitude. Did you not even drive it? Do you test drive cars before you buy them or just see what your mates think?
I'm up for changing your avatar to "VTEC troll", you seem to pride yourself on crapping on threads about Honda's.
I'm all up for accepting a different opinion but your sheer arrogance and ignorance is enough to destroy a small country.
The sooner people stop seeing VTEC as a feasible alternative to a turbocharger, the better.
Ill change your avatar to insecure honda fanatic then
You claim I'm ignorant and arrogant..... Hi pot nice to meet you I'm kettle.
I'm all for a nice heated debate but don't insult me personally that's just dull
As a side note. Never driven the s2000 but it is amazing to hear the engine rev, it never seems to stop going. I think I would enjoy driving one though, as I did enjoy the CTR but prefer turbos or failing that a larger capacity engine to Vtec units.
For those that prefer turbo engines, Acura are fitting the K23A1 to the new RDX. Turbocharged 2.3l i-VTEC motor. 260ft-lbs of torque all the way down (compared with most performance VTECs) at 4500rpm. It's a long-stroke motor so not nearly as revvy (redline is 6800rpm IIRC) as the 2.0 and 2.2 litre motors despite having almost the same peak power as the F20C and F22C1. Should be quite a nice engine that, for a small four banger anyway
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Bear said:
Weight when its lifted out I would presume so no manifold or intake
Or he's a bloke in your average town who rarely finds a good bit of clear road to really stretch out 9000 revs like it deservesGaijin said:
Heh, I love this - just looked up where peak torque comes in on a few different cars, and came across some figures I dug up ages ago for the Aussie Valiant Chargers. They came with a few different straight sixes and a couple of small-block Chrysler V8s. The 318ci V8 engine reaches a peak torque of 330ft-lbs at....2400rpm.
That's driveable, that's what I'd call fun. Especially in an Aussie Charger - short wheelbase compared with most muscle cars, designed with twisting roads in mind (they sold well in NZ, and were really built for Bathurst), and a great gob of useable grunt available as soon as you flex your right foot just a touch.
That's driveable, that's what I'd call fun. Especially in an Aussie Charger - short wheelbase compared with most muscle cars, designed with twisting roads in mind (they sold well in NZ, and were really built for Bathurst), and a great gob of useable grunt available as soon as you flex your right foot just a touch.
Wow this one's still goin'
I'd advise anyone who hasn't driven an S2000 to go try one before posting too strong an opinion..
I admit I've only driven an S2000 on a few occasions, once was when we had one as a demo car for a week on the pretences some people where considering them as company cars..
What I don't understand is how people with them are telling me that it performs as a normal 2.0 below VTEC..
It's nothing like a CTR/Elise or VVTi experience.. below 6K, forget it, nada power to speak of, if it has engine torque it's all wasted through some ludicrous gearing..
Here's the scenario's under which it seemed so gutless to me.. in 5th/6th at around 40-50 MPH, no acceleration what so ever.. any 2.0 Mondeo/Vectra would just walk away from you..
Crusing on the M/Way at 70 in top, and you want to accelerate around a car, unless you want to overtake lorry stylee, you have to change down to 4th to get any semblence of acceleration..
The motoring press slated it for this very reason, and clearly the change of Engine to something with more low down pull shows that the masses also agree, as these are the audience Honda has had to please.
I'd advise anyone who hasn't driven an S2000 to go try one before posting too strong an opinion..
I admit I've only driven an S2000 on a few occasions, once was when we had one as a demo car for a week on the pretences some people where considering them as company cars..
What I don't understand is how people with them are telling me that it performs as a normal 2.0 below VTEC..
It's nothing like a CTR/Elise or VVTi experience.. below 6K, forget it, nada power to speak of, if it has engine torque it's all wasted through some ludicrous gearing..
Here's the scenario's under which it seemed so gutless to me.. in 5th/6th at around 40-50 MPH, no acceleration what so ever.. any 2.0 Mondeo/Vectra would just walk away from you..
Crusing on the M/Way at 70 in top, and you want to accelerate around a car, unless you want to overtake lorry stylee, you have to change down to 4th to get any semblence of acceleration..
The motoring press slated it for this very reason, and clearly the change of Engine to something with more low down pull shows that the masses also agree, as these are the audience Honda has had to please.
Maybe Honda should sell the S2000 with an automatic gearbox.
It seems there are a lot of people who can't be bothered to change gears to keep it "on song", so why not just give it an auto box and let people not bother with gear changes at all, let the car do it instead.
It seems there are a lot of people who can't be bothered to change gears to keep it "on song", so why not just give it an auto box and let people not bother with gear changes at all, let the car do it instead.
ConfusedTA said:
The age old argument..
It's not that people are lazy, it's the annoyance at having to keep changing gear for no reason..
I think as well it's how people get their adrenalin rushes..
The S2000 is something that needs to be constantly on the boil which to some gives a real race car 'thrill' and takes some skill to keep it going fast..
Then (like me), I prefer the instant power/grunt power delivery, when you can't just floor it mid bend and it linearly accelerates, but you have to balance the power to keep you on the edge of traction..
I loved my GSXR600 which has a similar peaky power delivery as the S2000, you could almost ride it with an On/Off throttle style, the skill was more in the keeping it in the power, which was fun, but the challenge of controlling a GSXR1000 with uber low down grunt is just more thrilling and for me technically harder hence why I don't like the S2000, and why I'd never go back to a 600cc sportsbike..