Any S2000 Owners out there? Im jealous!

Hogzy

i had the pleasure of driving my buddies Honda S2000 the other day and my god what a car!!!!
It was my first time driving a V-tec and i saw so many benifits of a v-tec over a turbo... NO TURBO LAG!!!!!!


If there are any S2000 owners out there ye are lucky baxtards!!!

How much is yer insurance (if i may be so cheeky in asking:D)?

Cyrus

Hogzy wrote: »

i had the pleasure of driving my buddies Honda S2000 the other day and my god what a car!!!!
It was my first time driving a V-tec and i saw so many benifits of a v-tec over a turbo... NO TURBO LAG!!!!!!


If there are any S2000 owners out there ye are lucky baxtards!!!

How much is yer insurance (if i may be so cheeky in asking:D)?

er what about the lack of power before the vtec yo:pac:

qz

Neilw

Hogzy wrote: »

i had the pleasure of driving my buddies Honda S2000 the other day and my god what a car!!!!
It was my first time driving a V-tec and i saw so many benifits of a v-tec over a turbo... NO TURBO LAG!!!!!!

Ha ha what a joke, turbo lag is nearly non existent on modern petrol engines.

A v-tec engine is gutless under 6k rpm is that not the something the same as lag but far more pronounced?

stealthyspeeder

V-TEC does work well and is an very good design (lack of power before V-Tec?...... try down shifting gears!) I personally prefer that welling, powefull torquey feeling of the turbo charged power oppossed to the V-TEC and it lasts longer too!

Neilw

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

V-TEC does work well and is an very good design (lack of power before V-Tec?...... try down shifting gears!)

Thats the problem with v-tecs, very little torque = lots of downshifts.
I've driven v-tecs myself and they are a very good engine but I much rather a turbocharged petrol myself.

stealthyspeeder

+1

B00MSTICK

Can't have it all, its very nice for an NA engine though.

Reliable car too. I like the way the power is at the top end, means you can cruise around (almost economically) and then kick it when you want to really move.

I'd have one anyway.

Comparing a change in camshaft profile to a turbocharger is a bit much though...

Sleipnir

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Reliable car too.

2 million+ V-TEC engines built. Failures=zero.

Cyrus

Sleipnir wrote: »

2 million+ V-TEC engines built. Failures=zero.

you means failures within warranty

the drifter

ive tried too insure one of these recently and had difficulty... i havent given up hope though!

mumblin deaf ro

Actually the figure is closer to 17m v-tec engines without a warranty claim. Pretty impressive.

cnocbui

Neilw wrote: »

Ha ha what a joke, turbo lag is nearly non existent on modern petrol engines.

A v-tec engine is gutless under 6k rpm is that not the something the same as lag but far more pronounced?

Have you ever been in a Evo IX? They have a fairly modern engine and there most certainly is turbo lag, when it kicks in it's like you have been tailended by a truck.

Below the VTEC engagement point of 5400, rpm, a VTEC engine is no more gutless than any other 2.0 16V engine, they rate at about 150 hp and have every bit as much power as other normally aspirated engines of similar size. When VTEC is engaged, the engine suddenly has 33% more power than it did previously and you have 200hp in, say a Civic Type R.

In the case of a S2000, you have about 237 bhp.

The S2000 is an awesome car. It can lap the ring in about the same time as a Mazda 3MPS.

coin

Hi,
I currently have a silverstone MY01 S2000 GT. Love it to bits. took the hardtop off 2 weeks ago and am having so much fun. Engine is a work of art. Bit short on low-end power but its an amazing feeling in second and third gear at 6000+rpm. The limited slip diff and real wheel drive means it handles perfectly.Really really fantastic car. I've a Volvo S60 for my weekly drives which makes sure I don't take the S2000 for granted!!

The forum at www.s2kuk.com is excellent for any questions you might have.

qz

coin wrote: »

Hi,
I currently have a silverstone MY01 S2000 GT. Love it to bits. took the hardtop off 2 weeks ago and am having so much fun. Engine is a work of art. Bit short on low-end power but its an amazing feeling in second and third gear at 6000+rpm. The limited slip diff and real wheel drive means it handles perfectly.Really really fantastic car. I've a Volvo S60 for my weekly drives which makes sure I don't take the S2000 for granted!!

The forum at www.s2kuk.com is excellent for any questions you might have.

Any pics coin?

coin

yeah I've loads!!

How does one post pics?? I haven't great web skills.

Neilw

cnocbui wrote: »

Have you ever been in a Evo IX? They have a fairly modern engine and there most certainly is turbo lag, when it kicks in it's like you have been tailended by a truck.

Below the VTEC engagement point of 5400, rpm, a VTEC engine is no more gutless than any other 2.0 16V engine, they rate at about 150 hp and have every bit as much power as other normally aspirated engines of similar size. When VTEC is engaged, the engine suddenly has 33% more power than it did previously and you have 200hp in, say a Civic Type R.

In the case of a S2000, you have about 237 bhp.

The S2000 is an awesome car. It can lap the ring in about the same time as a Mazda 3MPS.

Your not comparing like with like there, an evo is a rally replica and a pure drivers car designed for all out power.
The likes of vw's 2 litre turbo or bmw's new turbocharged petrol engines have all but removed turbo lag.

The s2000 may have 150bhp off cam but at what rpm does it make peak torque from, 5k+?
It's still gutless from low revs if you compare it to the likes of a modern turbocharged petrol which will have peak torque (pulling power) from as low as 1800-2000rpm.

Your statement of the nurburgring makes me lol, a sports car lapping the ring in the same time as a fwd hatchback, I'm sure honda wouldn't go shouting that from the rooftops

qz

coin wrote: »

yeah I've loads!!

How does one post pics?? I haven't great web skills.

Upload your snaps onto something like imageshack.us, if you've loads it's probably worth your while to make an album.

If you just want to post one or two then upload one and get the link, (which will look something like "http://www.imageshack.us/abcdefg.jpg").

Now put this link in between these boxes in your post, just remove the *:

Tenzor07

S2000 for the price is one of the best handling n/a RWD cars..

Of course a Turbo charged engine has more torque but in most your changing gear just as the S2000 is getting into the power at around 6k rpm, all the way up to a screaming 9k, you have to know how to drive it hard to get the best out of it for sure, but is'nt that the whole fun of the Vtec system..

As a daily driver expect well over 30mpg, with a Turbo make sure you have a fuel card, you'll need it..

Have a look at a top gear review...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWnHPbUMlMU&feature=related

Green Hornet

LIGHTNING wrote: »

The biggest problem with v-tecs is the amount of stupid clowns going around in clapped out civics who think its the greatest thing ever.

The funny thing is that most of them do not even have VTEC..............they have 1.4L heaps of clapped out junk with Argos spoilers and over the counter badges.

cnocbui

Neilw wrote: »

Your not comparing like with like there, an evo is a rally replica and a pure drivers car designed for all out power.
The likes of vw's 2 litre turbo or bmw's new turbocharged petrol engines have all but removed turbo lag.

What you really mean is you only want a comparison to be made to the very few turbo engines without lag.

The s2000 may have 150bhp off cam but at what rpm does it make peak torque from, 5k+?

7500

It's still gutless from low revs if you compare it to the likes of a modern turbocharged petrol which will have peak torque (pulling power) from as low as 1800-2000rpm.

Ah torque, don't you love a good diesel.

You consider a 2.0 16v normally aspirated engine gutless? That is your prerogative, but it's a bit pointless to make the claim. A Honda civic 2.2 diesel has 250.8 torques vs a VW 2.0 TSI turbo engine which has 206.5. Does that make the TSI 'gutless' in comparison?

You can cherry pick your rev range to suit your biases all day long, but it's the whole package that delivers real world results.

Your statement of the nurburgring makes me lol, a sports car lapping the ring in the same time as a fwd hatchback, I'm sure honda wouldn't go shouting that from the rooftops

There are so many very rapid FWD cars these days, it is a bit silly to suggest there is a loss of face implicit in one being used as a performance yardstick. The Mazda 3 MPS is very rapid, so is the S2000.

unkel

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Can't have it all

<obama>yes you can</obama>

The engine needs to be big and petrol though

Neilw

cnocbui wrote: »

What you really mean is you only want a comparison to be made to the very few turbo engines without lag.

7500



Ah torque, don't you love a good diesel.

You consider a 2.0 16v normally aspirated engine gutless? That is your prerogative, but it's a bit pointless to make the claim. A Honda civic 2.2 diesel has 250.8 torques vs a VW 2.0 TSI turbo engine which has 206.5. Does that make the TSI 'gutless' in comparison?

You can cherry pick your rev range to suit your biases all day long, but it's the whole package that delivers real world results.



There are so many very rapid FWD cars these days, it is a bit silly to suggest there is a loss of face implicit in one being used as a performance yardstick. The Mazda 3 MPS is very rapid, so is the S2000.

I'm not cherry picking engines, you mentioned the evo, there are lots of turbocharged petrol engines that have little or no lag, the two I mentioned just popped into my head.

You then go on to compare a diesel civic to a petrol tsi engine, were not comparing diesel to petrol here. Torque is not a v-tec engines strong point no is it?

Your obviously a v-tec fanboy and wont be told anything comes close, I was just stating that turbocharging technology has moved on a fair amount resulting in little or no turbo lag.

B00MSTICK

unkel wrote:

The engine needs to be big and petrol though

Damn those tax rates

craichoe

Neilw wrote: »

Your obviously a v-tec fanboy and wont be told anything comes close, I was just stating that turbocharging technology has moved on a fair amount resulting in little or no turbo lag.

I don't think so ... its still just an air compressor, the most they've done since the bentley blower to reduce lag is to put on two compressors.

A Small one and a Big one.

Neilw

craichoe wrote: »

I don't think so ... its still just an air compressor, the most they've done since the bentley blower to reduce lag is to put on two compressors.

A Small one and a Big one.

What about variable vane technology, twin scroll technology? Still only uses one turbo with the effect of reducing lag in both cases.

craichoe

Neilw wrote: »

What about variable vane technology, twin scroll technology? Still only uses one turbo with the effect of reducing lag in both cases.

Vary the amount of air being pushed into the engine depending on the amount of fuel entering the engine. The Bentley blower came out in the 1920's ...

A turbo is a quick fix.

Neilw

craichoe wrote: »

Vary the amount of air being pushed into the engine depending on the amount of fuel entering the engine. The Bentley blower came out in the 1920's ...

A turbo is a quick fix.

So whats your point, when did the first normally aspirated engine appear?

BTW the bentely blower was supercharged not turbocharged :rolleyes:

cnocbui

Neilw wrote: »

You then go on to compare a diesel civic to a petrol tsi engine, were not comparing diesel to petrol here. Torque is not a v-tec engines strong point no is it?

Your method of argument is to shift the goal posts to suit. You brought up torque, as if it were the be-all and end-all of engine performance, look at how you keep on harping on about it not being a strong point of VTEC engines.

Which is why I mentioned a diesel. You now claim I can't mention diesels because we are only allowed to talk about petrol engines. You don't want me mentioning diesels because they illustrate nicely that torque is not all there is to an engines performance.

Your obviously a v-tec fanboy and wont be told anything comes close,

No, I have at no point claimed that VTEC engines were superior to turbo engines, as that is patently not the case. You are the person claiming the superiority of turbo vs VTEC, I believe you used the word 'gutless' in comparing them.

I was just stating that turbocharging technology has moved on a fair amount resulting in little or no turbo lag.

Fair enough, and I was just pointing out that not all modern turbo engines are without lag.

You keep driving your lag-less turbo, and I shall keep driving my 'gutless' VTEC. I hope you get as much enjoyment from yours, as I do from mine.

Atomic Pineapple

Some people enjoy driving VTEC's and some people enjoy driving High torque turbo petrol's.

The fact that we have a choice is great and both have there pluses and minuses, you can argue which is best all day long and you wont get anywhere because there both completely different and have different bonuses and different negatives.

I drive an ITR and find the compromise in power great as I have it when I want it and can drive normally when I dont want it, the car is super reliable.

I am looking to get a turbo petrol car and so have been driving a few lately and there completely different to a VTEC, you have power from a low range but at the expense of economy and they are less reliable.

As I said both very different, both have there +/- and arguing about which is best leads nowhere...........

unkel

draffodx wrote: »

Some people enjoy driving VTEC's and some people enjoy driving High torque turbo petrol's

And then there is the third way

cnocbui

unkel wrote: »

And then there is the third way

Damn right, helicopter beats car, everytime.