Honda S2000...

[MustangDanny]

So our engineering department had a luncheon today at a country club that was 20 minutes away from work. Well there is this guy in Engineering who drives a Honda S2000. I've wanted to race him ever since I started working here 3 months ago. Well today, on the way home from that Luncheon I see him dart off on the back roads on the way back to work. So I skipped the freeway entrance ramp and followed him. I could see him watching me in his rearview. We were stuck behind some Mitsubishi Mirage for most of the trip but finally the Mitsu turned off and he immediately downshifts and guns it ('ol puff of smoke comes out of his exhaust pipes, so I know he was revin'). Well I was ready to go and hit it as well. It's always tough to judge a race when you are followin' racing, but I'd say that the race would be close if we were from a stop because at the lower speeds I almost came up and tapped his bumper, but then he just started pulling away. I guess it makes sense, the car is 2800 lbs but only has 153 ft-lbs of torque. But once he got past the inertia of his car the 240 hp took over I guess. But I think that in the 1/4 mile I would take him because he wouldn't have had enough road to even reach his full potential. Pretty nice car though... although for that price, I'll take my Notch and build a 500+ hp motor for $10,000 and paint it for another $10,000 and still be cheaper.

[Stang Runner]

For him to get a good launch needs to rev it way up 6000-7000 not to good on the clutch. With a Very good Drive They will hit Low 14.2-4 (Most drivers are in the 15's).

[302 LX Eric]

They are definately low on torque.

Low 14's is about what they run under good conditions (driver, track, launch, etc.).

Maybe your run gave him something to think about.

Take it easy,
E

[MustangDanny]

I betcha he's wondering why some old Ford is keeping up with his life savings!

But this coming spring will be a different story... I'm rebuilding my motor with new heads, cam, intake, etc. He won't have a dream against me then.

[Fostang]

a puff of smoke from a new car?? Damn expensive cheaply made cars! Not bad for a 170 k motor.

[1BAD89]

Some run 14.0.

[MidNiteBlu 5.0]

Peak horsepower is 240 at 8300 rpm

[302 LX Eric]

Damn! 8300 rpm and no valve float? That's nutz!
Those must be some serious springs.

E

[1BAD89]

Kinda like a street bike engine.

[Stang Runner]

I dont theink they have spring in them at all Not 100% but it would not need very strong ones... not 100% how the Electromagnets works on them.. very cool that is why the Big HP fo a 2.0 N/A

[MidNiteBlu 5.0]

redline is at 9000. I cant find its torque numbers but motor Trend got a 13.8 @ 100.5 1/4 mile out of it.

[1965GTO]

They don't need superstrong valve springs because the valvetrain weight is very light. No lifter, pushrod, and small valves.

[Unit 5302]

The S2000's redline is 8900rpm. Peak torque is something like 153lb/ft@7500rpm.

It has NOTHING below 6000rpms. I think it was M/T that launched it at 6000, shifted at 6000 and got a mid 11sec 0-60 out of it. You have to beat the holy hell out of it to get it to move. It is very much like a bike engine. The actual performance is very much like early 90's sportbikes.

As such, I expect engine life to follow suit. Sportbikes are good for about 30,000 miles before needing a rebuild, big time. The S2000 isn't quite that crazy, but I would be willing to bet it's falling off steep before 100k on the odometer.

[bri32z]

Speedvision just did a thing on that car---they say it redlines at 10,000 rpm and jumps from 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. They also said ya have to keep it above 8 grand to really feel its power band

[Unit 5302]

Sounds like Speedvision also thinks a Mustang is still powered by a pushrod engine, lol.

Seriously though, 5.3 seconds to 60 would be damn impressive for an S2000.

[bri32z]

Unit 5302
Ultra Senior Member

You da Man!!!!!!!!!

[inferno]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
The S2000's redline is 8900rpm. Peak torque is something like 153lb/ft@7500rpm.

It has NOTHING below 6000rpms. I think it was M/T that launched it at 6000, shifted at 6000 and got a mid 11sec 0-60 out of it. You have to beat the holy hell out of it to get it to move. It is very much like a bike engine. The actual performance is very much like early 90's sportbikes.

As such, I expect engine life to follow suit. Sportbikes are good for about 30,000 miles before needing a rebuild, big time. The S2000 isn't quite that crazy, but I would be willing to bet it's falling off steep before 100k on the odometer.

Hey Unit, me and you both have been over this personally before I am sure that the motor will be fine. Honda has been building cars with 8k plus redlines since the late 80's early 90's. I am sure that the motor will be fine, especially since it isn't going to be pounded on by the "market" that is going to buy them. As far as the 6k shift thing, I still don't see why they bothered to do that test. I haven't seen them do a similar test to other cars shifting well below their power and.....that's like shifting a stang at about 3500rpm...i am sure that it won't be much faster 0-60 in that case.

[Unit 5302]

As I've pointed out before. There is a limit to how much you can push the engines. Sure, they've been building with an 8000rpm redline for a while now. They've also been building with around 100hp/liter for a while (not long enough to prove they'll hold together though). Now, they've added 1000rpm, and 20hp/liter. That's about like making a 5.0 redline at 6700rpm, and giving it 325hp. Do you think the 5.0 would last 150k in that setup? Hardly.

Honda can't make the same attribute sportbikes last even 1/3 of that long without benefitting from a rebuild. How is the S2000 that far in advance of some of the most competitive engine markets in the world?

As I've also pointed out, it wouldn't be like shifting the Mustang at 3500rpms, it would be like shifting it at 4000rpms, in which case a sub 8sec 0-60 would be my prediction. The S2000 has one of the narrowist powerbands ever. A pathetic 1000rpms where it really pulls for crap. The Mustang GT has a powerband more along the lines of 3000rpms.

[1965GTO]

It isn't that hard to rebuild an engine, especially a 4 cylinder. I haven't seen an S2000 engine torn down so I don't know if they are using the thin piston rings that the high output motorcycle engines are using now. If they are using thicker piston rings then I would expect them to last a long time. Short stroke equals slow piston speed. How far the rings travel up and down the cylinders will determine how fast they wear out. 10000rpm with a 2" stroke would be 40000 inches of travel in a minute. 7000rpm with a 3" stroke would be 42000 inches of travel in a minute which would mean the 3" stroke engine would wear more at 7000rpm than the 2" stroke engine at 10000rpm. So it would depend on the thickness of the rings and the materials used, also lubrication.

[Unit 5302]

There's more to it than piston rings. There are valves, valve springs, buildup on the head, bearings, pins, and other items. On a bike, a a ring job and rebuilding the head are required to do a good job.

The stroke of the engine isn't a major concern here. I fail to see how that comes into the equation at all, really. A long stroke engine turns less rpm than a short stroke engine, and a short stroke engine travels shorter distances. For the most part, it all works out in the end. Changing direction with 100% greater frequency puts a hell of a lot more stress on parts like wrist pins, and 100% more useage on the cam, and the valvetrain is also a significant increase.

The valvetrain on the S2000 will see the equivelent of 200,000 miles when compared to a large displacement V-8 at 100,000.

Like I said, there is only so much you can do to make an engine last longer. The S2000's engine will be seeing 2x the amount of wear cycle of a large displacement V-8.