200 extra cc, 10 extra lb-ft of torque. Is it worth it?

http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content_code=06842145 (AutoWeek Article)

If all you care about is peak numbers, the change seems a bit small. What Honda is claiming is that power is up around 10% across the powerband. Combined with a slightly (4%) taller gearing in the lower gears and a lower engagment point for the vtec, Honda claims acceleration is improved and that it comes on strong from 3k rpm.

This was obviously meant to address the most common complaint about slow launching and poor off-peak acceleration. Some call it softer, but can you really call a faster version softer?

Source - Temple VTEC (http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=152706)

link doesnt work for me

Yea...the Link doesnt work...

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content_code=06842145

Originally posted by Keshav
can you really call a faster version softer?


uh, if it is, then yes.

...i'm of two minds about this displacement increase... Honda's gone and stroked it, lowering the redline (as piston speeds have increased at any rpm with the longer stroke), but probably broadening the powerband.

in essence, they knew that if they had to make the car more driveable (to make it more marketable to low-rpm horsepower fans: aka Americans), they couldn't make it slower, so they upped the potential of the engine (displacement increase), and comprimised a potentially more powerful motor back down to the previous model's peak output, changed the VTEC response (i'd be interested to see the cam, valve, and head changes too... i'm sure you'll find it reletively less aggressive than the F20C's configuration, considering displacement)...

so, they have a stronger, more drivable engine, but it's at a higher level of comprimise than the old one... hmmm... it's quicker but is less of a purist's machine... hmmm...

one thing's for damned sure though: it sure got uglier; leave it to Honda, embracer of Ricer Nation, to go and ricify one of their halo cars too.

Originally posted by wakeech
one thing's for damned sure though: it sure got uglier; leave it to Honda, embracer of Ricer Nation, to go and ricify one of their halo cars too.

Say what, if I squint alot, it looks quite like a RX-8. Or am I missing smthg from the pic and can't see the rice?

I agree. I'm missing the rice. In fact, I was looking at the red carpet, and wondered what my red/black leather version would look like with red carpet.

I don't see the rice either. You even really gotta pay attention to notice most of the changes. I still think the RX8's taillamps are much ricier. I wish Mazda would get rid of those.

Originally posted by wakeech

one thing's for damned sure though: it sure got uglier; leave it to Honda, embracer of Ricer Nation, to go and ricify one of their halo cars too.

Just because its Honda doesn't mean it embraces rice. Its people who make it rice. ricify??? Making up new words? It looks almost like an rx-8.

Originally posted by moogle


Just because its Honda doesn't mean it embraces rice.

did you completely miss the whole Civic Nation advertising campaign??

Originally posted by moogle

Its people who make it rice. ricify??? Making up new words? It looks almost like an rx-8.

hahaha... why can't i make up new words?? rice is hardly a word at all, thanks very much :p

i SERIOUSLY dont' see where any lines of both these cars line up... what, they're both japanese, and have big hoods?? the grill shapes, placements, structure about the wheels, rake and shape of the windshield, side treatment, the WHOLE rear end... i could go on forever. just 'cause they're japanese sports cars doesn't mean they look like one another.

how does it look more rice?? well, it isn't rice now, but it emulates the terribly ugly look so sought after by dumbasses with Civics the continent over. look at the new main duct treatment: see those "civic inspired" vanes now at the sides, directing air to no-where-in-particular?? say that they did take air and route it through ducts to the brakes or something: there are better (and less ugly) ways of doing it. the now further recessed lights and BULGING ("more muscular" *rolleyes*) front treadment, along with the "Arnold's Arm" treatment along the sides really really gives it that freshly installed ugly-and-doesn't-quite-fit-bodykit look.

needless to say, i like the old, sleeker, square-ducted, tapered, and more modest front treatment. i can't really tell if the back is any different.

FWIW, i like the RX-8's tail lamps. if they're too much chrome for you, fine... they layout and design are still something special (s'pecially the turn signals... no one can disagree with that).

compare:
http://www.autoweek.com/images_content/2003_09/s2000main.jpg
http://hondas2000.freehosting.net/2000_honda_s2000.jpg

I think it looks good

BUT I love rice

i love rice, too :D

but i don't like this subtle facelift. i think the tail lights are ruined; the original tail lights were real good-looking. as good-looking as rx-8's. don't really like the front grille, either. also annoyed by the displacement jump, which kinda takes away the mystique of the engine. is the redline lowered, too? sigh. it's unfortunate. i'm a honda fan, but...

not a bad looking car
i dont really like the tail-lights though

its a little more ricey, but not so much as to be ugly
________
X6 (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_X6)

Originally posted by wakeech
FWIW, i like the RX-8's tail lamps. if they're too much chrome for you, fine... they layout and design are still something special (s'pecially the turn signals... no one can disagree with that).

It's not the chrome, it's that they look just like the 'altezza' lamps on all the ricey cars. When the wife saw the back of an RX8, she said 'Hey, it's got those kiddie Civic tail lamps!'

your wife doesn't know much about cars does she

Originally posted by mikeb
your wife doesn't know much about cars does she

Both of us know Altezza look alikes when we see them. It's the same style as on the Evo. And even one magazine called them "rocket boy" style tail lamps.

Originally posted by nk_Rx8
Both of us know Altezza look alikes when we see them. It's the same style as on the Evo.

not to argue a completely pointless point, but you're making less and less sense... they look like those POS APC tails, which are also like the Evo's, AND IS300's?? :confused:

i'm really missing the commonality here... regardless, the RX-8's tail lamps do have a lot of mirror-finished plastic, but i still don't see how they look anything at all like a crappy APC tail lamp. they're sturdy, quality units, not made with cheesey reflector lenses, and the turn signals simply set them apart from everything else... i mean, look at BMW's Chris Bangle's best idea for turnsignals, trying to come up with something "fresh and different"... *shrug* you don't have to like it, and you don't, but don't lump them in with tasteless "Euro" style rice.

Originally posted by wakeech
not to argue a completely pointless point, but you're making less and less sense... they look like those POS APC tails, which are also like the Evo's, AND IS300's?? :confused:

i'm really missing the commonality here... regardless, the RX-8's tail lamps do have a lot of mirror-finished plastic, but i still don't see how they look anything at all like a crappy APC tail lamp. they're sturdy, quality units, not made with cheesey reflector lenses, and the turn signals simply set them apart from everything else... i mean, look at BMW's Chris Bangle's best idea for turnsignals, trying to come up with something "fresh and different"... *shrug* you don't have to like it, and you don't, but don't lump them in with tasteless "Euro" style rice.

They may be better quality than the APC tail lights, but neverthe less they are in that same already over done style. It is just another slight variation on the a 'euro', 'altezza' theme. That 'euro' look, to me, has just gone out of style since there are soooo many highschool Civics, Cavaliers, etc that are using those now. I just came back from lunch and saw a Civic, Integra and a Mustang with those lights. To me, they have become sort of like Gucci in the 80's. There were nice in the beginning, but became tacky from all the fakes and look-a-likes.
It is useless to argue this, since aesthetics are all a personal perference. But I know many people that have commented on the same thing - that the APC lights are what pops to mind when they see those style of lights on any car. I read threads on the Evo board about switching out their tail lamps for the Evo 7 lamps just because people hated the 'altezza' style look now.

We going to have to agree to disagree on this because this is one of those things that are totally inidividual choice and like you said there is no point in arguing. It's would be like arguing about which color is best.

you don't have to like it, and you don't, but don't lump them in with tasteless "Euro" style rice.

Isn't that what you were doing also with your comments on the new S2K styling - lumping styling that you don't like with rice?

Originally posted by nk_Rx8
Isn't that what you were doing also with your comments on the new S2K styling - lumping styling that you don't like with rice?

hahaha... touche, i am beaten.

yeah, but i don't care. the vanes in the grill are 100% a step backwards, look ricey and ugly. Honda chooses to associate itself with the silliness that is the ricer 'import scene' *rolleyes*, and thus i will blast them appropriately ;)
just 'cause it's ugly don't mean i dislike it: still a helluva car, like ALL the new BMW's so far.

I can't believe all you guys talk about is the appearance. If you read the article you'll find out the rear suspension geometry has been revised for more stability in corning and the bump in 8lb torque changes the power banned to suit more for street (low rev driving).

BTW S2000 doesn't look like the RX8, if anything it is the other way around. S2000 looks like this since it came out, the only new aero parts are the front, rear bumper and side skirts.

This is sad. All you care about is looks. :(

I don't think it looks "ricy" at all. It looks like classic Honda understated styling to me. There is no huge, useless airdam. No gargantuan pointless wing. No black, fake carbon fiber hood with a for-looks-only hood scoop. Where's the rice?

Originally posted by Hanzo
I can't believe all you guys talk about is the appearance. ...This is sad. All you care about is looks. :(

that's a bit harsh; appearance isn't all for me. while i regret that they screwed up the car's looks w/ the subtle changes, that's only second to the fact that they softened it up, and the redline is lowered from 9000 down to 8200. for me, IMO, that's the most disappointing part 'cuz they changed the biggest things that i love about the s2k, its wild unruly incredible motor and its explosive driving dynamics. it's still an awesome engine, but it looses a bit of its charisma for me. it's more driveable and civilized, yes, but i don't think that's what this car should be about. i feel it lost its purist and almost lotus-elise-like personality. we're not that shallow :D

I don't think increasing the torque means softened it up. The gear ratio for the first 4 gears has also been shorten to give it a punchier feel. I would say they improve the car not soften it.

I think the car is improved overall, except perhaps certain track/lapping situations and personally I'll take that trade off. If I could afford it and a winter beater/4 door car for practical reasons, the S2K would be in my garage next spring.. Alas since I can only afford one car the 8 might have to be it. :)

You know, dropping the redline by 800 rpm only lost 300 rpm off the power band. Here's a quote from that article I linked to that explains why.

To improve acceleration, the old adage "there's no replacement for displacement" was applied. Through the use of a longer stroke (increased to 90.7mm from 84mm), the motor's displacement was increased from 1997cc (2.0L) to 2157 cc (2.2L), resulting in basically a 500rpm shift of the horsepower curve (to the left, on the rpm scale), meaning the new motor basically makes the the same power as the older F20C, simply 500rpms sooner at basically every point on the curve. Compression has been bumped up a tenth of a point to 11.1 (from 11.0:1) and the valve timing has been altered to further enhance mid-range performance. On paper, the numbers translate to 240hp at 7800 rpm (vs 240hp@8300 rpm) and 162 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm (vs 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm).

everyone likes to argue hp/tq numbers to death. they never say all that much. i'll wait for the Best Motoring guys to have a comparison with the old/new s2000 and see what they have to say :)

In BestMotoring they usually run at Tskuba and since it is somewhat of a small circuit the shorter first 4 gear ratio with more torque down low will be better suited for the new S2000.

I have no doubt the new S2000 will come ahead of the old one.

Well, IMO I think the old one will be up to par with the newer one. There's a reason why Japan and Europe kept the F20C motor. But in the looks department...I'm not too fond of it either. :o

Just reading the last few sentiments touched on in the article tells me that anyone worried about the soul of this car being softened needs to take a drive before they make any conclusions.

Originally posted by Totoro
Well, IMO I think the old one will be up to par with the newer one. There's a reason why Japan and Europe kept the F20C motor. But in the looks department...I'm not too fond of it either. :o

If I remembered correctly the Japanese is also getting the new engine.

No more 120 hp/L

No more 9000 rpm redline...

So they're actually making the RX-8 look even better!

Originally posted by neit_jnf
No more 120 hp/L

No more 9000 rpm redline...

So they're actually making the RX-8 look even better!
If such numbers are THAT important to you.. Personally I don't much care if the engine has an 8K or 10K redline.. Ultimately it's the performance that matters to me, no matter what the redline or hp/L.. And right now the S2K is still a better pure sports car than the 8. As it should be though since each car has a different mission/target audience imo..

Originally posted by neit_jnf
No more 120 hp/L

No more 9000 rpm redline...

actually, metrics like BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) and horsepower per kilo/pound/whatever of motor, and the old standard of peak horsepower are far better metrics by which to compare engines.

Technical details of '04 S2000:

http://www.vtec.net