Notices
General Automotive Discuss all things automotive here other than the RX-8

It Looks Like the S2000 is Going to 2.2 Liters for the 2004 Model Year

Thread Tools
 
Rate Thread
 
Old May 20, 2003 | 10:44 PM
  #1  
revhappy's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
It Looks Like the S2000 is Going to 2.2 Liters for the 2004 Model Year

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...hreadid=123834
Reply
Old May 20, 2003 | 11:25 PM
  #2  
gord boyd's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
The guys (or gals) on vtec.net surmize that not much more power but 10 - 14 lb-ft additional torque with same 'F' series engine.

I think this puts it a shade over 175.
Reply
Old May 22, 2003 | 11:47 PM
  #3  
exzeltus's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: L'ville, GA
Originally posted by gord boyd

I think this puts it a shade over 175.
Where do you get your info? The 2.0 liter S2000 puts out 240 at the crank.

No numbers on the 2.2 liter yet though.
Reply
Old May 23, 2003 | 07:53 AM
  #4  
m477's Avatar
rotary courage
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
From: :uoıʇɐɔoן
He meant torque, not hp.

2.2 is 10% bigger than 2.0, so if you assume hp/liter and torque/liter are constant, you get 168 ft-lbs and 264 hp.
Reply
Old May 23, 2003 | 08:19 AM
  #5  
neit_jnf's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 7
From: Around
I read somewhere that the S2200 will be a hardtop and output 250hp at the crank, say bye to 120hp/L. No word on torque though...
Reply
Old May 23, 2003 | 09:48 AM
  #6  
joofntool's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: NY


theres no replacement for displacement (F.I. asside)
Reply
Old May 23, 2003 | 02:02 PM
  #7  
neit_jnf's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 7
From: Around
Road & Track Article
Reply
Old May 24, 2003 | 10:12 AM
  #8  
javahut's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
I agree with the article. I really like the looks of the coupe version there. I would buy the coupe. I would never buy the convertible. If that's the car they're puttin' out, that looks sweet! Can't wait to see them.
Reply
Old May 24, 2003 | 01:53 PM
  #9  
cueball's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: North Kingstown, RI
Is it just me or does the S2200 pictured at the bottom of the article look like a 350Z?
Reply
Old May 25, 2003 | 12:52 AM
  #10  
Farsyde's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
i am all for a coupe, and maybe its the angle of the pic, but damn. Bring back the drop top cuz that coupe is butt ugly
Reply
Old May 26, 2003 | 05:01 PM
  #11  
MikeW's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
More stroke?

So is Honda going to stroke the engine? That would explaing the small increase in power.
Reply
Old May 26, 2003 | 11:19 PM
  #12  
Schneegz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
From: Pullman, WA
So is Honda going to stroke the engine? That would explaing the small increase in power.
Good point. But it would make a bigger difference in torque, which is what everybody complains about in the S2000. I wonder if a longer stroke would mean a lower red line too. That would be a shame.


Is it just me or does the S2200 pictured at the bottom of the article look like a 350Z?
I was thinking that supposed S2200 looks more like the original 280Z than the 350Z does!
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 10:44 AM
  #13  
Farsyde's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
maybe this is the same thing, but wouldnt a few millimeter overbore on the cylinders help with the displacement too? Either way i think we can all agreee that that little thing can move, its just too bad all it's power is at the top. I just dont think i can get past the fact that it is a $30k honda. Just me though
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 01:14 PM
  #14  
wakeech's Avatar
mostly harmless
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
From: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Originally posted by Farsyde
maybe this is the same thing, but wouldnt a few millimeter overbore on the cylinders help with the displacement too? Either way i think we can all agreee that that little thing can move, its just too bad all it's power is at the top.
...has it been confirmed then that the displacement increase is in the stroke??

nope. stroking and boring pistons two different things. to run the same rpm on a longer-stroke crank (and con-rod), your piston speeds increase quite a bit more, which means your loads on your con-rods increase like-wise. but, with the larger diameter crank, you're getting more torque per turn. basically, if you stroke an engine, you're going to get better torque(longer crank radius, more force on piston), maybe more power (depends on a lot of things), but you're not going to be able to rev it as high, all other things being equal (ie, max piston speed).

if you bore the cylinder out (what i wish they'd have done, unless they did), you're going to get a larger displacement, and a larger area upon which the gases can press (assuming equal pressure as the smaller bore, you're getting a proportionately larger force) you then end up with a larger force on the same lever (crank radius). this too will help with your torque, but becuase the piston travel isn't as long, you can make a lot more power as piston speeds don't increase (as the stroke is the same), and with the extra force at all rpm, your power goes up considerably.

of course, this is the mega-basic over-simplified approach, but includes a few of the major factors, outcomes, and considerations.
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 01:30 PM
  #15  
zoom44's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
Originally posted by wakeech



if you bore the cylinder out (what i wish they'd have done, unless they did),
are you saying that if in fact they did bore out the cylinders then you would wish for a stroker instead?:p
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 01:42 PM
  #16  
wakeech's Avatar
mostly harmless
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
From: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Originally posted by zoom44


are you saying that if in fact they did bore out the cylinders then you would wish for a stroker instead?:p
why would i wanna do a crazy thing like that?? void my warranty???? forget it :p

...i was saying i can't really wish for something that they've done... hahaha...
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 04:52 PM
  #17  
Sputnik's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO, USA
Originally posted by wakeech
...if you bore the cylinder out... you can make a lot more power as piston speeds don't increase (as the stroke is the same), and with the extra force at all rpm, your power goes up considerably...
A bigger bore means a bigger piston, means a heavier piston, means more stress on the conrods, means less rpms, all else being equal.

---jps
Reply
Old May 27, 2003 | 04:59 PM
  #18  
wakeech's Avatar
mostly harmless
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
From: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Originally posted by Sputnik
A bigger bore means a bigger piston, means a heavier piston, means more stress on the conrods, means less rpms, all else being equal.

---jps
true, it's less, but not much... the increase in the mass of the piston is grams for 2mm overbore. but yes, i forgot to add the heavier bit :o...
Reply
Old May 28, 2003 | 03:36 AM
  #19  
Schneegz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
From: Pullman, WA
I could be wrong, but I don't think the 2.0 had enough cylinder wall thickness to bore it out. I think they either stroked it or went with a whole new block.
Reply
Old May 28, 2003 | 07:28 AM
  #20  
wakeech's Avatar
mostly harmless
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
From: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Originally posted by Schneegz
I could be wrong, but I don't think the 2.0 had enough cylinder wall thickness to bore it out. I think they either stroked it or went with a whole new block.
oh, that's certainly the way most of these tiny engines are cast today: with "just enough" wall between the cylinders... some are, but it'd be piston-ring on piston-ring (i hear that's bad or something) if all the cylinders were bored out 2mm on that F block, which is probably why it was thought (is for sure?) that they stroked it...
Reply
Old May 28, 2003 | 12:25 PM
  #21  
babylou's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Originally posted by Schneegz
I could be wrong, but I don't think the 2.0 had enough cylinder wall thickness to bore it out. I think they either stroked it or went with a whole new block.
This is heresay but I have been told that the F20C crankcase has very thick cylinder walls compared to other Hondas. Of course, these are aluminum cylinders so they will not be as thin as steel or iron cylinders. I do know the engine is quite long for its displacement so it leads me to believe that the are some beefy cylinder walls present.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Duren1
Mountain For Sale/Wanted
3
Jan 11, 2017 09:07 AM
Redheddude222
New Member Forum
13
Aug 24, 2015 09:14 AM
Love_Hounds
Series I Engine Tuning Forum
7
Jul 23, 2015 12:44 PM



You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.