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
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 05-20-2003, 10:44 PM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
revhappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It Looks Like the S2000 is Going to 2.2 Liters for the 2004 Model Year

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...hreadid=123834
Old 05-20-2003, 11:25 PM
  #2  
Registered User
 
gord boyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-22-2003, 11:47 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
exzeltus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: L'ville, GA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-23-2003, 07:53 AM
  #4  
rotary courage
 
m477's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-23-2003, 08:19 AM
  #5  
Registered
 
neit_jnf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Around
Posts: 1,277
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
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...
Old 05-23-2003, 09:48 AM
  #6  
Registered User
 
joofntool's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


theres no replacement for displacement (F.I. asside)
Old 05-23-2003, 02:02 PM
  #7  
Registered
 
neit_jnf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Around
Posts: 1,277
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Road & Track Article
Old 05-24-2003, 10:12 AM
  #8  
Registered
 
javahut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-24-2003, 01:53 PM
  #9  
Registered
 
cueball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Kingstown, RI
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it just me or does the S2200 pictured at the bottom of the article look like a 350Z?
Old 05-25-2003, 12:52 AM
  #10  
Registered User
 
Farsyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Old 05-26-2003, 05:01 PM
  #11  
Registered User
 
MikeW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More stroke?

So is Honda going to stroke the engine? That would explaing the small increase in power.
Old 05-26-2003, 11:19 PM
  #12  
Registered User
 
Schneegz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Old 05-27-2003, 10:44 AM
  #13  
Registered User
 
Farsyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Old 05-27-2003, 01:14 PM
  #14  
mostly harmless
 
wakeech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-27-2003, 01:30 PM
  #15  
Administrator
 
zoom44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: portland oregon
Posts: 21,958
Received 115 Likes on 88 Posts
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
Old 05-27-2003, 01:42 PM
  #16  
mostly harmless
 
wakeech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Old 05-27-2003, 04:52 PM
  #17  
Registered User
 
Sputnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Old 05-27-2003, 04:59 PM
  #18  
mostly harmless
 
wakeech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Old 05-28-2003, 03:36 AM
  #19  
Registered User
 
Schneegz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 05-28-2003, 07:28 AM
  #20  
mostly harmless
 
wakeech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Old 05-28-2003, 12:25 PM
  #21  
Registered User
 
babylou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Duren1
Mountain For Sale/Wanted
3
01-11-2017 09:07 AM
Redheddude222
New Member Forum
13
08-24-2015 09:14 AM
Love_Hounds
Series I Engine Tuning Forum
7
07-23-2015 12:44 PM



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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.