oh no... Honda misrates the power on 2004 s2000
Well it seems that Honda misrated...or should I say underrated the new 2004 S2000 engine. Honda advertised the car as having 240hp, the same as the 2L 2003 and earlier models. Well, the 2004 s2k was put on a dyno and put down 20+ wheel hp more than a 2001 S2000. Both stock, both on the same dyno.
The new s2000 is at about 220whp stock. :eek: :eek: |
Ouch...I guess honda doesn't learn from other's mistakes :)
never mind...i guess i read that bakcwards : ( |
That's bad news for the autox guys... both RX-8s and previous MY S2Ks. I see a class change in the works for after next season. Maybe is wasn't an ECU change on the RX-8 and Honda just stole your missing HP :p
Ike |
yeah but it'll still never look as good as the RX-8 haha
|
Does this mean the Honda owners will get a letter and have to send in more money for the extra HP? ;-)
|
Originally posted by BlueOakleyz yeah but it'll still never look as good as the RX-8 haha |
mazda should follow in honda's lead
|
Originally posted by The Red One I think the Honda looks as good if not better than the RX-8. And with 220RWHP is probably the faster car now. :eek: |
Originally posted by serff What do you mean now? It has always been faster. That is 220 to the rear wheels, not the crank. I still like the RX8 better though. :) Are'nt the s2k and RX-8 evenly matched? Now even the older s2k is faster than the RX8?! :( |
Originally posted by The Red One Are'nt the s2k and RX-8 evenly matched? Now even the older s2k is faster than the RX8?! :( |
most magazines got slower test times from the S2K than the RX8. I dunno why everybody here thinks its faster. Also, from what i hear, the new S2K gets the exact same times, but doesnt require such a hard launch anymore. Extra horsepower or not, its 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.
|
Originally posted by RussellP most magazines got slower test times from the S2K than the RX8. I dunno why everybody here thinks its faster. Also, from what i hear, the new S2K gets the exact same times, but doesnt require such a hard launch anymore. Extra horsepower or not, its 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Ike |
Originally posted by IkeWRX Depends on what mags you look at, but most of the good times for the S2K are 14.0 or 14.1 vs. 14.5 and up for the RX-8. and the S2K gets mid 5s 0-60. Ike |
The only way to break six seconds, 0-60, in the S2K, is to launch it near redline. (Ouch.) Same with the RX-8. They have very similar HP and torque curves and redlines (although I think the new S2K has "only" an 8 grand redline). But the S2K's a lot lighter. Neither of them is a drag-race machine by a long stretch. For a given launch technique, I suspect the S2K's a little quicker than the 8 in a straight line, especially now, but not by much.
|
Why are people saying the s2k is slow by quoting 1/4 and 0-60 times? Everything I've read says the s2k is built for curves, like the rx-8 but faster.
You just can't quantify a car's overall speed with a number or two. |
Honestly, i think the s2k has better acceleration, quarter mile, slalom numbers than the rx8, but thats what its supposed to do because its a "pure" sports car and the 8 is a more all-around sports car, so there has to be comprimises in certain areas. The 8 has 2 more seats, but the sk2 weighs a couple hundred less.
|
The vtec.net article is written by one of our forum memebers - ChurchAutoTest.
Dynapack does not take into account of wheel/tire rotational inertia. The ’04 S2K has bigger and heavier wheels compared to an older S2K. I expect Dynojet results to show a smaller HP gain. |
HAHAHAAH now they cannot laugh at me MUAHAHAH! stupid honda! however the s2000 is a better performance car in comparison to the rx8, however it is soooo unpractical and tiny. Its cool, but convertible insurance sucks as well as its a sports car.
|
Although id prefer the 00/01 S2000. Dont like the fact that displacements been bumped up/redlines been lowered, aesthetic changes etc.
|
Originally posted by Efini 8 HAHAHAAH now they cannot laugh at me MUAHAHAH! stupid honda! however the s2000 is a better performance car in comparison to the rx8, however it is soooo unpractical and tiny. Its cool, but convertible insurance sucks as well as its a sports car. |
maybe im mistaken but dont car manufactures advertise engine horsepower in the specs and not whp. So if honda advertises 240 and you dyno(which measures whp) of course you are going to get different readings.
|
For the same driver to take 3 passengers in an S2K from point A from zero to sixty and leave them all off at point B would take about 5 times as long as in an RX-8.:p
|
Originally posted by GiantXTC maybe im mistaken but dont car manufactures advertise engine horsepower in the specs and not whp. So if honda advertises 240 and you dyno(which measures whp) of course you are going to get different readings. Although Polak comment makes is seem like it really isn't that high. Guess we'll have to see some properly calibrated dyno numbers. |
there are a few people who can get their 2000-2003 s2k 13.9 quarter stock. I wonder what those few can do on a 2004 s2k... hmmmm. I think the rx8 looks a bit nicer "just a bit,"but the s2k can hit redline many times and still get 20 or better to the gallon.
|
Originally posted by moogle there are a few people who can get their 2000-2003 s2k 13.9 quarter stock. I wonder what those few can do on a 2004 s2k... hmmmm. I think the rx8 looks a bit nicer "just a bit,"but the s2k can hit redline many times and still get 20 or better to the gallon. Good point Moogle...bottom line 2 seats vs 4....I recently drove (hard) a 2002 S2k and could not tell any difference in power (vs my stock 8) and that disappointed me as I expected a little more from that car based on what I've read over the past couple of years about it...the handling was impressive though. |
Originally posted by SDFLY Good point Moogle...bottom line 2 seats vs 4....I recently drove (hard) a 2002 S2k and could not tell any difference in power (vs my stock 8) and that disappointed me as I expected a little more from that car based on what I've read over the past couple of years about it...the handling was impressive though. |
Just one little thing...
While the S2K might be, (well is), up on hp compared to the 8, one thing got messed up that will hurt it in autox. Previously, the S2K would get up to around 65 in 2nd gear. The '04 tops out at 58 in 2nd gear (due to lower redline and gearing changes) necessitating an earlier shift with a commensurate loss in torque. This is reported in the latest issue of Grassroots Motorsports. The RX-8 6spd will run up to 67-68 in 2nd giving it a little advantage as far as autox is concerned. I've experienced this when autoxing my Miata which has a 6spd. It tops out around 58 in 2nd gear whereas the 5spd get to 63-64. This makes a lot of difference in autox performance. Just a thought...
:D |
everyone makes mistakes...
|
My front drive 03 Accord has 240 CHP. it dynoed at 195 WHP as well as everyone elses. it also has a 22% drivetrain loss. The S2000 is rear wheel drive and therefore loses more drivetrain energy due to its longer travel to the rear wheels, I think drive train loss is going to be much greater than 8 or 9 % and if so expect the Crank H.P. to be much greater than 250.
|
Re: Just one little thing...
Originally posted by TybeeRX-8 While the S2K might be, (well is), up on hp compared to the 8, one thing got messed up that will hurt it in autox. Previously, the S2K would get up to around 65 in 2nd gear. The '04 tops out at 58 in 2nd gear (due to lower redline and gearing changes) necessitating an earlier shift with a commensurate loss in torque. This is reported in the latest issue of Grassroots Motorsports. The RX-8 6spd will run up to 67-68 in 2nd giving it a little advantage as far as autox is concerned. I've experienced this when autoxing my Miata which has a 6spd. It tops out around 58 in 2nd gear whereas the 5spd get to 63-64. This makes a lot of difference in autox performance. Just a thought... :D Hmmmm I didn't realize, that might be a big deal. It will be interesting to see how the 04 S2Ks do next season. It's kind of sad how much 2nd gear makes or breaks a car in autox, it's always been my biggest gripe. |
2nd gear isn't the end of the world. You just have to be good at shifting on an autocross course. It can be done, but it's something most autocrossers aren't used to doing.
Bottom line, the good drivers in the 04 S2000s will shift to third when needed and won't lose much if at all to the cars with the longer 2nd gear. IMHO.... :D |
Originally posted by JimW My front drive 03 Accord has 240 CHP. it dynoed at 195 WHP as well as everyone elses. it also has a 22% drivetrain loss. The S2000 is rear wheel drive and therefore loses more drivetrain energy due to its longer travel to the rear wheels, I think drive train loss is going to be much greater than 8 or 9 % and if so expect the Crank H.P. to be much greater than 250. |
Anything not in the teens is a bit high for front or RWD if I'm not mistaken. I believe 17% is pretty standard for RWD...
|
Originally posted by IkeWRX Anything not in the teens is a bit high for front or RWD if I'm not mistaken. I believe 17% is pretty standard for RWD... |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands