oh no... Honda misrates the power on 2004 s2000
11-09-2003, 09:42 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The new s2000 is at about 220whp stock.
11-09-2003, 10:49 PM
#3
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Ike
Last edited by IkeWRX; 11-09-2003 at 11:04 PM.
11-10-2003, 12:50 AM
#6
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlueOakleyz
yeah but it'll still never look as good as the RX-8 haha
yeah but it'll still never look as good as the RX-8 haha
11-10-2003, 02:00 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I think the Honda looks as good if not better than the RX-8. And with 220RWHP is probably the faster car now.
11-10-2003, 04:14 AM
#9
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?!
11-10-2003, 04:35 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
Are'nt the s2k and RX-8 evenly matched? Now even the older s2k is faster than the RX8?!
11-10-2003, 04:54 AM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11-10-2003, 05:49 AM
#12
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
11-10-2003, 12:04 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
11-10-2003, 01:04 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11-10-2003, 03:26 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You just can't quantify a car's overall speed with a number or two.
11-11-2003, 10:32 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by zthang; 11-11-2003 at 10:36 AM.
11-11-2003, 09:06 PM
#17
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.
11-14-2003, 11:11 PM
#18
no pistons!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11-16-2003, 10:20 PM
#20
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
11-24-2003, 09:48 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
12-29-2003, 08:18 PM
#22
Registered
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
12-29-2003, 09:27 PM
#23
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Kingstown, RI
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
12-30-2003, 01:00 AM
#24
rx-8 converted 2 evo.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: california
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
12-30-2003, 07:39 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.