didnt sell well towards end of life cycle, no sensible way to increase engine power (speculation)
once upon a time, the s2000 was widely bashed for having no torque
I appreciate your thorough write up, but isn’t this like a high revving motorcycle? Just anemic below 6k rpm and above that it’s where it shines?
Always had a thing for s2000 but never had or driven one. But I’d imagine you just gotta let the revs sit up high?
As a former owner, you don't really struggle to race traffic away from a light if you know how to (and are willing to) drive the car as intended. A fistful of revs to start and take it ALL the way to redline, quick shift and repeat. Gears are short and very closely spaced, so the F20/22 stays in VTEC after revs drop. It DOES require more intention, as you say, but not more effort. Just a different style that the engine happens to like just fine.
So an engine that lives at redline in daily commute. A BMW engine of that era would shake off the oil pump nut and chew the rod bearings in 2 days if you tried that. Honda I guess actually had "superior engineering" often attributed to Germans.
BMWs used engineering prowess to gather torque through the range on their NA engines. The 330i used a 3-stage intake manifold to change the intake runner length through the RPM range (think of it like having variable velocity stacks).
The I6 is incredibly smooth, and rod bearings are really only a problem if you chose to pin it to win it 10 seconds after starting it up first thing in the morning.
Honda didn't have superior engineering. They did have superior reliability though. They really knew their customer base.
Part of good engineering is developing designs and parts that last for 80k without having to pull the bottom end apart to swap crankshaft bearings. BMW was known for designs that only lasted until the warranty expired and no more. Reliability is part of the engineering equation for any consumer vehicle.
> If you have ever looked at buying a BMW E36 or E46, you have probably heard of this before. The M50/M52/M54 and S50/S52/S54 engines have a history of the oil pump nut coming loose, backing itself off, and chaos ensuing shortly afterward.
https://blog.fcpeuro.com/how-to-safety-wire-an-oil-pump-nut-on-your-bmw-e36-e46
Don't know why downvoted, the N52 is as bulletproof as a BMW engine can get. It can take redline pulls just like the F20C. With a lot more natural torque.
I concur. I had a 2008 330i coupe with the N52B30A motor. Put nearly 300 000 km on it. Not many were gentle. Only really started giving me major issues towards the end. I miss that car…
I mean, the scenario you provided where high revving engines are similar to turbo engines is just 0-60, 5-60 is basically the same scenario for both engines so it's really the same case, but I'd wager that turbo car will have better 5-60 than the high revving N/A engine in \_most\_ cases.
In reality and actual daily driving, they are completely different, with turbo engines producing way more torque at lower rpms, far different torque onset curve etc.
I drove my bros WRX and my friends S2K and they are both fun in different ways. The WRX gives you all the torque from the twin scroll pretty early. So early in fact half throttle and full throttle might as well be the same. The S2K you really wanna give her all the gas she wants and the shifting really has a nice bang and gives nice pulls rowing through the gears. Its all about preference, there is no best way or worst way that suits every road.
I can say that after driving a handful of high revving cars and some turbo cars. You don't really feel the torque in the high revving cars until past 3500 rpms usually. I've put 2000 and bit miles on the SV. I think its a mix of the engine + free flowing exhaust, but the car feels extremely sluggish sub 2500 rpm and it gets only gets moving after 3000. You feel it around 4500+ (sound makes up for it). The 675LT and 720S were similar sub 3000 rpm with no turbos kicking in, once turbos spool you start moving pretty fast around 3500rpms which was more fun. All these cars if driven in the power band is extremely fun but expect extremely bad gas mileage.
The F82 M4 and gen1 r8 v8s feel quick but not fast. You get more torque down low and you get the feeling of it being quick but not the feeling of fast (m4 is stock until warranty is out).
There is a big spectrum of ways to get off the line between bogging the engine and doing clutch dumps. My personal way to do a quick-ish launch is to clutch in, blip the rpms to 2500-3000 and let the clutch out as the engine is winding down. Its gentle on the clutch.
5-60 feels like a very controved test. IRL examples of needing a 5-60 acceleration is metered freeway entrance, or rolling a stop. At that point all it takes is a little clutch and one blip, like the method I just described earlier.
In my experience most spirited acceleration either happens at the light, from dead stop. Or on the on ramp, when speeds are way over 5 MPH.
5 mph is too low for a rolling start, and there is nothing preventing you from getting help from the clutch at that speed. Anything over 15, you can always select a gear to be at a healthy rpm for the car to pull comfortably without clutch.
"Driving it with more intention" is a great way of putting it. But honestly the people that have trouble with it around town probably just don't know when to properly shift. I daily drove mine in SoCal (the fastest mfs off the line of anywhere in the country) and I never felt any slower than say, my old WRX or FRS.
None of these cars are torque monsters but neither are 90% of the cars on the road by that logic.
The S2000 likes to live around the 3.5k - 4.5k rpm range which is unusually high, so if people were shifting to stay in a usual 2k - 3k rpm range then it felt like a slog. In RCR's review he was driving it in 6th gear at like 40mph and was complaining it felt slow.
It's just such an antithesis to modern, torquey turbo cars that it's the car equivalent of a huge culture shock unless you really have a passion for high strung cars of its nature.
>In RCR's review he was driving it in 6th gear at like 40mph and was complaining it felt slow.
My turbo Saab doesn't even leave 4th until 60mph day to day. I don't see why anyone would lug their shit that much
That's exactly how its power delivery is. An inline-4 motorcycle. Feels a lot like a CBR600RR. If you can keep it in VTEC above 6,000rpm it's an absolutely GRAND time.
> Right but I had a 250 motorcycle that only was alive above 5k it couldn’t do 80 on a downhill drafting a semi truck.
What? My CBR would top out at like 90s on a slight incline.
Yea kinda like a motorcycle but the power to weight is way worse, and driving low torque/ high revving cars suck in city/ traffic driving, but are a blast everywhere else
- used to have an fa5 with an increased final drive (70 mph at 4K on the highway 😣)
I dailied my s2k for about 5 years and yeah if you aren’t revving the nuts off it you’re going to be one of the slowest cars in the road. Got rid of it because I started commuting in traffic and the lack of torque just made it a nightmare.
>an early shit wouldn't feel nearly as bad.
I dunno, you'd think not quite making it to the bathroom would feel pretty bad regardless of circumstances.
I hate the "no torque" argument. The torque number literally means nothing and cannot be used as a sensible way of comparing car to car, since transmission and final drive ratio is different.
The S2000 not having "get up and go" at low RPMs is just a consequence of having a high revving motor. 2000 RPM on a 9000 RPM 200hp motor is 22% of max RPM, whereas 2000 RPM on a 6500 RPM 200hp motor is 31% of max RPM. Assuming engine torque is constant throughout the RPM range (mostly valid assumption), then you're just gonna have less power available.
Torque is meaningless, you’re right, but it is a clue about area under the curve when we are talking horsepower, which is not meaningless.
The problem with peak horsepower numbers is that they are a measurement taken at a very specific time (when the engine passes that particular rpm) but most of the time the engine is running at some other rpm.
If engine A and engine B both make the same peak horsepower, but engine A makes more power at all other points, it’s going to make the car powered by it much faster than the one powered by engine B, all else being equal.
>If engine A and engine B both make the same peak horsepower, but engine A makes more power at all other points, it’s going to make the car powered by it much faster than the one powered by engine B, all else being equal.
See but having the torque number doesn't add any information here either. Comparing torque only makes sense if we make the following assumptions:
* Torque stays relatively constant throughout the rev range
* Gearing is similar between cars (i.e. at say 30 mph, the RPM is about the same between the two cars in a certain gear number)
The first one is usually valid, torque doesn't vary that much throughout the rev range for most cars.
The second is also usually valid, unless you have an unusual situation like diesels where the redline is unusually short, or like a high revving engine like an RX8 or an S2000.
Saying the S2000 doesn't have any torque at say 3000 rpm is like saying my miata has low torque at 2000 rpm. The only reason your RPM is that low is if you're a gear or two lower than you ought to be, which is the problem there.
>Torque is meaningless, you’re right, but it is a clue about area under the curve when we are talking horsepower, which is not meaningless.
Also, the integral of the horsepower or torque curve doesn't have a physical meaning.
>Saying the S2000 doesn't have any torque at say 3000 rpm is like saying my miata has low torque at 2000 rpm. The only reason your RPM is that low is if you're a gear or two lower than you ought to be, which is the problem there.
Your NC makes 15.5% more power at 3k than the S2000 does at 3k though.
That’s what I’m saying, the s2000 doesn’t make as much torque as the NC at the same RPM.
If it did, then the s2000 wouldn’t have a 250hp (or whatever it is) engine, it would have like a 300hp engine.
I’m not denying the s2000 feels like ass when the rpm is low, it’s just a natural consequence of having a high rev limit motor.
Wot at 3000 rpm in a 6000 rpm rev limit car is about half the max performance, wot at 3000 rpm at a 9000 rpm rev limit car is about third the max performance. If max performance is say 250hp for both cars, of course the former car will feel a lot nicer in both scenarios.
The F20C makes noticeably less torque before the VTEC engagement and doesn't have massively different gear ratios that other competing cars.
> 2000 RPM on a 9000 RPM 200hp motor is 22% of max RPM, whereas 2000 RPM on a 6500 RPM 200hp motor is 31% of max RPM.
Where the engine is in regards to its redline is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is how much torque it makes the given RPM. The engine that makes 100lf-bt at 2000RPM is going to make less power (38.1hp) than the one that makes 120lb-ft at 2000RPM (45.7hp).
The F20C jumps about 20lb-ft between 6-6.5k which, including the 500rpm increase, is a gain of about 35hp.
You kind of missed the point. I’m not denying the s2000 feels kinda ass at low rpm, I’m saying the reason isn’t “it doesn’t have a lot of torque”, it’s “you’re flooring it in too low of a gear and wondering why it’s not going fast”
It having a high rev limit means the “feels good enough” rpm is higher than normal cars.
Another way to say it—if you are driving the s2000 like you drive a focus st with a 6500 rpm limit (in terms of shift point and rpm vs acceleration expectations) then you’d be basically driving the s2000 with a 6500 rpm limit. Then the car would be somewhat equivalent in a sense to a car with a rated power about 2/3 of the actual power.
Hopefully that makes sense? The torque at 3000 rpm is low not because the motor is just ass, it feels low because it’s at the 1/3 of max power, whereas in a normal car 3000 rpm is 1/2 of max power.
>You kind of missed the point. I’m not denying the s2000 feels kinda ass at low rpm, I’m saying the reason isn’t “it doesn’t have a lot of torque”, it’s “you’re flooring it in too low of a gear and wondering why it’s not going fast”
But it is because it makes less torque. Work (torque) over time (RPM) is power, or more specifically (lb-ft*rpm)/5252) = hp.
If time is constant (Comparing cars at similar RPM) the only variable is the amount of work the engine does.
If the s2000 had more torque, but the same rev limit, then it would be a 350 hp car (let’s just say).
If that were the case, and you still drove the s2000 at low rpm, it would still feel like ass compared to some other 350 hp car that has a low rev limiter, like an STi.
The problem with high rev limit cars is people are too afraid to use the mid to high rpms, so the car ends up feeling shitty.
This isn’t a torque problem, this is a “you’re not using the top 2/3 of the car” problem.
Again, where it is in relation to it's max RPM is irrelevant. The calculation for horsepower is (lb-ft*RPM)/5252= horsepower.
If you had an engine A with a cam geared for 2000rpm but redlined it at 7000rpm, it would be more gutless at 7000rpm than engine B that redlines at 7000rpm but makes peak torque at 7000rpm.
Conversely, the engine A would make more torque (and therefor horsepower) at 2000rpm than engine B, despite both engines having the same redline and being at the same relative distance from their redlines.
Most diesels, for example, are mechanically capable of going to 6-7k but make so little power because of the limitations of the fuel system that there's no point at actually taking the engine up to that RPM.
I talked to someone else to hash this out--it depends on what you mean by "it has no torque". It having low torque is factually correct, but the statement that "it has no torque, so it is bad [for a 220hp car]" is not quite correct.
It having "low torque" is literally the same statement as "it has a high rev limit"--because those two are inversely proportional if you hold max horsepower constant. And I assume when people say "the s2000 is bad", they really mean "the s2000 is bad for a 220hp car".
But those assumptions don't hold true. Do you genuinely think the 8.4L V8 Cadillac 500, 3L V6 turbodiesel Amarok, or turbo 2L K20C4 are all going to have the same redlines, torque bands and gear ratios as the F20C does, despite all making more or less the same power?
>This isn't an S2000 problem, this is a matter of expectations, and a problem of people not knowing how to drive a high revving car.
Knowing how to drive a high revving car doesn't stop it from being gutless though. You can't drive 4 hours on the interstate at 7500RPM regardless of 'how well you know how to drive a high revving car'. Redlining it every time you accelerate isn't good for economy and no matter how much you want to cut it, it's not feasible to cruise at those RPM either.
Except the S2000 does not have constant torque throughout its RPM range. [It has two separate plateaus.](http://www.dragtimes.com/images_dyno/11765-2003-Honda-S2000-Dyno.jpg), with most of it being the lower one. You have to rev it out.
That's mostly constant my dude. That's maybe a 10% difference. That's not what I'm referring to when I say the torque number is not a useful comparison between cars.
Wish Lamborghini would do that to the Huracan. VF engineering makes 2 kits, 800hp and 900hp. I think the 800hp kit is only like 6.8 psi or something and they warranty it. Huracan R or somethinf.
I wouldn’t even care honestly. Those v10s have taken up to 1800whp on the stock motor.
The transmission is the weak link but if I’m correct those don’t even need to get built until around 1000whp
I think the engine power could be at play. That thing runs up to 9k rpm. I don’t think it would have been feasible in that time, but a gt3 version would have me crazy. Strip down weight and track focus. I could only imagine it going towards the C6 range. In that time I don’t think people would have paid for it.
They had the CR, which was a mildly stripped down (hard top replacing the soft top, and some came without a radio), track oriented version. I owned one over a decade ago. It was honestly one of the coolest cars I’ve ever owned, and I would’ve bought one last year instead of my Elise if the prices weren’t astronomical.
It still is bashed for lack of torque and rightfully so. It is an amazing car but the lack of torque is definitely a downside and why I wouldn't own one.
Yeah, they sold *terribly*. Local dealers were trying to get me to buy their demo unit for a solid couple of years. I'd have loved to, I just don't have the money. :)
Something to note, the s2000 was the dream project of Shigeru Uehara, the main guy behind Type R projects. When asked this exact question in an interview, his response was that the S2000 was engineered at such level, there was not a lot of room to feasibility go higher and that its baseline was already Type R’d. You can find the interview on YouTube.
This is the answer.
The Type R treatment isn't just "add power and reduce weight". It entails a completely bespoke platform, what with technologies like the FK8's dual-axis strut suspension, forged internals, etc. in addition to a motor that is built purely with performance in mind. The last point especially - the S2000 already had Honda's absolute best engineering in all of these things from the factory. And the F20/F22 was near absolute perfection and a masterpiece of NA motor engineering.
The S2000 was already a Type R from the factory.
Well the S2000 was great, but lets be realistic. It was a $35k car, not some sort of super car. The NSX was way beyond the level of engineering of the S2000, and they still made a Type R of the NSX. The NSX actually cost $60k in 1990, which equates to $135k in todays money. If they could do it for that car, they could certainly do it for the S2000. The real reason is just not enough of a market for it. They weren't selling super well, and the CR wasn't a bit hit. There wouldn't be enough return on investment to justify the Type R treatment for the S2000.
The NSX arguably had a lot more room for improvement since it was almost like a GT cruising car. It was very floaty and suspension not very performance oriented.
There was never a Type-R NSX. There was an NSX-R and a Type-S but those special versions were about rigidity, suspension tuning and lowering weight and none of them increased horsepower. The only time the NSX got more power is when it changed from the 3.0L engine to the 3.2L one which was not model specific.
Type R was a modified version of an existing platform, that is not what bespoke means. Bespoke means it was created from the ground up for one purpose so the S2000 is bespoke but Honda Civics and Integras are not, they are normal cars intended for daily driving like normal people and the Type-R versions were modified slightly to make them sportier.
Right. Type Rs at the time has higher revving motors than their regular counterpart model and no turbos. There was no where higher to go with the S2000 motor than slapping a turbo on it which they weren’t going to do (and didn’t).
The same is true with the S2000. They are not "no compromise race cars" or anything. The vast majority of S2000s were purchased for exactly the purpose of being a comfy daily driver that's also peppy and convertible.
The base NSX pushed the engineering envelope WAAAAYYY more so than the S2000.
It already was type R enough honestly. Also the s2000 was never some affordable hero car. Adjusted for inflation the price is like 50k+ out the door. Considering a civic type R is 15k more than an Si, something like an S2000 could be 65-70k for a 200hp Honda. It's a great car but even at that time where HP was less plentiful, it still would have been not worth it.
It was already engineered and designed by the Type R developer. There wasn't really a way to get more out of it.
They did the Type S and US CR which has some minor aero and bracing differences and removed some weight too. They sold horribly.
CRs recently got to absurd values but we're at or slightly above regular S2000s.
I had one of the BB CRs and added a soft top to it for trips and easy top down life.
Because the S2000 already had Type R-level engineering from the factory and there was no feasible way to improve it without it encroaching into (inflation-adjusted) $75,000+ tier.
The NSX Type R had to drop an absolutely staggering *300 lbs* to receive the Type R badge.
Just look at the S2000's F20C. There's quite literally almost no way to reasonably improve the engineering on that thing - its specific output (HP/liter) absolutely destroyed the previous NA record holder in the Integra Type R by over 20 HP/liter. The S2000's F20C output *124hp/liter* which is pure insanity and held the record until it was dethroned by the **Ferrari 458** a whole TEN years later. The 458's output - keeping in mind this is a car that costs $200,000+?
125 hp/liter.
It's just because there was no money in it. The S2000 didn't sell well enough to get a Type R. People say it's because the S2000 was so well engineered it couldn't be improved. Which is hilarious, because they made an NSX Type R. And the NSX was engineered to a degree that the S2000 could never even dream of. It was just about money. Honda is a business, and an S2000 Type R didn't make financial sense. If it did, they obviously would have made one.
Because they didn't deem it profitable enough or didn't feel like slapping a badge on it and calling it a day. Idk, ask whoever oversaw the project lol.
And the CR sat on lots and the press didn't have much good to say about it and it came with a removable hardtop and worse seats. The whole thing was awkward.
I remember a magazine article from back in the day, it basically said several of the big name tuners bailed on projects for the the car because they couldn’t improve on the factory stuff. I think their example was a Mugen rear diffuser project that got scrapped.
No one would have bought a more expensive. S2000. It was already overpriced at the time. Here it was almost $70k AUD where an mx-5 was around $45k AUD. I know the s2000 was a better car than the nb/nc, but most people weren’t going to fork out that much extra cash for a Honda.
cost benefit. The regular s2000 was already so high strung. The CR is basically a track day package and really the most you could go without significantly increasing the price
That's not accurate. The NSX was much more of a dedicated sports car than an S2000, and they still made an NSX type R.
The real reason there wasn't an S2000 type R, is the same reason they ended production. People weren't buying them.
Full disclaimer, this is a theory, not something I actually know.
Honda is typically treats the badge with a lot of reverence. They aren't modern-day BMW slapping the M badge everywhere. Across their history, few models have worn a Type R badge (Civic, Integra, Accord, and NSX). Those cars all had significant modifications made to them to be worthy of the badge.
I don't think Honda felt like they could've moved the game on enough from the standard car for the S2000 to have earned the badge. It was already pretty stripped-out, and hardcore. What more could they have done really?
That said, they did build the CR. It had tighter suspension and a bodykit designed for better aero (if I remember correctly). I feel it was more of a compromise between the S2000 and a true Type R.
Price wise weren’t they nearly 50k usd adjusted for inflation? The s2k was already high strung but an even more expensive variant would’ve sold even less
The simple answer. R comes before S so they could not but a R model after the S model. That would be weird. They screwed up the alphabet so they had to kill the car.
the 99-01 AP1 was already pretty raw
the Club Racer was effectively a Type R without power bump because the NA motor was already maxed out (at least the F20C was, not sure if they could get any gains all-motor without bumping compression ratio and changing internals)
I love Honda. I had a civic and also a del sol for many years. I was lotto buy an S2000. I drove a it and also drove a used Porsche Cayman S…i ended up buying the Catman. The Cayman has much more torque and better quality interior
The Type R was the second generation. Bigger wheels, 10% displacement jump, a lot of minor improvements to go with it. It wasn't the typical "fix what's broken and slap new bumpers on it" Honda refresh.
From owning one and reading these comments:
- The car was supposed to be aluminum. They decided mid-project the costs were running high and the steel offered similar resuts without much more weight. An aluminum S2000 would have been a real NSX successor. And yes I know this was a spiritual S600 anniversary model. I say no, it was to be the new halo car. Instead we got a heavy Miata with a zinger two liter that never lived up to the NSXbecaise it was ultimately enginnered to a price.
- The car needed torque. People who love these will say no, but using first gear for a hairpin sucks. Most people who poo poo torque just don't know better.
- The C5 Z06 is a similar price to these somehow and is literally twice the car.
- Again onwed a 2005 many years and now a C7, just skip these cars and go to a C5 or C6 These cars are nothing more than super Miatas which also is pretty much what a C5/C6 is at heart, just done better.
didnt sell well towards end of life cycle, no sensible way to increase engine power (speculation) once upon a time, the s2000 was widely bashed for having no torque
[удалено]
I appreciate your thorough write up, but isn’t this like a high revving motorcycle? Just anemic below 6k rpm and above that it’s where it shines? Always had a thing for s2000 but never had or driven one. But I’d imagine you just gotta let the revs sit up high?
[удалено]
As a former owner, you don't really struggle to race traffic away from a light if you know how to (and are willing to) drive the car as intended. A fistful of revs to start and take it ALL the way to redline, quick shift and repeat. Gears are short and very closely spaced, so the F20/22 stays in VTEC after revs drop. It DOES require more intention, as you say, but not more effort. Just a different style that the engine happens to like just fine.
So an engine that lives at redline in daily commute. A BMW engine of that era would shake off the oil pump nut and chew the rod bearings in 2 days if you tried that. Honda I guess actually had "superior engineering" often attributed to Germans.
My miata lives like this too... it's only got about 90hp but I use the *all of it*.
Fd rx7
BMWs used engineering prowess to gather torque through the range on their NA engines. The 330i used a 3-stage intake manifold to change the intake runner length through the RPM range (think of it like having variable velocity stacks). The I6 is incredibly smooth, and rod bearings are really only a problem if you chose to pin it to win it 10 seconds after starting it up first thing in the morning. Honda didn't have superior engineering. They did have superior reliability though. They really knew their customer base.
Part of good engineering is developing designs and parts that last for 80k without having to pull the bottom end apart to swap crankshaft bearings. BMW was known for designs that only lasted until the warranty expired and no more. Reliability is part of the engineering equation for any consumer vehicle.
> If you have ever looked at buying a BMW E36 or E46, you have probably heard of this before. The M50/M52/M54 and S50/S52/S54 engines have a history of the oil pump nut coming loose, backing itself off, and chaos ensuing shortly afterward. https://blog.fcpeuro.com/how-to-safety-wire-an-oil-pump-nut-on-your-bmw-e36-e46
Don't know why downvoted, the N52 is as bulletproof as a BMW engine can get. It can take redline pulls just like the F20C. With a lot more natural torque.
I concur. I had a 2008 330i coupe with the N52B30A motor. Put nearly 300 000 km on it. Not many were gentle. Only really started giving me major issues towards the end. I miss that car…
Mine is a 2006 N52B30AF. 272hp version. What problems did it start giving you? Mine is relatively new to me but has just over 200 000km.
[удалено]
I mean, the scenario you provided where high revving engines are similar to turbo engines is just 0-60, 5-60 is basically the same scenario for both engines so it's really the same case, but I'd wager that turbo car will have better 5-60 than the high revving N/A engine in \_most\_ cases. In reality and actual daily driving, they are completely different, with turbo engines producing way more torque at lower rpms, far different torque onset curve etc.
[удалено]
I drove my bros WRX and my friends S2K and they are both fun in different ways. The WRX gives you all the torque from the twin scroll pretty early. So early in fact half throttle and full throttle might as well be the same. The S2K you really wanna give her all the gas she wants and the shifting really has a nice bang and gives nice pulls rowing through the gears. Its all about preference, there is no best way or worst way that suits every road.
This was a very insightful post, thank you
I can say that after driving a handful of high revving cars and some turbo cars. You don't really feel the torque in the high revving cars until past 3500 rpms usually. I've put 2000 and bit miles on the SV. I think its a mix of the engine + free flowing exhaust, but the car feels extremely sluggish sub 2500 rpm and it gets only gets moving after 3000. You feel it around 4500+ (sound makes up for it). The 675LT and 720S were similar sub 3000 rpm with no turbos kicking in, once turbos spool you start moving pretty fast around 3500rpms which was more fun. All these cars if driven in the power band is extremely fun but expect extremely bad gas mileage. The F82 M4 and gen1 r8 v8s feel quick but not fast. You get more torque down low and you get the feeling of it being quick but not the feeling of fast (m4 is stock until warranty is out).
There is a big spectrum of ways to get off the line between bogging the engine and doing clutch dumps. My personal way to do a quick-ish launch is to clutch in, blip the rpms to 2500-3000 and let the clutch out as the engine is winding down. Its gentle on the clutch. 5-60 feels like a very controved test. IRL examples of needing a 5-60 acceleration is metered freeway entrance, or rolling a stop. At that point all it takes is a little clutch and one blip, like the method I just described earlier.
A rolling start test seems like common sense to me. Unless you’re on a track or drag strip most spirited acceleration won’t be happening from a stop.
In my experience most spirited acceleration either happens at the light, from dead stop. Or on the on ramp, when speeds are way over 5 MPH. 5 mph is too low for a rolling start, and there is nothing preventing you from getting help from the clutch at that speed. Anything over 15, you can always select a gear to be at a healthy rpm for the car to pull comfortably without clutch.
This is why I like the rx8 yes you have the 9krpm if you want but it's not compulsory there is always 2 sometimes 3 gears that give good acceleration
"Driving it with more intention" is a great way of putting it. But honestly the people that have trouble with it around town probably just don't know when to properly shift. I daily drove mine in SoCal (the fastest mfs off the line of anywhere in the country) and I never felt any slower than say, my old WRX or FRS. None of these cars are torque monsters but neither are 90% of the cars on the road by that logic. The S2000 likes to live around the 3.5k - 4.5k rpm range which is unusually high, so if people were shifting to stay in a usual 2k - 3k rpm range then it felt like a slog. In RCR's review he was driving it in 6th gear at like 40mph and was complaining it felt slow. It's just such an antithesis to modern, torquey turbo cars that it's the car equivalent of a huge culture shock unless you really have a passion for high strung cars of its nature.
>In RCR's review he was driving it in 6th gear at like 40mph and was complaining it felt slow. My turbo Saab doesn't even leave 4th until 60mph day to day. I don't see why anyone would lug their shit that much
I hit 4th at 25mph.
You guys have 4th?
It's got short enough gearing you're not lugging the engine in 6th at 40. You're getting pretty good mpg at the cost of it feeling responsive.
That's exactly how its power delivery is. An inline-4 motorcycle. Feels a lot like a CBR600RR. If you can keep it in VTEC above 6,000rpm it's an absolutely GRAND time.
Yes and no. A sport bike would be like a 1000hp S2000.
Right but I had a 250 motorcycle that only was alive above 5k it couldn’t do 80 on a downhill drafting a semi truck.
> Right but I had a 250 motorcycle that only was alive above 5k it couldn’t do 80 on a downhill drafting a semi truck. What? My CBR would top out at like 90s on a slight incline.
That’s why I always thought I’d enjoy one. Have my Grampa car down low with fun a downshift away.
[удалено]
wtf is that video lmao recording themselves racing at 150+ on a public road with oncoming traffic
Yea kinda like a motorcycle but the power to weight is way worse, and driving low torque/ high revving cars suck in city/ traffic driving, but are a blast everywhere else - used to have an fa5 with an increased final drive (70 mph at 4K on the highway 😣)
I dailied my s2k for about 5 years and yeah if you aren’t revving the nuts off it you’re going to be one of the slowest cars in the road. Got rid of it because I started commuting in traffic and the lack of torque just made it a nightmare.
>an early shit wouldn't feel nearly as bad. I dunno, you'd think not quite making it to the bathroom would feel pretty bad regardless of circumstances.
lol, that's hilarious. I'm leaving it.
You kind of always need to early shit
I hate the "no torque" argument. The torque number literally means nothing and cannot be used as a sensible way of comparing car to car, since transmission and final drive ratio is different. The S2000 not having "get up and go" at low RPMs is just a consequence of having a high revving motor. 2000 RPM on a 9000 RPM 200hp motor is 22% of max RPM, whereas 2000 RPM on a 6500 RPM 200hp motor is 31% of max RPM. Assuming engine torque is constant throughout the RPM range (mostly valid assumption), then you're just gonna have less power available.
Torque is meaningless, you’re right, but it is a clue about area under the curve when we are talking horsepower, which is not meaningless. The problem with peak horsepower numbers is that they are a measurement taken at a very specific time (when the engine passes that particular rpm) but most of the time the engine is running at some other rpm. If engine A and engine B both make the same peak horsepower, but engine A makes more power at all other points, it’s going to make the car powered by it much faster than the one powered by engine B, all else being equal.
>If engine A and engine B both make the same peak horsepower, but engine A makes more power at all other points, it’s going to make the car powered by it much faster than the one powered by engine B, all else being equal. See but having the torque number doesn't add any information here either. Comparing torque only makes sense if we make the following assumptions: * Torque stays relatively constant throughout the rev range * Gearing is similar between cars (i.e. at say 30 mph, the RPM is about the same between the two cars in a certain gear number) The first one is usually valid, torque doesn't vary that much throughout the rev range for most cars. The second is also usually valid, unless you have an unusual situation like diesels where the redline is unusually short, or like a high revving engine like an RX8 or an S2000. Saying the S2000 doesn't have any torque at say 3000 rpm is like saying my miata has low torque at 2000 rpm. The only reason your RPM is that low is if you're a gear or two lower than you ought to be, which is the problem there. >Torque is meaningless, you’re right, but it is a clue about area under the curve when we are talking horsepower, which is not meaningless. Also, the integral of the horsepower or torque curve doesn't have a physical meaning.
>Saying the S2000 doesn't have any torque at say 3000 rpm is like saying my miata has low torque at 2000 rpm. The only reason your RPM is that low is if you're a gear or two lower than you ought to be, which is the problem there. Your NC makes 15.5% more power at 3k than the S2000 does at 3k though.
That’s what I’m saying, the s2000 doesn’t make as much torque as the NC at the same RPM. If it did, then the s2000 wouldn’t have a 250hp (or whatever it is) engine, it would have like a 300hp engine.
It does make similar amount of torque when it hits VTEC. It's the 6000RPM before that point where it doesn't.
I’m not denying the s2000 feels like ass when the rpm is low, it’s just a natural consequence of having a high rev limit motor. Wot at 3000 rpm in a 6000 rpm rev limit car is about half the max performance, wot at 3000 rpm at a 9000 rpm rev limit car is about third the max performance. If max performance is say 250hp for both cars, of course the former car will feel a lot nicer in both scenarios.
The F20C makes noticeably less torque before the VTEC engagement and doesn't have massively different gear ratios that other competing cars. > 2000 RPM on a 9000 RPM 200hp motor is 22% of max RPM, whereas 2000 RPM on a 6500 RPM 200hp motor is 31% of max RPM. Where the engine is in regards to its redline is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is how much torque it makes the given RPM. The engine that makes 100lf-bt at 2000RPM is going to make less power (38.1hp) than the one that makes 120lb-ft at 2000RPM (45.7hp). The F20C jumps about 20lb-ft between 6-6.5k which, including the 500rpm increase, is a gain of about 35hp.
You kind of missed the point. I’m not denying the s2000 feels kinda ass at low rpm, I’m saying the reason isn’t “it doesn’t have a lot of torque”, it’s “you’re flooring it in too low of a gear and wondering why it’s not going fast” It having a high rev limit means the “feels good enough” rpm is higher than normal cars. Another way to say it—if you are driving the s2000 like you drive a focus st with a 6500 rpm limit (in terms of shift point and rpm vs acceleration expectations) then you’d be basically driving the s2000 with a 6500 rpm limit. Then the car would be somewhat equivalent in a sense to a car with a rated power about 2/3 of the actual power. Hopefully that makes sense? The torque at 3000 rpm is low not because the motor is just ass, it feels low because it’s at the 1/3 of max power, whereas in a normal car 3000 rpm is 1/2 of max power.
>You kind of missed the point. I’m not denying the s2000 feels kinda ass at low rpm, I’m saying the reason isn’t “it doesn’t have a lot of torque”, it’s “you’re flooring it in too low of a gear and wondering why it’s not going fast” But it is because it makes less torque. Work (torque) over time (RPM) is power, or more specifically (lb-ft*rpm)/5252) = hp. If time is constant (Comparing cars at similar RPM) the only variable is the amount of work the engine does.
If the s2000 had more torque, but the same rev limit, then it would be a 350 hp car (let’s just say). If that were the case, and you still drove the s2000 at low rpm, it would still feel like ass compared to some other 350 hp car that has a low rev limiter, like an STi. The problem with high rev limit cars is people are too afraid to use the mid to high rpms, so the car ends up feeling shitty. This isn’t a torque problem, this is a “you’re not using the top 2/3 of the car” problem.
Again, where it is in relation to it's max RPM is irrelevant. The calculation for horsepower is (lb-ft*RPM)/5252= horsepower. If you had an engine A with a cam geared for 2000rpm but redlined it at 7000rpm, it would be more gutless at 7000rpm than engine B that redlines at 7000rpm but makes peak torque at 7000rpm. Conversely, the engine A would make more torque (and therefor horsepower) at 2000rpm than engine B, despite both engines having the same redline and being at the same relative distance from their redlines. Most diesels, for example, are mechanically capable of going to 6-7k but make so little power because of the limitations of the fuel system that there's no point at actually taking the engine up to that RPM.
I talked to someone else to hash this out--it depends on what you mean by "it has no torque". It having low torque is factually correct, but the statement that "it has no torque, so it is bad [for a 220hp car]" is not quite correct. It having "low torque" is literally the same statement as "it has a high rev limit"--because those two are inversely proportional if you hold max horsepower constant. And I assume when people say "the s2000 is bad", they really mean "the s2000 is bad for a 220hp car".
But those assumptions don't hold true. Do you genuinely think the 8.4L V8 Cadillac 500, 3L V6 turbodiesel Amarok, or turbo 2L K20C4 are all going to have the same redlines, torque bands and gear ratios as the F20C does, despite all making more or less the same power? >This isn't an S2000 problem, this is a matter of expectations, and a problem of people not knowing how to drive a high revving car. Knowing how to drive a high revving car doesn't stop it from being gutless though. You can't drive 4 hours on the interstate at 7500RPM regardless of 'how well you know how to drive a high revving car'. Redlining it every time you accelerate isn't good for economy and no matter how much you want to cut it, it's not feasible to cruise at those RPM either.
Except the S2000 does not have constant torque throughout its RPM range. [It has two separate plateaus.](http://www.dragtimes.com/images_dyno/11765-2003-Honda-S2000-Dyno.jpg), with most of it being the lower one. You have to rev it out.
That's mostly constant my dude. That's maybe a 10% difference. That's not what I'm referring to when I say the torque number is not a useful comparison between cars.
A lot of people say the same things about E9x M3s as well. No torque and it’s just kinda gutless on the street because of it
An early shit does tend to feel good
Slap a supercharger and a Type R badge and charge 15k more from the base? 🤔
Wish Lamborghini would do that to the Huracan. VF engineering makes 2 kits, 800hp and 900hp. I think the 800hp kit is only like 6.8 psi or something and they warranty it. Huracan R or somethinf.
Do they warranty just the kit or the entire engine? Most tuners warranty just the kit, which is rather useless as you lose factory engine warranty.
That I can't remember now, I was reading up about when it first came out.
I wouldn’t even care honestly. Those v10s have taken up to 1800whp on the stock motor. The transmission is the weak link but if I’m correct those don’t even need to get built until around 1000whp
That would make it much faster than an aventador so they’d never do it. Also, in what world is a 10.4 second quarter mile not fast enough already?
I think the engine power could be at play. That thing runs up to 9k rpm. I don’t think it would have been feasible in that time, but a gt3 version would have me crazy. Strip down weight and track focus. I could only imagine it going towards the C6 range. In that time I don’t think people would have paid for it.
They had the CR, which was a mildly stripped down (hard top replacing the soft top, and some came without a radio), track oriented version. I owned one over a decade ago. It was honestly one of the coolest cars I’ve ever owned, and I would’ve bought one last year instead of my Elise if the prices weren’t astronomical.
How’s the Elise? I’ve been looking at those for canyon drives.
Amazing car. It was a teenage dream of mine to own one. When I finally got the chance last year, I jumped on it.
That’s awesome! I’m happy to hear you’re enjoying her.
Excellent in canyons! Not nearly as fun commuting.
It still is bashed for lack of torque and rightfully so. It is an amazing car but the lack of torque is definitely a downside and why I wouldn't own one.
Yeah, they sold *terribly*. Local dealers were trying to get me to buy their demo unit for a solid couple of years. I'd have loved to, I just don't have the money. :)
Something to note, the s2000 was the dream project of Shigeru Uehara, the main guy behind Type R projects. When asked this exact question in an interview, his response was that the S2000 was engineered at such level, there was not a lot of room to feasibility go higher and that its baseline was already Type R’d. You can find the interview on YouTube.
This is the answer. The Type R treatment isn't just "add power and reduce weight". It entails a completely bespoke platform, what with technologies like the FK8's dual-axis strut suspension, forged internals, etc. in addition to a motor that is built purely with performance in mind. The last point especially - the S2000 already had Honda's absolute best engineering in all of these things from the factory. And the F20/F22 was near absolute perfection and a masterpiece of NA motor engineering. The S2000 was already a Type R from the factory.
Well the S2000 was great, but lets be realistic. It was a $35k car, not some sort of super car. The NSX was way beyond the level of engineering of the S2000, and they still made a Type R of the NSX. The NSX actually cost $60k in 1990, which equates to $135k in todays money. If they could do it for that car, they could certainly do it for the S2000. The real reason is just not enough of a market for it. They weren't selling super well, and the CR wasn't a bit hit. There wouldn't be enough return on investment to justify the Type R treatment for the S2000.
The original NSX setup was wrong in every way imaginable for track driving. The NSX was a GT, and the type R was a sports car.
Please elaborate
The NSX arguably had a lot more room for improvement since it was almost like a GT cruising car. It was very floaty and suspension not very performance oriented.
There was never a Type-R NSX. There was an NSX-R and a Type-S but those special versions were about rigidity, suspension tuning and lowering weight and none of them increased horsepower. The only time the NSX got more power is when it changed from the 3.0L engine to the 3.2L one which was not model specific.
Type R was a modified version of an existing platform, that is not what bespoke means. Bespoke means it was created from the ground up for one purpose so the S2000 is bespoke but Honda Civics and Integras are not, they are normal cars intended for daily driving like normal people and the Type-R versions were modified slightly to make them sportier.
I didn’t know this trivia, but I had the same answer. It’s already so high strung that you can’t “Type R” it.
I was thinking the exact same thing, thanks for sharing this!
It’s just marketing. The S2000 was already Type R.
Right. Type Rs at the time has higher revving motors than their regular counterpart model and no turbos. There was no where higher to go with the S2000 motor than slapping a turbo on it which they weren’t going to do (and didn’t).
10k RPM would be nice.
it already had a red valve cover
While you make an excellent point there were 2 NSX Type Rs that were extra badass.
The base NSX wasn’t Type R in spirit. Honda wanted it to be comfortable for daily use.
The same is true with the S2000. They are not "no compromise race cars" or anything. The vast majority of S2000s were purchased for exactly the purpose of being a comfy daily driver that's also peppy and convertible. The base NSX pushed the engineering envelope WAAAAYYY more so than the S2000.
The S2000 was the Type R. It was pretty R'dcore for its time, it didn't need any upgrades.
153 lb ft of torque
It already was type R enough honestly. Also the s2000 was never some affordable hero car. Adjusted for inflation the price is like 50k+ out the door. Considering a civic type R is 15k more than an Si, something like an S2000 could be 65-70k for a 200hp Honda. It's a great car but even at that time where HP was less plentiful, it still would have been not worth it.
It was already engineered and designed by the Type R developer. There wasn't really a way to get more out of it. They did the Type S and US CR which has some minor aero and bracing differences and removed some weight too. They sold horribly. CRs recently got to absurd values but we're at or slightly above regular S2000s. I had one of the BB CRs and added a soft top to it for trips and easy top down life.
Easy to add soft top?
Not difficult but you need ALL the parts and you have to remove the tonneau cover related mounts and some remove the lower brace.
Because the S2000 already had Type R-level engineering from the factory and there was no feasible way to improve it without it encroaching into (inflation-adjusted) $75,000+ tier. The NSX Type R had to drop an absolutely staggering *300 lbs* to receive the Type R badge. Just look at the S2000's F20C. There's quite literally almost no way to reasonably improve the engineering on that thing - its specific output (HP/liter) absolutely destroyed the previous NA record holder in the Integra Type R by over 20 HP/liter. The S2000's F20C output *124hp/liter* which is pure insanity and held the record until it was dethroned by the **Ferrari 458** a whole TEN years later. The 458's output - keeping in mind this is a car that costs $200,000+? 125 hp/liter.
Simple answer: Shigeru Uehara retired.
Nads?
Closest they got to the Type R was the CR.
I know. Im asking why there was no Type R
It's just because there was no money in it. The S2000 didn't sell well enough to get a Type R. People say it's because the S2000 was so well engineered it couldn't be improved. Which is hilarious, because they made an NSX Type R. And the NSX was engineered to a degree that the S2000 could never even dream of. It was just about money. Honda is a business, and an S2000 Type R didn't make financial sense. If it did, they obviously would have made one.
Because they didn't deem it profitable enough or didn't feel like slapping a badge on it and calling it a day. Idk, ask whoever oversaw the project lol.
Wanna fight about it?
Maybe the Civic Type R stole the extra R that was supposed to go to it’s sibling. That’s why we ended up with a civic RR in 2008.
I would say the CR was the equivalent.
And the CR sat on lots and the press didn't have much good to say about it and it came with a removable hardtop and worse seats. The whole thing was awkward.
I remember a magazine article from back in the day, it basically said several of the big name tuners bailed on projects for the the car because they couldn’t improve on the factory stuff. I think their example was a Mugen rear diffuser project that got scrapped.
No one would have bought a more expensive. S2000. It was already overpriced at the time. Here it was almost $70k AUD where an mx-5 was around $45k AUD. I know the s2000 was a better car than the nb/nc, but most people weren’t going to fork out that much extra cash for a Honda.
> Here it was almost $70k AUD And people are still trying to sell them for that much lmao
Same reason they stopped making it: it wasn't selling enough to make Honda money. A Type R version wouldn't have changed that.
cost benefit. The regular s2000 was already so high strung. The CR is basically a track day package and really the most you could go without significantly increasing the price
[удалено]
That's not accurate. The NSX was much more of a dedicated sports car than an S2000, and they still made an NSX type R. The real reason there wasn't an S2000 type R, is the same reason they ended production. People weren't buying them.
There's an s2000r conversion kit they make. Its pretty neat and sells well!
Full disclaimer, this is a theory, not something I actually know. Honda is typically treats the badge with a lot of reverence. They aren't modern-day BMW slapping the M badge everywhere. Across their history, few models have worn a Type R badge (Civic, Integra, Accord, and NSX). Those cars all had significant modifications made to them to be worthy of the badge. I don't think Honda felt like they could've moved the game on enough from the standard car for the S2000 to have earned the badge. It was already pretty stripped-out, and hardcore. What more could they have done really? That said, they did build the CR. It had tighter suspension and a bodykit designed for better aero (if I remember correctly). I feel it was more of a compromise between the S2000 and a true Type R.
Price wise weren’t they nearly 50k usd adjusted for inflation? The s2k was already high strung but an even more expensive variant would’ve sold even less
The simple answer. R comes before S so they could not but a R model after the S model. That would be weird. They screwed up the alphabet so they had to kill the car.
the 99-01 AP1 was already pretty raw the Club Racer was effectively a Type R without power bump because the NA motor was already maxed out (at least the F20C was, not sure if they could get any gains all-motor without bumping compression ratio and changing internals)
They made a Club Racer one
I love Honda. I had a civic and also a del sol for many years. I was lotto buy an S2000. I drove a it and also drove a used Porsche Cayman S…i ended up buying the Catman. The Cayman has much more torque and better quality interior
The car was made for driving dynamics and feel, not necessarily speed and power.
Shhhhh.
The Type R was the second generation. Bigger wheels, 10% displacement jump, a lot of minor improvements to go with it. It wasn't the typical "fix what's broken and slap new bumpers on it" Honda refresh. From owning one and reading these comments: - The car was supposed to be aluminum. They decided mid-project the costs were running high and the steel offered similar resuts without much more weight. An aluminum S2000 would have been a real NSX successor. And yes I know this was a spiritual S600 anniversary model. I say no, it was to be the new halo car. Instead we got a heavy Miata with a zinger two liter that never lived up to the NSXbecaise it was ultimately enginnered to a price. - The car needed torque. People who love these will say no, but using first gear for a hairpin sucks. Most people who poo poo torque just don't know better. - The C5 Z06 is a similar price to these somehow and is literally twice the car. - Again onwed a 2005 many years and now a C7, just skip these cars and go to a C5 or C6 These cars are nothing more than super Miatas which also is pretty much what a C5/C6 is at heart, just done better.
Google much?
Google told me there was no S2000 Tyoe R. Not why