Dracoro

the 3.5k power band is where the serious power is in an S2000. It's still as powerful as any other 2litre up to 5.5k rpm. That's the whole point. it's relatively light, small yet can produce big bhp. They could have put a 3 litre lump with more torque or bung a turbo/supercharger but then the car would be heavier, less economical, worse handling etc.

to sum up.
1-3k rpm - nothing much
3-6k rpm - enough to keep up with hot hatches no problems
6-9k rpm - bye bye, I'm a race car

to me that's a 6000rpm 'everyday useable' powerband which is more than most cars

juan

was the post I was responding to originally.

This person says there's a 3K powerband. Whats the other 5K for then? next person says powerband is 6K. neat trick, and that It's still as powerful as any other 2litre up to 5.5k rpm. Now I really beg to differ here. There are some pretty powerful 2litre motors about.

All my answer was meant to say was that I reckon I've had cars with more useful power than the S2K (which I like!!!).
Suddenly I'm some extra terristrial bullsh1tter who is dreaming up fantasy cars as NOTHING can come close to an S2K.
I reckon my graphs back me up (though I ain't no race engineer I grant you and my concepts may be entirely wrong).
Oh hang on I can't have any graphs can I as I'm just making these cars up!.
Anyway, I'm willing to put these imaginary graphs (hope they're how I remember them! ) next to an S2K graph to see how they compare (provided I can find a server to stick mine on). Who's got an S2K one?

Then we can all twist the figures anyway we like and still all have the same opinions. Having been in a variety of cars including the ones I have in mind (nothing OTT) and an S2000 I can make my own judgements, as can everyone else.


edited to add:
results of GRAPH 1:
ok found the first graph. Why do things always seem better when you remember them?!!

Its not 250lb/ft+ for 3.5K range, though does manage 220lb/ft minimum between about 2,800rpm and 6,000rpm, peaking at 280.

Seeing as the car ticks over at 800 rpm and is limited to 7K I'd say thats not bad and pretty useable across a hefty proportion of the entire rev range.

GRAPH 2 analysis to follow when I get home

[Edited by juan - 6/10/2003 11:05:02 AM]


Hmm my next post disappeared whilst I was editing it so I'm gonna have to stick it here instead

Why not? Thats the market they're competing against isn't it?
Its not like they're kept apart by law on the road.

and not having a dig at SB here. He and many others reckons the review was bobbins. Many others, including me, thought it was ok.

Heaven forbid. A difference of opinion!!


Here is a dyno graph of an S2000 - Can anyone explain the figures to me? Its an odd graph compared to what I'm used to seeing
http://users.ev1.net/~shinglin/cars/s2k/dyno/s2k_1.jpg
Torque seems to max out at 130! whats the crack with that then?
and max BHP pre 6K is 125. Surely one can't still say
Here's my first graph. (this car is 1240kg vs S2000's relatively light 1275 kg btw)
http://pics.montypics.com/beanstalk/...print_anon.jpg

Putting those 2 side by side I know which I'd have but each to their own. (the one with the sub 5 second 0-60 time, as opposed to the one with the amazing best engine in the world EVER! )

cheers

[Edited by juan - 6/10/2003 1:46:58 PM]

LG John

LMAO There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion The reason I posted was because IMHO the reviewer didn't seem to grasp what the CTR is all about and assessed it against a set of criteria that don't really suit it. It would like me writing a review on economical runarounds and including a scooby

For the person that asked my car is a modified UK turbo and is there or there abouts as quick as a standard import. I think its a great car but I just don't love it for some reason? I think a lot of it might have to do with the fact it was 2nd hand and not a new car. There is a lot to be said for owning a car from day one in my opinion. Also, the things that are annoying about it tend to be very annoying!

juan

Dracoro - mildly modded Mitsi Evo 2 GSR (close to standard BHP but an extra 50lb/ft torque over a standard E2). Yes its power at flywheel on that one

Be interested to see engine output graph for S2K if you have one

[Edited by juan - 6/10/2003 3:31:07 PM]

Dracoro

There's a graph in the s2000 brochure that you can get at a honda dealer. I've got a coupla copies of the brochure but no way of scanning them onto pc. no digicamera either

I can look at the brochure tonight and tell you what the max bhp/lbt are before and after 6k rpm though.

juan

jeepers you're the first person I've come across where I just cannot understand what you're trying to say. Now maybe I'm thick but I've never had this problem before except when someone is talking jibberish. Do you read your posts after writing them?

Some of your sentences hardly make sense

Whats your problem with these two quotes then? I'd say they are talking about the same thing.

Maybe I am missing some technical knowledge but until you can write in understandable English you won't be able to edukate me as I can't understand what point you're trying to make.

Simple question:
Which would you say is relatively larger? A powerband that takes up over 50% of a cars rev range, or one which takes up 35%?

I've shown you my first graph - Whats wrong with it in your educated eyes then?

why are you shouting about flat torque and peak torque?

whats the big deal having flat torque if you still have to wait until 6K for any power?

Look at the 2 graphs - which would you prefer?


[Edited by juan - 6/10/2003 4:56:21 PM]

Dracoro

you don't have to wait till 6000rpm for 'any' power. you get 'any' power from 3000rpm up to 9000rpm. That's a 66% use of the power band, not 35%! and is more than 50%! 3-6k rpm gives you adequate power (as good as any other 2 ltr n/a car) and 6-9k rpm gives you racing car power

Given the gearing, you are never really in the 1000-3000rpm range so it could be argued that you are always in the powerband.

Whether it's someones cup of tea to have a S2000, scoob, fiesta etc. is totally down to personal preference and they have different qualities. Scoob - torquey, s2000 - racey, fiesta - slow

Cosworth427

"if your rev range is say 1K to 9K then I would say a power band of 3K ain't THAT much. if your range is 1K to 7K then a band of 3K is greater no? (relatively speaking)"

"What I was doing was comparing the comments to the last couple of cars I have owned where I have had a lot of usable power from 2,500K to 6K or from 3K to 6.5K"

================================================== ==================

"Whats your problem with these two quotes then? I'd say they are talking about the same thing."

================================================== ===================

And you need to ask me what is wrong??? The first quote you made was about an engine making more power from idle (1k) to redline (7k on most road cars).

I politely asked you to provide evidence or suggest an engine of similar size to the S2000's inline-4 that has that kind of "impressive" powerband in order to support your claim that S2000's power band ISN'T impressive.

Instead of answering that question, you decide to repackage what you said and now talk about an engine producing more power from 3K to 6.5K. Not only that, but you brought in a motor with forced induction. Even so, it doesnt answer my original challenge to find an engine of similar size to the S2000 that makes more HP from 1K and above.

================================================== =================
"why are you shouting about flat torque and peak torque?"
================================================== =================

Have you even looked at the dyno chart I typed the URL for??
I shout about the S2000's flat torque curve so turboheads like yourself can LEARN that the S2000 makes enough power and torque at nearly all RPMs. It is to prove to narrow minded people like yourself that the S2000 is very drivable as a street car as it is a race car. After all, an S2000 IS a "sports" car.

================================================== ==================
"whats the big deal having flat torque if you still have to wait until 6K for any power?"
================================================== ==================

Pardon ???

It is a small 2.0 litre natural aspirated engine. It makes CONSISTENT levels of torque and HIGH levels of horsepower. Horsepower is a product of torque x RPM / 5252. You NEED good torque at all RPMs to get good HP at all RPMS.

Because of a flat torque curve, you can get excellent acceleration where its peak horsepower range is, and you can still accelerate well at normal RPM's with road driving, just like an average family saloon.

Finally, my english is F-I-N-E. I've made efforts to D-U-M-B things down for you so you can understand (comprende?) So don't blame me if english isn't your first language, "Juan".

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Just for fun, here's a dyno from a Civic Type-R

CTR Dyno Graph

Only mod was a Quickshift CAI.

MooseRacer

Impressive bhp figure

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Pretty good for a single mod . . .

Autocar

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

S.B.

Carlos The Jackel

@ Saxoboy, Robertio bought one before I got the cash together - let me have quite a few shots of it - great car but I found it boring! Put me off im afraid, all that money and I can have something a lot cheaper and more fun. Everyone is different and wants a car for a different reason - in the end the Scoob didnt match my criteria. As someone said on another thread some modern cars are too capable to be as much fun like the old rattley hot hatches

[Edited by Carlos The Jackel - 6/9/2003 2:11:08 PM]

juan

There is a whiff of something like BS yes, howevere I never mentioned most of what you spout:
I don't think a 3K power span is that exceptional, espescially when you have a 5K band below it for going shopping.. Who brought in a flat torque curve? I don't remember mentioning that. You seem to have made an assumption there.

What I was doing was comparing the comments to the last couple of cars I have owned where I have had a lot of usable power from 2,500K to 6K or from 3K to 6.5K, with both cars hitting limiter a shade over 7K.
Both cars have had a nice torque curve with over 250lbs/ft over the entire ranges I'm mentioning
I was therefore saying they seem to have more useful power available more of the time. They can do the business over a far greater good proportion of the car's engine range.
Don't get upset with me just cos the S2000 is stuck with it right at the top end.

You seem to have a problem with me having an opinion. Take 10pence and go phone someone whop gives a t055


For the record I like the S2000 and have been round a track in one and think its great fun at full chat.
Not so keen on the Civic Type R which is where we started I think.


"I" must admit "I'm" struggling to understand what "you're" asking here. Can "you" clarify please., starting with the phrase 'power band'

and how about some figures

I appreciate the honda vtec is a fancy piece of kit with its variable camshaft techie whizznuts which is meant to allow the engine to produce good torque over as wide a range of speeds as possible, but I maintain that if that is stuck only between 6 and 9K then there's better out there. got any graphs? maybe we could compare?

[Edited by juan - 6/10/2003 10:11:28 AM]

MooseRacer

/wanders into the thread /


Juan - the CTR does have one of the best torque graphs for n/a aspirated 2.0's - even below vtec.
Edit: So that'll be a 3k powerband then lol Why oh why compare the torque figures of a turbo car against a n/a one? Try the scoob 2.0 sport instead.


Saxo Boy - I reckon you will really enjoy the CTR It seems to be 'fashionable' to take the pi55 out of you on here but fair play to you for telling it exactly how you see it

[Edited by MooseRacer - 6/10/2003 11:09:30 AM]

Dracoro

I think that graph is of the S2000 at the wheels! not at the flywheel which the evo one shows (i think. depends on which evo it is).

I'll see if I can find one of the engine output for the s.

[Edited by Dracoro - 6/10/2003 12:34:33 PM]

Carlos The Jackel

SB I find bigger cars less invloving and far less chuckable - - With a smaller car I feel like its part of you (lol) but with a bigger car I awayls feel like im in a lump of metal It may not make sense but thats how I feel.

[Edited by Carlos The Jackel - 6/10/2003 1:43:24 PM]

Cosworth427

================================================== ====================
"You seem to have a problem with me having an opinion. Take 10pence and go phone someone whop gives a t055"
================================================== ====================

Juan, the problem is your basing opinion on misconceptions rather than facts. I could say Mitsubishi EVOs are laggy rice cars, but why should you respect that opinion if it is based on total BS and ignorance? The internet is not a permit for you or anyone else to be the most narrowminded twit on the planet. If you want to have opinions taken seriously, then BASE it on something serious and factual.

================================================== ==================
"What I was doing was comparing the comments to the last couple of cars I have owned where I have had a lot of usable power from 2,500K to 6K or from 3K to 6.5K"
================================================== ==================

Dude, don't try to play that "I never meant it like that" card with me, I've heard it a hundred times over. Here's a quote of what YOU said.

"if your rev range is say 1K to 9K then I would say a power band of 3K ain't THAT much. if your range is 1K to 7K then a band of 3K is greater no? (relatively speaking)"

How many natural aspirated engines of similar size to the inline-4 of the S2000 makes more HP and torque from 1K to 7k then? Enlighten me. Hell, even forced induction motors of similar size can't provide that kind of flat power and torque delivery. This is why I say you're dreaming up engines and situations to discredit the S2000.

================================================== ==================
"I don't think a 3K power span is that exceptional, espescially when you have a 5K band below it for going shopping.. Who brought in a flat torque curve? I don't remember mentioning that. You seem to have made an assumption there."
================================================== ==================

This is excatly why I had to bring in the subject of the torque curve, because you seriously show you lack any knowledge in the car and in engines itself. The S2000's torque curve is VERY FLAT. Take a look at the dynochart below. It makes 90% of maximum torque from 3K all the way to 9K.

The 4 cylinder motor makes MORE peak torque than many other natural aspirated 2.0 litre engines. And once again, it makes 90% of that maximum at lower RPM's.

You can go shopping just FINE with a 1.1 litre Ford Fiesta. You can go to the supermarket with a 2.0 litre BMW 320i that weighs MORE than the S2000 and has LESS torque than the S2000 but you can still drive it on the street without much throttle. If you actually *really* *have* driven an S2000, you wouldnt be this deluded about it.

URL for the dyno chart:

http://www.randdmotorsports.com/images/projectcars/dynopulls/dyno_stockpull.jpg


[Edited by Cosworth427 - 6/10/2003 4:34:28 PM]