Zygrene

I wish Honda had the balls to make a high revving NA engine again, but I don't think they do.

Although, if Ford can produce something like the 5.2L 8250rpm flat-plane crank V8 in the upcoming GT350 and make it emissions legal, I wonder why other manufacturers like Honda cannot follow suit with a high-revving inline-4?

Jah2000

Hear that Mr. Honda?? lol

Other MR cars that the upcoming MR S2000 sounds very similar to, and should try to beat (not copy...but BEAT):
Alfa Romeo 4C
Lotus Exige

Jah2000

No one ever said COPY the benchmark....I said BEAT (the top cars in the class or in higher classes). There's a big difference

Ex: 1st gen NSX did had a benchmark....but they still did something completely new and totally different.

Jah2000

If all these recent video reviews this past week, of the new Civic Type R, gives any indication of how fast and what kind of engine will be in the new/upcoming S2000 (as well as the racecar firm handling, a very nice shifter, functional aero, more "go" than luxury)... I can confidently guess it will be F'ing Good.

Now imagine that same 300+ hp, high-torque, engine in a Rwd and MR S2000? It's going to Scream!

I just hope they will continue with that same performance, functionality, aero, simplicity, sport/race handling and shifter into the new S2000. I'm sure they will. It's Honda!

liquid_helix136

I'd rather have the turbo engine honestly. To compete nowadays you're gonna need a fat powerband. Plus who here isn't gonna mod this thing for power? I would, and much easier with a pre existing turbo

WolfpackS2k

There's more to a car than numbers. Posters on this forum, more than anyone else, should know that.

Bullwings

^ This. Numbers are for racecars. Fun factor/enjoyment, the smile on my face, and the feels are what it's about for sports cars.

That's why I got rid of my Porsche 951 and my Subie STI. I'm done with turbos and done effing with modding the motor - I live in CA. Between smog checks and all the things I've seen go wrong, it really pushes the point of keeping it simple. It's not worth the time and hassle - I'm probably just getting old. That, and it's much more rewarding to be driving the car than to have it constantly in the shop or on jack stands for repairs/mods. On the track, so far, the last thing that I've felt I needed was more power.

Also, if you're modding for road course use, you'll find suspension, brakes, and "reliability" mods such as oil baffling and cooling mods are more worth while. Numbers are meaningless if you can only run the car hard for 2-3 laps in a session. Turbos, even from OEM designed from the factory, just complicate things and reduce reliability.

The GT-R can't handle the heat. The new c7-z06 can't handle the heat either. I wonder how the new F80 m3/4 will handle lapping days. I'm also very curious to see how Porsche's upcoming turbo motors will stand up to the abuse.

Elistan

Having owned a 9000 rpm NA 2.0 motor for 130k miles and a 7000 rpm turbo 2.0 motor for 40k miles, both with factory-claimed 240hp, most recently at 5000 ft elevation - I'm tending to prefer the turbo motor. The NA motor is obviously down on power from when I lived at 500 ft, while the turbo feels just as strong albeit with a touch more lag. No overheating issues with the turbo motor although I haven't tracked it. I do miss the redline and top-end pull of the NA motor, though. If Honda's next RWD sports car comes with the turbo 300 hp CTR engine, I'd be quite happy with that.

(The turbo motor also dynoes at the wheels with about 30 more HP than the NA motor, and gets high 20s to low 30s mpg in a much heavier car compared to the NA motor's low to mid 20s mpg. But I'm not sure how much of that efficiency comes from the driveline and aero of the heavier car...)

HUNTERANGEL121

Honda I'm sure can. Lean burn or cylinder deactivation and those witch craft shenanigans for fuel efficiency.
I think Honda has parted with high revving because of people asking for torque.