AP1 VS AP2
05-02-2007, 03:59 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by __redruM,May 2 2007, 05:37 PM
Here's what google turned up. 2006 > all other years 
Glad it's what I bought...
2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2
2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9 (Manual)
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2 (MT Mar '04)
2006 Honda S2000 5.5 14.0 (C&D May '06)
Source: http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/art.../0-60times.html
Also aren't the numbers unfair anyway since one of the two get an extra shift...
Glad it's what I bought...
2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2
2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9 (Manual)
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2 (MT Mar '04)
2006 Honda S2000 5.5 14.0 (C&D May '06)
Source: http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/art.../0-60times.html
Also aren't the numbers unfair anyway since one of the two get an extra shift...
It's like the video comparing three JDM cars with three different drivers. A valid comparison requires the same driver and same driving conditions for every run or lap. What these times and the videos show is that track conditions, car condition, and driver skill, make a bigger difference (in performance) than there is between the first S2000 and the latest.
IMO the real difference is more in the experience than in the performance, because the experience is quite different while the performance only changed slightly (and depending on the conditions one car or the other has an edge).
05-02-2007, 04:06 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pointblank,May 2 2007, 06:52 PM
1/4 mile and striaght line performance, there isn't that much difference. The AP2 is more torquier though, so it helps out at a road course (track). The AP2 should be slightly faster than an AP1 at the track. The Ap2 has shorter gearing, wider stance (wheels and tires), I think different sway bars, and 06+ have traction control.
The extra torque is no advantage at all when autocrossing on OEM tires, because either car produces more than enough thrust (torque x gearing) at the contact patch to overpower the rear tires in the low speed turns, so they both have more power than the tires can put to the ground.
Once you put R compound tires on an S2000, AP1 or AP2, you have a number of new handling issues to deal with that don't apply to the original cars running on the OEM tires.
05-02-2007, 04:07 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TRDLiquidSilver,May 2 2007, 06:53 PM
yes i agree to some degree but that's why people modify their cars to get the best solo2 times, or to reduce oversteer on a weekend mountain run, while driving within the utmost limits of the car to get the best out of it. i understand the thrill you get when you drive your S flawlessly but i'm pretty sure even if you drove your S as smooth and balanced as possible you would still be able to ring out few more tenths on your lap times with the correct modifications. the AP1 mistakes have been "exposed" as you put it and the engineers cameout out with the AP2. these slight suspension modifications doesn't hide a drivers mistakes that's what vsa is for. these modifications has enabled drivers to drive the S to the nth degree, which is all one can ask for in a sports car.
the AP2 suspension revisions would be akin to changes to a F1 car every year, where every year the car is different and supposedly better than the last. if the drivers complained about too much oversteer then its the job of the engineers to make sure that next years car doesn't have it.
you want to get most out of the car not the driver. michael schumacher would not have won 7 titles with a honda and all we to do is look at barrichello for that.
the AP2 suspension revisions would be akin to changes to a F1 car every year, where every year the car is different and supposedly better than the last. if the drivers complained about too much oversteer then its the job of the engineers to make sure that next years car doesn't have it.
you want to get most out of the car not the driver. michael schumacher would not have won 7 titles with a honda and all we to do is look at barrichello for that.
I like your response. 
Give me a few minutes to compose a thoughtful response.
05-02-2007, 04:19 PM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saki GT,May 2 2007, 01:54 PM
I think the keyword for AP2 is damped - the power and ability is still there, is just not as present as it is in an AP1 imo. When I drive a Porsche, things are even more damped, or so it seems.
05-02-2007, 04:21 PM
#76
Originally Posted by RED MX5,May 2 2007, 03:51 PM
Guys, what say we focus on a single difference that typifies the changes that have been made to the car over the years? Let's just take a critical (and hopefully objective) look at the change in the steering ratio.
Alan Johnson (author of "Driving in Competition") use to say that "slow hands win," and it's certainly true. The guy who turns the steering wheel the least will also be the guy who turns the fastest lap, almost without exception. Certainly then, a slower steering ratio should make a car easer to drive fast, becasue the driver can make larger and faster movements of the steering wheel, and the slow ratio will slow everything down. Slower steering makes smooth inputs easier because it somewhat negates (or diminishes) fast or sudden inputs.
So, do F1 and other purpose-built race cars have slow steering ratios or fast ratios? They have VERY quick steering, because it allows both the super smooth drivng good drivers are capable of, with minimum effort and lost motion, and also allows for a quicker correction when the unexpected happens. It makes a car harder to drive until the driver masters it, but the faster steering does NOT lead to faster steering inputs IF the driver has mastered the car.
This is why the S2000 is more fun to drive than a long bed king cab pickup truck, and it's also why some prefer the AP1 over the AP2. It is also one of the reasons some people like the AP2 more, because it does make the car more stable and easier to driver at the limit.
But ... don't hold your breath waiting for slow steering ratios on race cars, because it's not what works best for the top drivers.
The only way to improve one's skills is to present challenges. If the AP2 is enough of a challenge for some (as it darn well should be!!) then that just means that it's one hell of a cool car, but if someone wants more of a challenge then an AP1 offers a LITTLE MORE (not a lot, but a little). If you want a LOT MORE, get a Beck Spider or 908.
Alan Johnson (author of "Driving in Competition") use to say that "slow hands win," and it's certainly true. The guy who turns the steering wheel the least will also be the guy who turns the fastest lap, almost without exception. Certainly then, a slower steering ratio should make a car easer to drive fast, becasue the driver can make larger and faster movements of the steering wheel, and the slow ratio will slow everything down. Slower steering makes smooth inputs easier because it somewhat negates (or diminishes) fast or sudden inputs.
So, do F1 and other purpose-built race cars have slow steering ratios or fast ratios? They have VERY quick steering, because it allows both the super smooth drivng good drivers are capable of, with minimum effort and lost motion, and also allows for a quicker correction when the unexpected happens. It makes a car harder to drive until the driver masters it, but the faster steering does NOT lead to faster steering inputs IF the driver has mastered the car.
This is why the S2000 is more fun to drive than a long bed king cab pickup truck, and it's also why some prefer the AP1 over the AP2. It is also one of the reasons some people like the AP2 more, because it does make the car more stable and easier to driver at the limit.
But ... don't hold your breath waiting for slow steering ratios on race cars, because it's not what works best for the top drivers.
The only way to improve one's skills is to present challenges. If the AP2 is enough of a challenge for some (as it darn well should be!!) then that just means that it's one hell of a cool car, but if someone wants more of a challenge then an AP1 offers a LITTLE MORE (not a lot, but a little). If you want a LOT MORE, get a Beck Spider or 908.
if the AP1 ratios from the start where the AP2 14.9 comapred to 13.8 it would still be rewarding but you make it seem like the AP2 rack comes from the honda ridgeline 18.5.
05-02-2007, 04:23 PM
#77
Moderator
What exactly is the difference (number) in steering ratio between 03 and 04 anyway?
AP2 14.9 comapred to 13.8 AP1? Anyone know how many turns that is lock to lock? Thats like 2
AP2 14.9 comapred to 13.8 AP1? Anyone know how many turns that is lock to lock? Thats like 2
05-02-2007, 04:29 PM
#78
Moderator
Originally Posted by mikey stone,May 2 2007, 08:19 PM
G-T-3
ps - the more I read about CDVs, heavy flywheels, and clutch slippage in AP2s, the more convinced I am that a firmer pressure plate is needed more than removal of the CDV. The AP2s biggest problem with the transmission seems to be slippage, CDV or no.
05-02-2007, 04:38 PM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: WV Pan Handle
Posts: 1,466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RED MX5,May 2 2007, 03:59 PM
Apparently these times are not directly comparable
05-02-2007, 04:42 PM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: WV Pan Handle
Posts: 1,466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RED MX5,May 2 2007, 03:51 PM
Guys, what say we focus on a single difference that typifies the changes that have been made to the car over the years? Let's just take a critical (and hopefully objective) look at the change in the steering ratio.