why no i-vtec on s2000
#11
Originally Posted by Project SSAP1,Jul 29 2004, 05:24 AM
cause honda is stupid and gave the better engine to the integra/rsx
i think the new s2k should b a 2.2L i-vtec
the new k-series has so much potential its not even funny!!!! ive seen minor bolts ons such as i/h/e w/ honda reflash make 220whp....that is not fair man!!!!
for example...here what a lil tunning can get u out of a k20a2(USDM RSX Motor) can do...i/h/e, hondata, ported intake mani.... this motor i feel shits on the F20C ...imagine this motor in a lil civic hatch...all u will hear is zoom!!! to bad it doesnt look at nice as the s2k ..the only thing that makes me feel better...s2k = expensive pimp ride
i think the new s2k should b a 2.2L i-vtec
the new k-series has so much potential its not even funny!!!! ive seen minor bolts ons such as i/h/e w/ honda reflash make 220whp....that is not fair man!!!!
for example...here what a lil tunning can get u out of a k20a2(USDM RSX Motor) can do...i/h/e, hondata, ported intake mani.... this motor i feel shits on the F20C ...imagine this motor in a lil civic hatch...all u will hear is zoom!!! to bad it doesnt look at nice as the s2k ..the only thing that makes me feel better...s2k = expensive pimp ride
#12
Registered User
Originally Posted by Project SSAP1,Jul 29 2004, 12:24 AM
..the only thing that makes me feel better...s2k = expensive pimp ride
Plus, the gains that you show in the graph (2 RWHP and 5 lb-ft of torque) look good since they're spread across the power band, but are close to or within the error of the dynomometer.
To me, the F20C engine is excellent. I enjoy having the highest specific output, normally aspirated automobile engine on the planet! That's for the 2.0 liter motor BTW
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is that Honda did the basic cost vs. gain descision. I-VTEC adds the ability to continously vary valve timing. Regular VTEC has two cams, so 2 fixed valve timing and valve lift profiles. Most of the benefits of valve control are realized with normal VTEC, the "i" part just refines the VTEC transition, giving better mid-range torque. The added cost of implementing the extra mechanicals and ECU tuning in the F20C was probably not cost as cost effective as simiply stroking the motor. Remember the S2000 is still a low run car.
As far as the RSX having more potential, that's wrong. It's more correct to say it is easier to modify to get its ultimate potential. The ultimate performance limit to an engine is how much air the head can flow. The F20C head flows more than the K series head. Not much more, but that's expected since the K-series is based on the F20C R&D. The RSX engine has the benefit of being the "mass-market" version of the F20C, with I-VTEC and a flashable stock ECU. The biggest advantage is the reprogrammable ECU, which is the equivalent of buying a full-blown EMS on a S2000. If we're talking dynos, remeber that FWD has less drivetrain loss and that the 2.2L F20C is underrated (OK I don't want to argue this, believe what you want).
I agree CoralDoc, performance is more than just engine anyways. If you like turning, the S2000 has a superior chassis. RWD, better suspension geometry which is fully adjustable.
If you just want to blow people away from a roll on a highway, you are right, the S2000 is just an expensive pimp-ride, but so is a RSX-S. Get a SRT-4, factory turbo, so easy to turn up the boost. Hell, Dodge has factory staged upgrades too for monster budget horsepower.
As far as the RSX having more potential, that's wrong. It's more correct to say it is easier to modify to get its ultimate potential. The ultimate performance limit to an engine is how much air the head can flow. The F20C head flows more than the K series head. Not much more, but that's expected since the K-series is based on the F20C R&D. The RSX engine has the benefit of being the "mass-market" version of the F20C, with I-VTEC and a flashable stock ECU. The biggest advantage is the reprogrammable ECU, which is the equivalent of buying a full-blown EMS on a S2000. If we're talking dynos, remeber that FWD has less drivetrain loss and that the 2.2L F20C is underrated (OK I don't want to argue this, believe what you want).
I agree CoralDoc, performance is more than just engine anyways. If you like turning, the S2000 has a superior chassis. RWD, better suspension geometry which is fully adjustable.
If you just want to blow people away from a roll on a highway, you are right, the S2000 is just an expensive pimp-ride, but so is a RSX-S. Get a SRT-4, factory turbo, so easy to turn up the boost. Hell, Dodge has factory staged upgrades too for monster budget horsepower.
#14
Former Moderator
Originally Posted by Fongu,Jul 29 2004, 07:01 AM
If you just want to blow people away from a roll on a highway, you are right, the S2000 is just an expensive pimp-ride, but so is a RSX-S. Get a SRT-4, factory turbo, so easy to turn up the boost. Hell, Dodge has factory staged upgrades too for monster budget horsepower.
also i feel that i-vtec is eventually going to be in all honda/acura applications, but right now its preference. ill take my vtec f20c over a i-vtec k20 anyday. s2000's just seem to turn heads, they are an enginering masterpiece for what they are. the srt4 and rsx boys always give the s2000 proper respect even in stock form.
#15
Registered User
Originally Posted by CoralDoc,Jul 29 2004, 05:27 AM
Plus, the gains that you show in the graph (2 RWHP and 5 lb-ft of torque) look good since they're spread across the power band, but are close to or within the error of the dynomometer.
That's a Dynojet graph indicating that an RSX-S is making almost 220whp and over 150lb-ft of torque (from 4500RPM almost to redline). How many NA S2000s do you know that are making those kinds of numbers (specifically 2.0L S2000s)? I haven't seen any (especially with reference to the torque numbers). If I could get 150lb-ft of torque from 4500 to our power peak (8300ish), I'd be ecstatic! That would mean I'd be near 240rwhp. I haven't seen a single NA 2.0L S2000 do that.
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hackensack, NJ
Posts: 3,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes dont get me wrong..the s2000 is a great sports car and it was designed to be that...i do know that the k20 motor was designed off of the f20c..but in regards to the new i-vtec technology it can create some nice power in the midrance and downlow...i think honda did a great job with the newer motors....looking at the graph i posted above...i have never seen any f20c make 150hp and that much tq at 5000 rpm...yes a FWD make have less drivetrain loss...
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gainesville
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My girlfriend has an RSX Type S, and I had originally planned on buying one when I sold my last car, but decided to get the S2K instead. I'm impressed with the RSX S for what it is, and it does have great mod potential.
Although I like the RSX and drive it some, I would never give up my S2K. Sure, the RSX holds four, has great seats, shifts smoothly and has an easy clutch, but it's no S2K and can't handle the same. Although, my girlfriend has plans for her RSX including the Hondata flash and an intake. She'll be putting out close to the same power (or more) as the S2K (in stock form), but the S2K will still be superior and the engine is unique.
It's like my 00' PY ITR. It was no GSR, and it handled better and performed better than most FWD cars available. Oh, how I wish I had kept my ITR. I loved that car. Almost as much as my S2K.
Although I like the RSX and drive it some, I would never give up my S2K. Sure, the RSX holds four, has great seats, shifts smoothly and has an easy clutch, but it's no S2K and can't handle the same. Although, my girlfriend has plans for her RSX including the Hondata flash and an intake. She'll be putting out close to the same power (or more) as the S2K (in stock form), but the S2K will still be superior and the engine is unique.
It's like my 00' PY ITR. It was no GSR, and it handled better and performed better than most FWD cars available. Oh, how I wish I had kept my ITR. I loved that car. Almost as much as my S2K.
#18
Originally Posted by s4m222,Jul 29 2004, 01:28 AM
but its about performance, i-vtec adjust constantly to provide maximum performance and v-tec has just one switch point, wonder how a 2.2 i v-tec would be ... ahhh
another thing i noticed on the RSX-S which has i v tec if it is a continously variable etc.. why do we still feel a kick at like 6k ? like vtec?
shouldnt it justbe smooth the whole time?
another thing i noticed on the RSX-S which has i v tec if it is a continously variable etc.. why do we still feel a kick at like 6k ? like vtec?
shouldnt it justbe smooth the whole time?
#19
Registered User
cdelena is right. a lot of you need to do some reading regarding exactly what the VTC in i-VTEC does. With i-VTEC, the cam still switches just like VTEC. you don't feel a kick because the VTC maximizes torque at all RPMs.
the thing with the F20C is you can't change valve timing (i have not seen cam gears like the B series). Is this because both cams are gear driven from one pulley? The K20 has that potential because it can continuously vary valve timing. That is a BIG advantage. IMO, it was too expensive to implement in the S with a 10K volume in north america/greece (for 2.2L motors).
the thing with the F20C is you can't change valve timing (i have not seen cam gears like the B series). Is this because both cams are gear driven from one pulley? The K20 has that potential because it can continuously vary valve timing. That is a BIG advantage. IMO, it was too expensive to implement in the S with a 10K volume in north america/greece (for 2.2L motors).