Dyno Guesses & Bench Racing Forum - Stock S2K vs.... me?

So my buddy with his stock S2K is absolutely convinced his car is faster then my LT1 in a straight line and is willing to put $$$ down.

Last time I checked, S2K has 240HP and ZERO torque.

Check out my sig, what do you guys think?

I think your about to be a richer man..

It doesn't have much torque, but it has RPMs and VERY low weight. It'll give you a run for your money - probably be a real good race. They run high 13s stock, but it'll come down to the start. Get him out of the hole and you should beat him. Looks like you got some suspension mods so I'd put money on you, but not much. ;)

Raced one in my 91 TPI 5.7 beat him off the line and up high. Sure, it was wet out and we both spun, but if they were worth the 10K RPM they spin stock, he'd have rocketed past me. Audi TTs with the 1.8 Turbo are a joke too on the highway :\

PS: The S2K was from a dig.

will be close but with ur mods u should have him

Looking at your mods you should have no issues.

dont miss and gears and drop tires down really really low to make sure you hook.

will be close but with ur mods u should have him

Close? I just said I toasted one in a 5.7 TPI car! My only mod was a tune I did myself (in other words only worthy of probably 5hp) and stock manifolds with no cats and a bullet muffler :P TPIs had 209rw/hp with 0 miles and I had 144K!

Dont want to start a fight with anyone but S2000 are a joke. you will kill him. I had a guy at work that had a s2000 tell me the same thing. And after a week of shit talking we ran and I got him by about 6 cars or more lol. and it looks like you have the same mods my car did at the time

Close? I just said I toasted one in a 5.7 TPI car! My only mod was a tune I did myself (in other words only worthy of probably 5hp) and stock manifolds with no cats and a bullet muffler :P TPIs had 209rw/hp with 0 miles and I had 144K!

something had to be wrong w/ that driver or car.

and they don't spin to 10k like stated above.


but if so, I'm gonna go pick on some stocker s2ks this summer.

My buddy out ran one from a roll in his rt dakota, but i dont know what his mods were or the s2ks.

I hate imports,but the s2k are no slouch. I've driven 1,fun as hell when the roads are wet and ur in drift mode lmao. If ur any kind of a driver,u got him covered. I do have to say,that I've seen a couple with drag radials,exhaust,and a tune go low 13s all day. The old owner of "Whip Factory" had a nasty fast s2k that was n/a.

Ive driven an S2000, and they are shit boxes. You will beat him hands down. The only things to the s2000 thats an advantage is the weight, and its got V-tech. but hell the car doesnt start making power till 9000 RPMS!!!! Do it from a dig and you will destroy him.

+1 on less weight and more rpms. They are six speeds with something like 4.50 gears.
Their VTEC kicks in at 5850, that's our stock redline, lol. They rev to 9k rpm. :eek: You have to give that engine props. That car makes over 100hp per liter...very impressive.

I was dead even with my buddies S2K w/ intake & exhaust and my car was bone stock. With bolt-ons, it should be game over.

What year.

Early cars are 2 liters and rev to almost 9K and have skinny tires. Great performes in capable hands on a road course. Real tricky to get a launch out of though. Mess up the launch and the whole run is shot. very unforgiving from a dig.

Later cars have a 2.2 and rev to 8k. Honda increased stroke and lowered the limiter and fattened up the midrange ( Peak torque only went up like 9ft-lbs but it happened like 700 or 1300 rpm earlier) and added some tire out back so they are alot easier to launch. Plus alot more forgiving, if you botch the launch you at least got a little bit of midrange so it doesnt completely kill the run/

With that being said I ran a bolt on one when I was bolt ons and I drug him, and after the race he went lean at 8K in 4th and melted the top end.

hp/liter is ricer math and is pretty much useless.

You should be fine because as stated before, they run high 13's stock.. I've beaten one stock... But yeah I mean they have amazing power and are sexy cars, but the issue is that they lack the torque needed to fully win the race

Just remember-
There's no replacement, for displacement!

Close? I just said I toasted one in a 5.7 TPI car! My only mod was a tune I did myself (in other words only worthy of probably 5hp) and stock manifolds with no cats and a bullet muffler :P TPIs had 209rw/hp with 0 miles and I had 144K!

:eyes: a close to stock 5.7 TPI is about as fast as your current Focus.

Dont make fun of me but I use to own one, an S2K that is. Had an ex that was into imports so I had to do it. They are fast cars and it should be a good race. If I remember correctly they spin to 8500RPM. My car went 12.89 with minor bolt ons (Intake and cat back).

Post these in the right section

Bench Racing

Waiting for Irunelevons to show up.....

my brother in law has a 07 s2k and i raced him in my tbss which usually pulls 13.3-13.5 and i smeared him. i dont know what bolt on lt1's run but if your at least a low 13 then no worries.

Dont make fun of me but I use to own one, an S2K that is. Had an ex that was into imports so I had to do it. They are fast cars and it should be a good race. If I remember correctly they spin to 8500RPM. My car went 12.89 with minor bolt ons (Intake and cat back).

i find that very hard to believe, i build hondas on the side and an intake and exhaust on a s2k might add 15hp on a good day. thats not enough to take almost a second off its quarter mile

i find that very hard to believe, i build hondas on the side and an intake and exhaust on a s2k might add 15hp on a good day. thats not enough to take almost a second off its quarter mile

+1. My buddy used to own one and he told me that there are very few intakes that will actually add hp to the S2K. The factory air box is very efficient. Even if it did, it would only be a couple of horses. The S2K is pretty maxed out from the factory...it has to be making 240 hp from a 2.0 liter NA, putting down just about 200rwhp. An intake and an exhaust would no where near drop a sec off it's ET.

Ive driven an S2000, and they are shit boxes. You will beat him hands down. The only things to the s2000 thats an advantage is the weight, and its got V-tech. but hell the car doesnt start making power till 9000 RPMS!!!! Do it from a dig and you will destroy him.

I would'nt call them shit boxes, I used to own an 02 S2k really nice car imo. I know it does'nt compare to an LS1 but for a 4 banger its got some balls! But yea my money would be on the formula. BTW its VTEC not vtech Variable Timing Electronic Control I think

I would'nt call them shit boxes, I used to own an 02 S2k really nice car imo. I know it does'nt compare to an LS1 but for a 4 banger its got some balls! But yea my money would be on the formula. BTW its VTEC not vtech Variable Timing Electronic Control I think

VTEC = Variable valve Timing Electronic lift Control.

^^^ding ding ding!

s2ks are great cars. I'd like to have one, but I'd probably just get a corvette instead.

+1 on less weight and more rpms. They are six speeds with something like 4.50 gears.
Their VTEC kicks in at 5850, that's our stock redline, lol. They rev to 9k rpm. :eek: You have to give that engine props. That car makes over 100hp per liter...very impressive.

There's absolutely nothing impressive about hp/l. If hp/l liter mattered we'd all have cars powered by RC car engines or be trying to decrease our displacement.
HP (or really the torque curve) and weight are what matters. The F20C weighs in at 325lbs and makes 220hp, the LS1 weighs 390lbs and makes 345hp (and fits nicely into the engine bay of the S2000) I'll let you do the math...

Dont make fun of me but I use to own one, an S2K that is. Had an ex that was into imports so I had to do it. They are fast cars and it should be a good race. If I remember correctly they spin to 8500RPM. My car went 12.89 with minor bolt ons (Intake and cat back).

12.89 in the 1/8th mile?

There's absolutely nothing impressive about hp/l.

Why do you say that...think about what it would take to make our engines put out that kind of number...570 rwhp. That would cost big $$$. I just was simply stating that 240 hp out of a 2.0 liter NA was impressive, even if you do have to rev it to the moon to make it.

No it would be 570bhp and Im pretty sure there are guys out there doing that.
Id be willing to guess Patrick G made about 570 at the crank N/A, on his stock bottom end.

hp/liter dont mean shit and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah

No it would be 570bhp and Im pretty sure there are guys out there doing that.
Id be willing to guess Patrick G made about 570 at the crank N/A, on his stock bottom end.

hp/liter dont mean shit and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah

No, it would be 570 rwhp. The S2K will dyno right around 200 hp to wheels. And I never said that you can't make 570 rwhp on a stock bottom end, I just said that it would cost big $$$. I would never want to drive a car with that engine, I just said it was impressive, and it is.

Why do you say that...think about what it would take to make our engines put out that kind of number...570 rwhp. That would cost big $$$. I just was simply stating that 240 hp out of a 2.0 liter NA was impressive, even if you do have to rev it to the moon to make it.

Because peak hp doesn't really matter(torque curve is what matters), and displacement is irrelevant in comparisons(engine physical size and weight are what matter).
Using your same analogy what if Honda made engines like GM (with the same power/weight)? The F20C would be making roughly 286hp using the same power/weight ratio the little 'ol LS1 has. The argument can be turned in anyone's favor using ricer math...

Lets run a scenario. You want to build a performance kit car and you are choosing between two engines. To make things really simple they both put down the exact same dyno #s and have the same redline, but the differences are:
Engine 1) 400lbs 5 liters, physically smaller (can be mounted lower and closer to the center of the chassis)
Engine 2) 500lbs 4 liters, physically bigger (must be mounted higher and closer to one end of the chassis)
Which would you choose? The one with the more hp/l or the one with the more hp/weight(and smaller)?

Because peak hp doesn't really matter(torque curve is what matters), and displacement is irrelevant in comparisons(engine physical size and weight are what matter).
Using your same analogy what if Honda made engines like GM (with the same power/weight)? The F20C would be making roughly 286hp using the same power/weight ratio the little 'ol LS1 has. The argument can be turned in anyone's favor using ricer math...

Lets run a scenario. You want to build a performance kit car and you are choosing between two engines. To make things really simple they both put down the exact same dyno #s and have the same redline, but the differences are:
Engine 1) 400lbs 5 liters, physically smaller (can be mounted lower and closer to the center of the chassis)
Engine 2) 500lbs 4 liters, physically bigger (must be mounted higher and closer to one end of the chassis)
Which would you choose? The one with the more hp/l or the one with the more hp/weight(and smaller)?

I'm not trying to factory in any power-to-weight ratio or size. Simple fact is that its a 2.0 liter FOUR BANGER that puts out 200rwhp NA. That's HALF the cylinders we have. All I said was that it's impressive. I made no comparisons what so ever.

just take it for what it is. A combustion engine making X amount out of it, considering the displacement.

And from the factory.

No one is saying, it's built by god, or that it owns an LSx in a race.


jeez.

Dont make fun of me but I use to own one, an S2K that is. Had an ex that was into imports so I had to do it. They are fast cars and it should be a good race. If I remember correctly they spin to 8500RPM. My car went 12.89 with minor bolt ons (Intake and cat back).

Was this on Forza Motorsports 2 on 360? I ran the same time!

He has the 2004 (the one that revs to 9000 RPM). not the one that revs to 8k. This guy is a terrible driver, can't launch for shit or get the right shift points. the S2K is all about that, so i'm pretty confident winning against him after reading all this, not one person said i wouldnt win. Not to mention i'll be putting some nitto slicks on my rears next week :]

If his is a 2004, that's the chassis code AP2, that's the year they lowered the redline, and fattened the torque curve.

2000-2003 >> 9k redline
2004+>>8k redline, cutout at 8200rpm

oh, and can you video tape the race?

I wanna see some action.

If his is a 2004, that's the chassis code AP2, that's the year they lowered the redline, and fattened the torque curve.

2000-2003 >> 9k redline
2004+>>8k redline, cutout at 8200rpm

oh, and can you video tape the race?

I wanna see some action.

sure, we'll race in mexico of course..... :shifty

haha, yeah, his shifts at 9k, so its a 2003 then.

Nittos are great tires for sure get some.The make a huge difference one you give them a short burn out you will stick like glue at your power level.
You should be able to run a low 13 depending on alititude with your mods and a reasonable 2.0 60ft.
I think with nittos for sure he will get raped. Make sure to race from a dig no roll crap although still think it won't matter so you could try a few roll races. Just make sure not to be in too high a gear at the time. First time I raced an auto lt1 with my m6 99 when it was stock I was in fifth the first roll on and was not going very fast maybe 50mph. I didn't beat him by much but second time was at same speed and in third and put a huge hurting on him. So bad he thought I had nitrous and made me open the hood. That was a stock auto lt1 ta against m6 stock 99 ls1. And think he had the 2.73 gears to make things even worse.

Anyway I am not a huge fan of cars that need to be revved like a dirt bike to make power. My talons are 4 bangers but being turbos have a better powerband and can put out good power from about 3000 up. Turbos make all the difference since they are also 2.0 but my one is a 2.4 swap. Even going to just 2.4 really helped out the torque on boost and on.

Why do you say that...think about what it would take to make our engines put out that kind of number...570 rwhp. That would cost big $$$. I just was simply stating that 240 hp out of a 2.0 liter NA was impressive, even if you do have to rev it to the moon to make it.

I'm not trying to factory in any power-to-weight ratio or size. Simple fact is that its a 2.0 liter FOUR BANGER that puts out 200rwhp NA. That's HALF the cylinders we have. All I said was that it's impressive. I made no comparisons what so ever.

I bolded where you made comparisons.
Again hp/l is ricer math and useless, it in no way, shape or form makes a car perform better and that's why its unimpressive.

I bolded where you made comparisons.
Again hp/l is ricer math and useless, it in no way, shape or form makes a car perform better and that's why its unimpressive.

LOL at your continued arguements...did a S2K beat you in a race or something...jeez, let it be.

even if you do have to rev it to the moon to make it.

that means that you wouldnt have any low end and your power band would be up to high to be real streetable.........hence why t-rex cams arnt recommended for cars that see alot of street use. I would personally want great mid-range in my car not an uber high rpm range

I don't know how I missed this thread. You shouldn't have any problems against a stock S2000 in a bolt-on LT1. A stock LT1 would be a decent race (especially a 2.73-geared A4), but the S2000 driver would have to be ON HIS SHIT to make it good. As for the "I beat one in my stock TPI," and "I beat one from a roll in my Dakota R/T," give me a break... :eyes:

I don't know how I missed this thread. You shouldn't have any problems against a stock S2000 in a bolt-on LT1. A stock LT1 would be a decent race (especially a 2.73-geared A4), but the S2000 driver would have to be ON HIS SHIT to make it good. As for the "I beat one in my stock TPI," and "I beat one from a roll in my Dakota R/T," give me a break... :eyes:



Why dont you update your avatar pic? Your mom should be back with it in a few hours?

:funny::buttkick:

haha...dang

Why dont you update your avatar pic? Your mom should be back with it in a few hours?

:funny::buttkick:

That didn't make any sense.

I don't know how I missed this thread. You shouldn't have any problems against a stock S2000 in a bolt-on LT1. A stock LT1 would be a decent race (especially a 2.73-geared A4), but the S2000 driver would have to be ON HIS SHIT to make it good. As for the "I beat one in my stock TPI," and "I beat one from a roll in my Dakota R/T," give me a break... :eyes:


You have earned my respect with your honesty.

S2000's are not shit boxes, I have been in a reasonably fast one

LOL at your continued arguements...did a S2K beat you in a race or something...jeez, let it be.

Sorry Im just sick of seeing the ricer argument of "hp/l" yet no one can back up what is impressive or even relevant about it in the real world. If hp/l were important at all there wouldn't be so many LS1 swaps (almost all of which are swapping a higher hp/l engine for the LS1).

It's not that it's "significant," but it does matter. It shows advancements in engine technology. When you do a h/c package on an LS1, you are increasing it's hp/l. So while it's not an end-all be-all argument, or even a viable comparison tool, it's isn't an invaluable achievement.

That didn't make any sense.



I'll break it down for you....


1.Your avatar is of a Mustang that you sold 2 years ago.

2. Get a updated avatar pic of "your" new car.

3. But you will have to wait for your mom to get home from work with her car so you can take a picture of it.


:thinker:

I'll break it down for you....


1.Your avatar is of a Mustang that you sold 2 years ago.

2. Get a updated avatar pic of "your" new car.

3. But you will have to wait for your mom to get home from work with her car so you can take a picture of it.


:thinker:

1. I sold the Mustang in June.
2. I can have whatever avatar I want
3. Attempt at a joke?

I'll break it down for you....


1.Your avatar is of a Mustang that you sold 2 years ago.

2. Get a updated avatar pic of "your" new car.

3. But you will have to wait for your mom to get home from work with her car so you can take a picture of it.


:thinker:

Yeah irunelevens! Dont you know the only thing you can have in your avatar is your current car! Geez!

1. I sold the Mustang in June.
2. I can have whatever avatar I want
3. Attempt at a joke?

1. you guys are WAY off topic

2. what the hell?

3. buy monkey

4. ?????

5. profit

i find that very hard to believe, i build hondas on the side and an intake and exhaust on a s2k might add 15hp on a good day. thats not enough to take almost a second off its quarter mile

In all reality intakes on imports dont do a thing, 9/10 times that is. Anything that was done to my car was done by Xtreme Motorsports here in St.Paul. They have since moved to Vegas under the name Sin City Performace. I know the car had an intake, exhaust, plug wires, fuel PSI regulator... like I said bolt on's
I am dyslexic :eyes:, was 12.98. That was at RockFalls Raceway in Wisconsin in 2004.

Either way they are fast cars for what they are. It would be a good race non the less

1. you guys are WAY off topic

2. what the hell?

3. buy monkey

4. ?????

5. profit
He started it (surprise), but I agree... what the hell?
In all reality intakes on imports dont do a thing, 9/10 times that is. Anything that was done to my car was done by Xtreme Motorsports here in St.Paul. They have since moved to Vegas under the name Sin City Performace. I know the car had an intake, exhaust, plug wires, fuel PSI regulator... like I said bolt on's
I am dyslexic :eyes:, was 12.98. That was at RockFalls Raceway in Wisconsin in 2004.

Either way they are fast cars for what they are. It would be a good race non the less

One notable exception is the RSX-S... CAI is worth ten or fifteen hp at the wheels on those.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa40/mydoorsgoup/ricers01.jpg

It's not that it's "significant," but it does matter. It shows advancements in engine technology.

Yes and no. The big problem here is almost no manufacturer tries to squeeze as much power from their engines as possible. Most set a power/torque goal, and usually use a cost effective way to get there by modifying a current engine in production.
The LS1 for example was built ground up, but the platform is now used globally as both a performance engine and in truck applications. As anyone with any automotive knowledge can figure out GM didn't want any more than 345hp from the LS1, and anymore than 405hp from the LS6 etc etc. So this doesn't show any "technology advancements", it only shows what the manufacturer wants to make, and then uses what engine they want to get there.
Could GM make 505hp from the LS1 like the LS7 (and therefore make more hp/l)? Sure, but what advantages would there be to it? None. The LS7 is the same physical size, and same weight as all the other LSx based engines, and the added displacement improves the torque curve and drive-ability.
What about Honda, why did they add another .2L of displacement to the f20c in the US market, but not increase the power?


When you do a h/c package on an LS1, you are increasing it's hp/l. So while it's not an end-all be-all argument, or even a viable comparison tool, it's isn't an invaluable achievement.
You add to overall hp, not just peak hp like hp/l implies. And if you want a legitimate argument then hp/l must go both ways. In other words there must be an advantage to decreasing displacement but keeping the peak hp, which there is only disadvantages to (cost, powerband, reliability).

Now if displacement was limited, and manufacturers were forced to all use the same engine then and only then would hp/l be even remotely relevant.

There is most certainly an advantage to decreasing displacement. It depends what the car was designed to do. The DZ302 was after-all, for all intents and purposes, a destroked 327. Because the short stroke lended itself better to higher revs and road racing. The F20C was stroked out to 2.2 liters because Honda wanted to shift the power/torque curves lower, and they achieved their goal. And I'd wager when the LS1 was designed, the designers did have hp/l in mind. The fact that they wanted to keep it at 5.7 liters and increase the horsepower significantly kinda lends credibility to the theory. Otherwise, what would be the point in designing a whole new motor? They could have just made the LTx motors larger.

Ehh....


I've run one of those bastards in my Camaro. He had just got done doing a few doughnuts so his tires were good and warm. Hell, I could damn near see them dripping onto the tarmac. Excellent driver, that kid; a decent drifter. He launched the shit out of that torqueless wonder and left me looking silly off the line as I spun those cold, bald eighteen inchers. After babying it into hooking and giving it hell, I caught up and blew past him at around 65-70 and proceeded to putting about four on him before shutting down around the quarter mark. Despite rolling on maypops, I really could have handled the launch a little better.

The car was quick off the line and I'd expect low 14s or high 13s at the track. I've managed a 12.9 in my own, so the outcome was pretty predictable.

:eyes: a close to stock 5.7 TPI is about as fast as your current Focus.

I was told by a mechanic that a 91' camaro 5.7 TPI would walk a LT1 f-body all day. Is that true? By the way just woop that shits ass. It's a :barf: honda!!

The L98 would hang pretty good down low, but the LT1 will keep on trucking while it falls flat on it's face. The midgetized intake runners on the LT1s worked wonders for their upper RPM power. The Tune Port cars are torquey down low and fair pretty well in shorter runs. From what I've seen, LTs usually average about half a second faster, if that.


There's slow and quick examples of either, but the edge goes to the LT1 on average.

A bone stock 5.7TPI is at least a 14 second car.....so it is possible it could have hung in there with a s2k if it was stock with a bad driver

One notable exception is the RSX-S... CAI is worth ten or fifteen hp at the wheels on those.

??? that seems like a bit much :confused:. Honda/Acura puts a lot of research into every aspect of there cars. I highly doubt they are going to give up that kind of power by a poorly designed intake

There is most certainly an advantage to decreasing displacement. It depends what the car was designed to do. The DZ302 was after-all, for all intents and purposes, a destroked 327. Because the short stroke lended itself better to higher revs and road racing.

Wasn't displacement limited to 5L for its racing class?


The F20C was stroked out to 2.2 liters because Honda wanted to shift the power/torque curves lower, and they achieved their goal.

And why do you think they would they want to do that?

And I'd wager when the LS1 was designed, the designers did have hp/l in mind. The fact that they wanted to keep it at 5.7 liters and increase the horsepower significantly kinda lends credibility to the theory.

45hp is a significant increase? Wait scratch that, the LT4 made 330hp, so 15hp is significant? GM wanted a smaller, lighter engine that was more fuel efficient for their flagship sports car. 5.7L stayed around for traditions sake.

A bone stock 5.7TPI is at least a 14 second car.....so it is possible it could have hung in there with a s2k if it was stock with a bad driver
From a dig, sure. For a 5.7TPI to even stay close to an S2000 from a roll it would have to start in the wrong gear and shift early.
??? that seems like a bit much :confused:. Honda/Acura puts a lot of research into every aspect of there cars. I highly doubt they are going to give up that kind of power by a poorly designed intake
Don't ask me, I didn't design the car.
Wasn't displacement limited to 5L for its racing class?


And why do you think they would they want to do that?

45hp is a significant increase? Wait scratch that, the LT4 made 330hp, so 15hp is significant? GM wanted a smaller, lighter engine that was more fuel efficient for their flagship sports car. 5.7L stayed around for traditions sake.

Yes 5 liters was the limit for the class, but I'd still argue that the DZ302 (for that application atleast) was a better engine than the 327. But I know that all you want to hear is, "You're right, nobody but idiots cares about how much horsepower they can make from a given size," so there you go.

OK to the HP/L arguement
I find TQ/L a better arguement
torque wins races
horsepower sells cars

If that was true, the L98 Vettes would be faster than the LT1s ;). Horsepower is a derivative of torque, so treating them as completely seperate things is stupid.

True true but USUALLY the more TQ you have the more HP. Unless you have my crappy L98 intake
I guess HP/lb and TQ/lb are better ratios

I'd rather have an engine with 400hp and 300lb/ft of torque than 300hp and 400lb/ft of torque. Once you start moving to higher-revving motors that make a lot of power, they're gonna make more horsepower than torque. It's not just little 4cyls.

If that was true, the L98 Vettes would be faster than the LT1s ;). Horsepower is a derivative of torque, so treating them as completely seperate things is stupid.

Torque [curve] to the wheel (multiplied by the gearing) wins races, [peak] hp sells cars.
LT1's are faster because they make more torque from idle to redline, not just more peak hp.

And their better use of their torque... translates to more horsepower. Because horsepower is a function of torque.