Stock S2K vs.... me?
02-11-2009, 09:50 PM
#22
Launching!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: eastern shore, VA
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
02-11-2009, 09:54 PM
#23
Launching!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: eastern shore, VA
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
02-11-2009, 10:27 PM
#24
+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.
02-11-2009, 10:30 PM
#25
Launching!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southport NC
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would'nt call them **** 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 *****! But yea my money would be on the formula. BTW its VTEC not vtech Variable Timing Electronic Control I think
02-12-2009, 12:13 AM
#28
TECH Senior Member
You have to give that engine props. That car makes over 100hp per liter...very impressive. 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...
12.89 in the 1/8th mile?
02-12-2009, 09:30 AM
#29
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.
02-12-2009, 11:46 AM
#30
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 **** and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah
Id be willing to guess Patrick G made about 570 at the crank N/A, on his stock bottom end.
hp/liter dont mean **** and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah
02-12-2009, 11:48 AM
#31
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 **** and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah
Id be willing to guess Patrick G made about 570 at the crank N/A, on his stock bottom end.
hp/liter dont mean **** and even if it did domestics still win. Dont Top Fuel cars make around 1k hp per liter hahahah
02-12-2009, 01:30 PM
#32
TECH Senior Member
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)?
Last edited by JD_AMG; 02-12-2009 at 01:36 PM.
02-12-2009, 01:42 PM
#33
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)?
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)?
02-12-2009, 02:36 PM
#34
TECH Resident
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, northside
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And from the factory.
No one is saying, it's built by god, or that it owns an LSx in a race.
jeez.
02-12-2009, 03:24 PM
#36
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 **** 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 :]
02-12-2009, 05:58 PM
#37
TECH Resident
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, northside
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
2000-2003 >> 9k redline
2004+>>8k redline, cutout at 8200rpm
oh, and can you video tape the race?
I wanna see some action.
02-12-2009, 06:09 PM
#38
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, yeah, his shifts at 9k, so its a 2003 then.
02-12-2009, 06:46 PM
#39
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.
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.
02-12-2009, 08:47 PM
#40
TECH Senior Member
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.