Talk:Honda S2000

Statistics Summary

Engine 2004 Honda S2000 Type 16-Valve DOHC VTEC Inline-4 (F22C1) Bore & Stroke (mm/in.) 87.0 x 84.0/3.42 x 3.30 Displacement (cc) 2157/131.6 Horsepower @ rpm 240 @ 8300 Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 162 @ 6500 Block Material Aluminum Alloy w/Fiber-Reinforced (FRM) Cylinder Walls Cylinder-Head Material Aluminum Alloy Valve Train 16-Valve DOHC VTEC Lightweight, MIM (Metal-Injection Molded), Sintered-Steel Rocker Arms, Low-Fricition Roller-Bearing Cam Followers, Compact, 2-Stage Cam-Drive with Silent Chain, Scissors Gears and Fully Automatic Tensioner Fuel Induction System Multi-Point Programmed Fuel Injection (PGM-FI) Ignition System Electronic Emission Control Low Back Pressure, Metal-Honeycomb Catalytic Converter Electric-Motor-Drive, Multi-Port Secondary Air-Asist Injection System Recommended Fuel Premium Unleaded Compression Ratio 11.1:1

Powertrain 2004 Honda S2000 Drive System Type Front Engine / Rear-Wheel Drive Manual Transmission 6-Speed w/Torque-Sensing Limited-Slip Differential Transmissions Gear Ratios:

    1st gear 3.133 
    2nd gear 2.045 
    3rd gear 1.481 
    4th gear 1.161 
    5th gear 0.942 
    6th gear 0.763 
 Reverse: 2.800

Primary Gear Reduction 1.208 Final Drive Ratio 4.1

Chassis 2004 Honda S2000 Type High X-Bone Monocoque Frame Suspension Front Independent In-Wheel Double Wishbone & Coil Springs w/ Stabilizer Bar (28.2 mm) Rear Independent In-Wheel Double Wishbone & Coil Springs w/ Stabilizer Bar (27.2 mm) Shock Absorbers Gas- Pressurized Mono-Tube w/ External Resevoir Steering Type Electric Power Rack-and-Pinion Steering Wheel Turns (lock-to-lock) 2.6 Steering Ratio 14.9 Turning Diameter (ft., at wheel center) 35.4

Wheels and Tires 2004 Honda S2000 Wheels Front 17" x 7.0" Aluminum Alloy Rear 17" x 8.5" Aluminum Alloy Tires Front Bridgestone RE 050 P215/ 45 R17 Rear Bridgestone RE 050 P245/ 40 R17 Ventilated Front Disc Brakes (diameter) 11.8 in. Rear Disc Brakes (diameter) 11.1 in. Stabilizer Bar Front 26.5 mm Rear 25.4 mm Parking Brake Rear Mechanical

Exterior Dimensions 2004 Honda S2000 Vehicle Type

Front-Engine, Rear-Wheel-Drive, 2-Passenger, 2-Door Roadster

Wheelbase (in.) 94.5 Track Front 57.9 Rear 59.4 Length (in.) 162.2 Width (in.) 68.9 Height (in.) 50.0 Minimum Ground Clearance (in.) Non-Load 5.1 Full-Load 4.2 Curb Weight (lbs.) 2835 Weight Distribution (%, Front / Rear) 49 / 51 Power to Weight Ratio 5.4:1

Interior 2004 Honda S2000 Headroom (in.) 34.6 Legroom (in.) 44.3 Hiproom (in.) 49.8 Shoulder Room (in.) 50.7 EPA Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 45.1 EPA Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 5.00

Capacities 2004 Honda S2000 Oil, Engine & Filter (liters/qt.) 5.6 Transmission (qt./liter) 1.56 / 1.48 Cooling System (liters/qt.) 7.6 Fuel Tank (gal. / liter) 13.2 / 50

EPA Mileage Estimates 2004 Honda S2000 EPA Mileage, City / Highway (mpg) 20 / 26

Power or horsepower?

I'm not going to revert without talking, but I don't think that it's correct to use 'horsepower' to refer to power output simply to avoid it being mistaken for torque. I know the metrication mavens on here will have fits, as well. Thoughts, anyone? —Morven 08:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted before I read this. Sorry! Anyways, it has to be "power" not "horsepower". I don't think anyone would mistake "power" to mean "torque" and "hp" is just too unit-specific. --SFoskett 15:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is unit specific, I am attempting to distinguish between the generic term "power" and the specific units of horsepower and torque.--JonGwynne 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, you ought to look up what torque and power are. Anyone who has taken high school level physics should know that torque is a distinct dimension different from power.

Thank you, I not only have taken high-school physics, but I am familiar with the meanings of these words. I meant power in the generic sense as in definition #3 - not the term of art used by physicists. Perhaps next time you might want to consider phrasing your statements so they sound less arrogant and condescending. Just a suggestion... --JonGwynne 04:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jon, I didn’t mean to be rude, I just thought your notions of torque and power were confused. Yes, you are correct that engine torque has an effect on a car’s acceleration, but the effect is rather indirect. You must also account the engine speed. The instant power the engine at any certain engine speed produces is the better indicator of acceleration. As you would know the power output of an engine is the product of its torque and speed. At the driven wheels, it is the power that is conserved (ignoring frictional losses), but torque and speed can be converted by the transmission gearing. Therefore, if a small high-rev engine is producing high power at high engine speed but low torque versus a big engine with the same power but at lower engine speed and higher torque, the two car’s wheels will experience the same wheel torque if they are rotating at the same speed, and therefore the 2 drivers (provided the cars weight the same) will experience the same acceleration. --IvanYQu

Hold on a second, are you saying that given identical cars that the ones whose engine is revving higher will always produce more torque at the wheels? I understand what you mean about issues like gearing and drivetrain losses being a factor in acceleration, but I don't see how you can argue that engine RPMs are a factor all by themselves. Just because torque can be "converted" by the transmission doesn't necessarily mean it is. One of the reasons that the S2000 accelerates as fast as it does is because of the ludicrous rear-end gearing that results in an 18mph/1000rpm figure for 6th gear. Most performance cars can manage at least 25mph/1000rpm and a torquey, pushrod-powered beast like the Dodge Viper gets 52mph/1000rpm. Put a standard rear end in the S2000 and it would be in the Mazda Miata league for acceleration. But, in the meantime, I'm returning the previous version of the article - the new version just isn't clear enough.--JonGwynne 04:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is actually the reason why a driver cruising in high gear would need to downshift when he or she wants to pass someone quicker. In the instant before and after the downshift, the wheel speed will be the same, but the wheel torque will be increased immediately (this is all assuming the driver is pressing the throttle fully) after the downshift – due to increased engine speed from the downshift, hence more engine power - and thus wheel power. Since the wheel speed cannot “jump” instantaneously (must be continuous), a sudden increase in power at the wheels can only result in a sudden increase in torque at the wheels. Remember, power is the product of torque and (rotational) speed. --IvanYQu

I think you have it backwards Ivan, you downshift when you want to pass someone in order to get a lower gear so that you can deliver more torque to the wheels. The increased engine RPM is a byproduct of the downshift, not the reason for it.--JonGwynne 03:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, you ought to know that this same argument has cropped up repeatedly over the last year in various automobile articles. The consensus of wikipedia was to never use a specific unit name in text and instead use the generic term. Specifically, all mentions of "horsepower" are systematically eliminated by User:Bobblewik and others in favor of "power". Also, all uses of "xx hp" are having "xx kW" added, and vice versa. The reason people were getting testy is that this has been discussed and decided previously. Expect your "horsepower" text to be changed to "power" soon by any number of other people than me and Morven. --SFoskett 13:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Let the style Nazis do their worst... ;-> But thanks for the warning. BTW, they're completely wrong. In certain cases (like this one), it is preferable and even necessary to mention specific units. I assume we all agree that there is a difference between horsepower and torque. I assume we can also all agree that it is also possible to be talking about the generic "power" of an engine (e.g. "Wow, that's a powerful engine!") and not be specifically mean any particular unit of measurement. --JonGwynne 14:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "hp" should be "bhp" or am I just being British? --Kamrock 00:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I recognise the need for encylopedic dryness, there are times when surely it is sylistically prefereable to use horsepower rather than power. If this 'policy' of not using units in text is rigorously applied, references to rpm or revs would have to be revised (radians per second anybody?) to something unwieldy such as "crankshaft rotational speed". I would hate to see dogma win over good writing. Epeeist smudge 12:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minor revert

I reverted the the small footnote on the different tyres found on the AP1 and AP2 models. The extra info is unnecessary, I feel the one sentence in the main text covers it well enough. Also the 2nd person tone was extremely unencyclopedic. Zunaid 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article have such a huge criticism section?

It seems a bit superfluous. It's a car, not a film. I think we're seeing internet forum flame wars spill into this article. There's more "criticism" than actual information; there's more "criticism" here than in the Ford Pinto article, and that car received widespread negative press in its day. The S2000, in contrast, has generally been very well-received by the automotive press and the general public, and has never had a true safety or reliability scare that got it into the mainstream press.

Also, there is a possible factual error that I want confirmed before I edit. The 2004 suspension wasn't made overall stiffer, but rather softened in the rear, stiffened in the front, and given revised geometry that would cause the rear wheels to toe-in slightly when cornering. Just making a car stiffer would worsen snap oversteer, not correct it. AKADriver 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expound on this further, while I recognize the need for NPOV, the article would be perfectly neutral if it merely stated the facts. There's no need to represent every minority viewpoint (see: WP:NPOV#Undue weight). It's a car - a physical object with measurable properties. Heaven knows we humans like to get emotional about them, but I'd consider such emotions and opinion to be un-encyclopedic, unless (as in the case of the aforementioned Ford Pinto) this opinion is driven by documented facts and events. All the S2000 "criticism" is just typical enthusiast community bickering and nitpicking. Since I can't find a mainstream media news article that mentions the S2000's handling characteristics or power delivery, I'm going to trim the hell out of the Criticism section. AKADriver 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article has a criticism section is because the car has been criticized. No car is perfect. Criticism is a valid part of any car article. Thus, I am returning the criticism section. --SpinyNorman 05:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, everything that's ever existed has its critics, that's not the point. The point is the criticism, which was completely unsourced, unverifiable, and full of weasel words, was overshadowing the facts. Again, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. — AKADriver ☎ 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a hagiography, it is an article about a car. To exclude criticism is inherently POV. I'm restoring it. --SpinyNorman 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still completely unsourced, unverifiable, and full of weasel words. This is unacceptable. — AKADriver ☎ 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's broken? Fix it. But removing criticism isn't going to work. --SpinyNorman 20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I couldn't find reliable sources for any of this criticism, and I tried. It's all typical internet forum bickering and whining - not true criticism. My idea of criticism of a car would be, like, if it had a major safety flaw. This car just has driving characteristics that a segment of the population doesn't like. — AKADriver ☎ 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has owned one of these cars, I can tell you from personal experience that the criticism is not only valid but downplayed in this article. I added a reference to the snap oversteer and an actual quote from the reviewer. That should help. The complaints about lack of low-end torque are completely objective - the car does lack low-end torque compared with much of its competition. What else is there, rear-end gearing? That's also an objectively measured. The speed per thousand RPM in top gear isn't a matter of personal interpretation. Most cars manage at least 25mph/1000, the Honda only makes 18. Anything else? --SpinyNorman 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the torque rating, and should have the gear ratios, do they need to be repeated below as "criticism"? The torque and gear ratios are verifiable but your opinions about them aren't. Isn't it enough to let the reader form their own opinion?

What's wrong with mentioning that the torque rating for this car is unusually low? I could also mention that the torque curve is unusually steep. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap oversteer is arguably the sort of safety flaw that I was talking about, bit it's still not endemic - we've all seen pictures of people tossing their cars off the side of Deal's Gap, and I have a friend who crashed one on a rainy day, but it didn't lead to a recall. It did lead to a design change, though, which is enough, I suppose. Though I'd include that into the Models or Design section. — AKADriver ☎ 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many cars can break traction - particularly on slippery surfaces, but the S2000's tendencies in this area are nothing short of extraordinary. I've driven a TVR Griffith through wet roundabouts with more confidence than the Honda. For those unfamiliar with th TVR, it weights almost 300kg less than the Honda and has a 5.0 liter V-8 that pumps out 340 lb/ft of torque - more than twice the Honda's figure. Plus, given the respective power curves of the two engines, the TVR's tuned Rover V-8 probably puts out more torque at idle than Honda's engine does at peak revs. That the Honda's rear end is squirrelier than the TVR is astonishing. And who said anything about a recall? I haven't heard anyone say the S2000 should be recalled. I think you're going to have to deal with the fact that anytime a manufacturer brags about a car to the extent that Honda has about the S2000, it will attract criticism. And don't get me started on the poor quality of the interior. ;-> --SpinyNorman 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing one source doesn't justify removing the tags from the whole section. Every claim needs a source. Beyond that, I really think you're letting your own opinions get in the way here. To me, having this huge criticism section would be like writing a criticism section for swiss cheese. I can cite hundreds of sources of people who don't like the taste of swiss cheese, but does it matter? Is it encyclopedic? — AKADriver ☎ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section isn't disproportionately large compared to the whole of the article, what's the problem? --SpinyNorman 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contains opinion, and opinion that has no verification. Here are specific examples, since you seem keen on reverting my tags:

"Despite the high power output of the engine, the torque of 153 ft·lb (207 Nm) in the 2.0 L version and 162 ft·lbf (220 Nm) in the 2.2 L version was quite low even compared to other sports cars with four-cylinder engines" - it's "quite high" compared to a moped, so what? It's even "quite high" compared to my own four cylinder sports car. One could rightfully say the 968 has exceptionally high torque for a four, since it's so huge. Deeming a car's specs as "quite low" is inherently POV unless it's a superlative (best or worst). 153 ft·lbf is actually well above average in the history of 4cyl sports cars. This is verifiable... there are scads of sports cars from the '50s through the '00s with under 100 ft·lbf.

Quite high compared to your Mazda? I don't know which Miata you've got but the latest 2.0 liter Mazda puts out 140 lb/ft - not far off of the 2.0 liter Honda. That, combined with the lighter weight, gives the Mazda a virtually identical 0-60 time. As for the figure being "quite high" for four-cylinder cars, I can think of several engines off the top of my head that do as well or better than the Honda's F20C in the torque department. Nissan's KA24 engine (240SX) managed 160 lb/ft - with with its longer stroke, more of that torque will be available at lower revs. That's the reason Nissan used the engine in both performance cars and trucks. No one in their right mind would put the F20C engine in a truck. The Mitsubishi 4G69 (Eclipse) puts out 162 lb/ft. And these are just Japanese engines. The Jensen Healey roadster's engine put out about 140 lb/ft of torque... in 1972... with carburetors and fixed valve-timing. Of course, it was a Lotus engine and they're famous for, in the works of the British, "squeezing a quart into a pint pot". The same engine, after Lotus developed a little (stretched it to 2.2 liters and strapped on a turbocharger) and popped it into the last four-cylinder Esprit, was, by the mid 90s, good for almost 300 lb/ft of torque. So, these "scads of sports cars" from the '00s with "under 100" lb/ft of torque... name 'em. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the '50s to the '00s. MG A, MG T, MG Midget, Austin-Healey Sprite, Honda Beat, Suzuki Cappucino... My Miata is an early NB 1.8 without variable timing. — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on... you're seriously going to compare vintage MGs and Austin Healys with a Honda S2000? And you don't really expect us to consider the Beat or the Cappucino to be "sports cars", do you? They're designed to take advantage of tax and insurance loopholes in Japan. I held up my end, I gave you several examples of engines that produce as much or more torque than the F20C. I'm still waiting... where are these "scads" of sports cars from the '00s with less than 100 lb/ft of torque? --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

153 lb/ft is well below the norm for performance cars. Even the lowly V6 Ford Mustang makes 240 lb/ft of torque [1]. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below your norm of what you consider a performance car. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name a performance car on sale today in the same price range as the Honda S2000 that has less torque. If you can't, does that mean I can edit the article to say that the Honda S2000 has less torque than anything else its class? Like I said, even the weakest of the Ford Mustangs (the V6) has almost 100 lb/ft on the Honda. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, the BMW Z4 is available with a 2.0L gas four. [2] — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's just an option primarily intended for countries like Italy who levy punitive taxes against cars whose engines displace more than 2.0 liters. Even Ferrari and Maserati have produced 2.0 liter cars for their home market. The Maserati Ghibli Cup II with its impressive 330bhp from a 2.0 liter V6 is just one example. Both Lamborghini and Ferrari have produced 2.0 liter V8s to satisfy this market niche. But back to the BMW, the 2.0 liter four isn't the only engine. If you want more power, you can have more. You can even have the 3.2 liter I6 that puts out an impressive 262 lb/ft of torque - an even hundred more than the Honda. So the Z4 doesn't really count. --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many drivers commented on the early cars' tendency for snap oversteer..." - "many drivers" is a weasel word, pure and simple.

Actually, "many drivers" is two words. But there is no absolute prohibition on "weasel words", it is more a guideline than a rule. There is an "Exceptions" section to the wikipedia article on avoiding "weasel words" that you should probably read. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without more than one source, it's a weasel word. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get more sources. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it forces the occupant(s) to endure high-engine revs" - high revs? absolutely true. but forces and endure are unquestionably loaded. My car is louder and revs higher on the highway and I'm not burdened or forced. If I didn't like that, I'd buy a Camry.

The term "forced" isn't loaded in the sense that an S2000 driver doesn't have an option. There is no alternate rear-end gearing offered, there is no switchable overdrive... --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is loaded in the sense that it casts those attributes as necessarily negative. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They *are* negative. NVH is one of the keey automotive design critera. You can argue that in performance cars, some sacrifice of NVH is going to be made to performance, but you can't pretend it isn't a sacrifice. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative to your POV. It is your POV. — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find someone who thinks NVH is a good thing. --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Handling experts and enthusiasts were doubtful about the usefulness of the newly implemented VSA system" - which experts and enthusiasts?

— AKADriver ☎ 21:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not personally aware of any specific complaints about the S2000's VSA system - though I personally abhor all electronic driving aids. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of it either, but here is where your hypocrisy is obvious - when you disagree with the criticism you're open to removing it, but where you agree you fight tooth and nail to keep it. That's just POV and that's why I removed the entire section. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. I think that electronic drivers' aids are a bad thing. I agreed with the criticism. However, I haven't driven one of the new cars fitted with the system and I haven't read any reviews which claimed it was a bad thing... and also I wanted to cut as a sort of gesture of compromize to you. I'll do some research and put it back if you want. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that the worst thing about the S2000 is the fact that it has four wheels, and not six. Six wheels means better traction and greater lateral grip. Plus I don't like the fact that it uses a steering wheel, when a slider would have made a much more interesting car and matched the tachometer. I also think that it should have had three seats, abreast, so that you could fit an extra passenger, because only two people is kind of small. Also, I don't like the fact that it has a drivetrain. It would be much better to have a constant RPM engine powering a generator and have electric motors at the rear wheels.

--If that doesn't make you relise how completely absurd the criticism section is, I don't know what will. Nothing in the criticism section could be regarded as an actual criticism (maybe, like, the car catching fire or something); everything is pure opinion-based dualities. Just because a car journalist decided that he didn't like the 9,000 rpm redline doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Just because 153 foot-pounds of torque isn't enough for one reviewer doesn't mean that we must all prescribe to, or even read, his opinion. If every car page had a criticism section that marked every journalist's opinion, WikiPedia would be flooded with this drivel. Next thing you know, people will go on the RX8 page and remark how some feel that the rotary engine is a weak point and should be replaced by an I4.--71.235.66.254 05:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "The remainder of Honda's consumer cars are primarily front wheel drive." Erm.... CR-V? Erm.... HR-V?!

The CR-V is primarily front wheel drive, but it does have an on-demand 4-wheel drive.

Massive hp per litre is a joke

The hp/L is high for this car but at significant cost. Considering the size of the engine, this car EATS gas in day to day use. Here are some numbers from the USEPA site [www.fueleconomy.gov]:

For comparison I have used the Mazda Miata, a car in the same class and the oft maligned muscle car, the Ford Mustang:

Car:
S2000; Miata; Mustang GT

Fuel Type:
Premium; Premium; Regular;

MPG (city):
20; 24; 17

MPG (hwy):
26; 30; 25

MPG (combined):
22; 27; 20

Regular Gasoline: $2.91 per gallon Premium Gasoline: $3.12 per gallon

(Using combined numbers)
Cost to Drive 25 Miles:
$3.55; $2.89; $3.64
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles:
1.14 gal; 0.93 gal; 1.25 gal

Hilarious. So the S2000 which is HALF the engine capacity of the Mustang uses about the same amount of gas as a 'inffecient' V8? That's 14.3 vs 14.5 cents a mile? Way to go Honda. Using that much gas you only can get 240 hp? Wow. Give me a Miata. CJ DUB 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. What does that have to do with this article? The word "efficient" never appears in the current edit. — AKADriver ☎ 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made a change to my comments. The title stands though. >100 hp/L is not much of an accomplisment when you need to burn that much gasoline to do it. By the same stretch you could use methanol/rocket fuel mixture and make 50,000 hp with 2.2L CJ DUB 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does this have to do with the article (aside from the table of EPA economy figures that you added in response)? This isn't the place to vent your dislike for a particular make or model. — AKADriver ☎ 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But it is a place to set people straight. Probably 50-80% of the renowned import badges (Skyline, Supra, S2000, heck even some ancient Lexuses, etc. etc.) pages are full of hyperbole nonsense. I can't stand that: when the text of the article is hardly noteworthy and its POV and anecdotal. It'll happen. Just wait. Take a look at this article. Is this car all about driving or about breaking some COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT hp/L record? I choose the former. CJ DUB 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I excised quite a bit of that from this article a while back, along with a pointlessly long list of internet-fanboy criticisms (basically a three-paragraph, poorly-worded whine about torque). It could probably still use some work, but I don't see a problem with noting the unique engineering details of the model. Specific output is only mentioned in passing in a larger passage about the design of the engine, which includes the part where the engine was made bigger. There's not a lot you can say about how fun it is without going into POV-land, though if someone scould add some autocross and road racing results (with citations) that would be nice.

I was more put off by your confrontational tone. You didn't seem interested in improving the article, only insulting the car... — AKADriver ☎ 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No autocross nonsense unless its a sanctioned body. This just leaves the door open for more hyperbole on this car. Fact is it's not really in any notable series. Its more of a showpiece anyway. CJ DUB 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazed that a V8 and an I4 with similar power output get similar gas mileage? If you have it set in stone that an I4 must get a certain gas mileage, then go buy yourself a Miata; engine displacement means absolutely nothing when compared to tuning. If Ford tuned their engine as highly as Honda, their gas mileage would be pitiful in comparison. If you're so obsessed with this notion that an I4 must get X gas mileage, a 2.0 litre must get Y gas mileage, then why don't you go to the RX8 or RX7 pages and go complain about how pitiful it is that they're pulling that gas mileage out of a 1.3 litre engine; you may compare the rotary cycle to actual engine tuning, rather than pegging an extra bank of cylinders to the car. The fact that the F20 and F22C get their power per litre and are driveable on the street is an accomplishment and a half; Honda doesn't resort to big motors for their sports cars. The gas mileage is completely irrelevant in a sports car; I guarantee you 90% of S2000 owners wouldn't give a Mustang a glance, nor do any of them care that they had to sacrifice mpg for real performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.66.254 (talk • contribs)

Hahah. The S2000 is a nice car, but all we know what kind of people drive S2000s. By the way, the consumption is similar Mustang vs. S2000 but the engine output is miles different. That's the hilarious part. 300 hp vs. 237 hp? How about 320 ft.lbs. of torque vs. 167 ft.lbs. I'd just like to know why the mileage is so brutal considering the size of the engine, and pathetic output numbers. If i were a S2000 owner I'd be pissed that a 350Z and a Porsche (Boxster) make better numbers, and the same or better mileage. Your right, Honda doesn't resort to big motors, they resort to gimmicks for their cars without delivering the goods. F1 inspired? What the valve covers? CJ DUB 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what "kind of people" you're referring to. You're still not saying much relevant to the article, either, just bashing the car. No wonder the Criticism section got so big.

The reason for the relation between mileage and economy in this case is quite clear - gearing. Note that the S2000's city mileage is 20% better than the GT's. 4.4:1 final drive ratio will do that to you. The 4.4:1 final drive is also why the torque rating at the engine is irrelevant to actual performance (unless you short-shift or are too lazy to downshift to pass).

You should be bashing the Miata, since it only ekes out 30mpg for 170bhp - and my older model does even worse (27mpg for 140bhp). Again, gearing - 4000rpm on the highway is fun... — AKADriver ☎ 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]