Honda considering an S2000 successor - report

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The engines were all more or less identical, but they had different ECU tunes depending on which car and country it went to.

The biggest problem was really the oil pan, which for some reason was unbaffled whereas the 1ZZ oil pan had at least some baffling. Super easy to kill the engine from oil starvation.

If you wanted to run that thing over 8000rpm regularly, the stock valves would need to be thrown out and replaced with aftermarket, and probably the oil pump gears too. The stock valves were weak would break off the stem and wreck the engine. The lift bolts also were redesigned for reliability later one.

The C series transmissions were somewhat fragile too, which is another reason why K20 swaps are somewhat popular (even though you're not gaining much power for the trouble) for Elise/MR2s.

You're very correct about the consumer. Consumers these days like torquey small turbos, because they make the car feel really fast when you're not pushing it. Every manufacturer is toting the big increase in torque from switching to turbo engines for a reason. The hardcore car enthusiast that likes to shift gears to access the powerband is dying out



No, the friction from operating the valves is nearly negligible. The heat loss at lower rpm from increasing the bore:stroke ratio is also nearly negligible; Toyota found a 1% decrease in fuel efficiency going from the 90mm stroke in the 1ZZ to 85mm stroke in the 2ZZ.

The K series had been around for a decade by the time they had to retire the K20, that's about what you'd expect.

One big reason why you only see high revving engines in supercars now is that a high revving engine usually uses shorter low gears so people don't complain about "lack of torque", but then the shorter low gears wreck your EPA certification mpg. In the real world the mpg decrease is not that big, unless the top gear is too short like a E90 M3 or S2000, and you can get around it like the American manufacturers did using custom shift schedules. For whatever reason, no one has bothered specifying shift schedules to game the numbers, I guess they figure people aren't that interested in manual transmissions anymore.

In a supercar this isn't a problem because they have so much power no one is going to complain that their car is slow and needs a supercharger. Well...almost no one lol.

When the Celica GT-S debuted in the US it DID have an 8300 rpm redline. Toyota lowered the redline a few years later; something to do with transmission problems related to tight/inaccurate shifting gates...my reason may be off but my memory about the change in redline is not.

[funwheeldrive]

A twin-charged 4 cylinder sounds like a nightmare to work on.


The days of powerful NA 4cylinder engines are gone.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

When the Celica GT-S debuted in the US it DID have an 8300 rpm redline. Toyota lowered the redline a few years later; something to do with transmission problems related to tight/inaccurate shifting gates...my reason may be off but my memory about the change in redline is not.

I have a 2000 GTS ECU, it tops out at something like 8250. They did indeed drop it to 7900 later.

Guys who race the 2zz on Spyderchat recommend not going over 8000 continuously because the reliability is not so good on the track.

Sent from my Redmi 3 using Tapatalk

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

A twin-charged 4 cylinder sounds like a nightmare to work on.


The days of powerful NA 4cylinder engines are gone.

The description they gave was not for a twin charged engine, it sounds like an electric turbo just like the ones in F1. It shouldn't be much more complicated than a normal turbo.

I am also okay with them offering an automatic transmission to improve sales, as long as it comes with a stick option.

However I would rather they spend money on making a light, strong chassis and good suspension than some fancy turbo engine. I don't understand what is so bad about a naturally aspirated K24 or R18, which would be adequate if they get the curb weight low.

Sent from my Redmi 3 using Tapatalk

[WolfpackS2k]

That's kind of sad. You would expect better of Toyota.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

However I would rather they spend money on making a light, strong chassis and good suspension than some fancy turbo engine. I don't understand what is so bad about a naturally aspirated K24 or R18, which would be adequate if they get the curb weight low.

Agreed. Have you heard about the Ballard Motorsports project to offer a kit to convert the F20C to 2.4 liters using mostly Honda OEM parts?

Pretty slick IMO: http://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-nat...-2-4l-1161441/

[Calvin27]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

However I would rather they spend money on making a light, strong chassis and good suspension than some fancy turbo engine. I don't understand what is so bad about a naturally aspirated K24 or R18, which would be adequate if they get the curb weight low.

Yep +1. If the brz/86 has shown anything, it's to focus on the chassis. However given the possible price range the rumored s2k might sit it (i.e. more than civic type r) it's unlikely to be low on power.

I'd be happy with a 1000kg chassis with an R18 engine. They are very good for forced induction (more so than a FA20!) and a cheap platform to run for Honda. It would also serve the purpose of boosting the honda heirarchy which is important for sales. This is like the old days where b series were cross compatible and you worked your way up from a d16 to a b18cr along with a few difference chassis of the way.

[ChimpMania]

Shouldnt they make a new Honda in the year 3000 instead? it seems more appropriate and call it S3000

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

That's kind of sad. You would expect better of Toyota.

That could explain why the 2ZZ-GE has so little aftermarket support...
And why the Celica never did manage to deliver sustained competition to the Integra or RSX...

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Agreed. Have you heard about the Ballard Motorsports project to offer a kit to convert the F20C to 2.4 liters using mostly Honda OEM parts?

Pretty slick IMO: http://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-nat...-2-4l-1161441/

Not a big fan of the iron liners, I feel like 2.2L to 2.4L isn't enough of an improvement for all that trouble. Might as well use a K24 right?

I just did some research on the L15B7 and K20C2. It appears that the L15B7 is vastly underrated at "176hp", it is easily a 190-200ish hp engine on 87 gas, and probably 230hp with a tune. The bad part is that the EX-T Civic weighs 110 lbs more than the LX Civic, and the only things they added were some sensors and of course the engine. I imagine that the turbo would allow a few pounds to be taken out of the muffler for equal loudness, and the transmission might be a little heavier, so I'll call it a 90lbs difference.

The K20C is "lighter than the previous generation", which is the R18. The R18 was probably around 230-240lbs with all fluids, so I think you can probably say the K20C is something like 230lbs, which is insanely light. Turns out the K20C also seems to have some potential that Honda hasn't been advertising, because it makes peak power basically right at the rev limiter, and it has the same 86mm bore and stroke as the K20A.

If you add 90lbs to 230, you get 320lbs, which is a fairly normal weight for a turbo 4, though a bit on the heavy side for a 1.5L. So it's possible the K20C is actually even lighter, which would be amazing. The integrated exhaust manifold is not good for power, but you can overcome that with a Rotrex.

If Honda builds this car, they should just grab the K20C2 from the Civic, fit 12.0 compression ratio pistons, spec 91 fuel, and raise that silly 6700rpm rev limiter, which should get close to the 200hp mark from the factory. It seems like a fantastic engine as is, and has much of the potential of the K20Z3/A. With an engine this light, keeping the curb weight under 1100kg should be a piece of cake.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

When the Celica GT-S debuted in the US it DID have an 8300 rpm redline. Toyota lowered the redline a few years later; something to do with transmission problems related to tight/inaccurate shifting gates...my reason may be off but my memory about the change in redline is not.

When I was in school a friend bought a new 2002 Celica GT-S and the redline was only 7800rpm (I think he said that was the first year they dropped it). I also remember the reverse gear would make a beeping sound in the cockpit pretending to be a delivery truck.

[Who8myrice]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

That could explain why the 2ZZ-GE has so little aftermarket support...
And why the Celica never did manage to deliver sustained competition to the Integra or RSX...

I was under the impression that Toyota ecu is tough to break for any flash, you can only go piggy back.

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Agreed. Have you heard about the Ballard Motorsports project to offer a kit to convert the F20C to 2.4 liters using mostly Honda OEM parts?

Pretty slick IMO: http://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-nat...-2-4l-1161441/

Another +1 for Ballade Sports here. I was a customer of theirs for years and Alex the owner is a very stand up community driven guy. Best Honda shop in Southern California in my opinion!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Who8myrice

I was under the impression that Toyota ecu is tough to break for any flash, you can only go piggy back.

That is a huge reason. You have to spend a lot more money on a standalone or piggyback, which sucks. The user named "Gouky" who has made 2GR swap kits for the SW20 MR2 has managed to crack the 2GR and 2AR ECUs though, so Lotus Evora, Exige V6, and Toyota Camry drivers can have some moar powah for cheap now haha.