Comments on: Early look: Honda S2000 Type-S

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:59:47 +0000

jamaicandude, autonut: The lack of “R” ain’t the problem. It’s the presence of the (wrong) “H.”

“CTS: THIS is your ideas of a “bad ass car?”

Impulsive: I agree, this is NOT a beast

L-88: spoilers are gay, and calling them “wings,” is even gayer.

Maximus: “I’d rather have a Type Z as in Nissan 350Z.” Me, too.

Scarface03: “Has anyone wondered why A—a hasn’t developed a roadster of its own? ”
I haven’t. The faux-luxury division doesn’t develop its own cars.

“raw performance?” You ever drive a viper?

By: Scarface03

Scarface03 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:13:09 +0000

Will they call it a “Type-S” in the States. That designation has been reserved for Acuras. What’s left, “Honda S2000 Si”?

Either way, I’m jealous of those who have them, and I want one. You can lose the rear wing, if you ask me.

While I’m on this topic, has anyone wondered why Acura hasn’t developed a roadster of its own? The S2000 chassis would be available, and they can price it out at $10k more than the S2000, making it more of a competitor of an SLK, Z4 and Boxster, and emphasizing luxury instead of the S2000′s raw performance emphasis. That way also, Honda and Acura roadsters wouldn’t compete with one another.

By: A4

A4 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:47:43 +0000

i KNEW the US wouldnt get something exclusive for once.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:46:03 +0000

‘autonut’, you have your opinion on aesthetics and performance, and I have mine. For now, you’re only a failure in the fields I mentioned. Tell your mom to SHADAP. I know enough about the car but its time is up in terms of design, and for me it’s time never was since I don’t like revving to a high redline to achieve movement and having to pay a penalty at the pump.

By: injunraiv

injunraiv — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:55:11 +0000

GM sucks, and Al Gore’s kid drives a Hummer!

By: Htay5500

Htay5500 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:54:17 +0000

its a blast to drive, and looks neat too.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:12:02 +0000

Wlell Impulsive, you concur with my mother about me being a failure: I did not make it to MD or even PhD.
Since we all allowed opinion, I do like clean looks of S2000, minus digital speedometer. Attraction to NSX lasted much less time for me. After Pulp Fiction it was sort of deja vu. It is not a large car, it meant to remind people of British road cars and it did, similarly to Miata or Z3. If company starts re-designing exterior they usually screw it up.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:09:28 +0000

Talking about aerodynamics on a droptop makes me laugh.

By: maximus

maximus — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:13:47 +0000

i agree, this is out of style. I’d rather have a Type Z as in Nissan 350Z. S2000 is too small and built for midgets.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:47:42 +0000

‘autonut’, absolutely no temper … are you a psychic or mind reader? If so, you are a failure.

As for being opinionated, yes, that’s the point of this site. And truth be told, my opinions are better overall than most here. It is an old design that now looks dated to me and it doesn’t hold a candle to the NSX which still looks good … so you see, objectively there’s classic beauty and then there’s not. And objectively, I’d rather have a beast than a rabbit on crack … you can defend this thing all you want.

By: jamaicandude

jamaicandude — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:53:08 +0000

Yeah.. another good point autonut. I’d still love to see one though. I love Type Rs.

By: LP640

LP640 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:51:18 +0000

i love the S2000 especially that V-TEC engine which just begs to be revved hard. Not so sure about that huge rear wing, looks too much like an extra car from the fast and the furious.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:47:16 +0000

Impulsive, you have a slight issue with temper and you not opinionated enough. Yes it is an old design and wing looks ridiculous, however the car is pleasant to look at without it and clean design can last for a while. There are many examples when car lasted over 20 years in the same basic shape. Internals may need improvement with time. Also, this is not Civic it is not sold in hundreds of thousands units in one country and does not need to be recycled every 4 years. Don’t forget that it does handles as well as ‘Vette, does not rattle or shake, or yes, it costs 50% less.

By: 67_L-88

67_L-88 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:43:48 +0000

Nice ride, but please, please remove that wing.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:41:33 +0000

Dude, the same argument may be used for following: because Honda listen and learns they may not want to repeat NSX mistakes. When it’s time to pull out ….

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:39:50 +0000

Who cares … it looks dated. They’ve milked the design long enough. It looks ghetto with the wing and aero kit.

By the way, ‘Lambo’, this is NOT a beast … the ‘Vette is a beast … this is a rabbit on crack, with fuel economy marginally better than a ‘Vette. And you are a stupid monkey which nicely dovetails into the theme of animals here.

By: jamaicandude

jamaicandude — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:01:38 +0000

autonut:
You’ve got a good point, but power delivery won’t change much from stock… all in VTEC. I’ve driven modded S2ks before, and they behave the same out of VTEC… Just like other VTEC motors. But when the engine switches to the big cams, they become maniacal. And the car’s relatively light, so you’d definitely feel the power.
Also, look how long it took for them to do a proper NSX R… a Type R S2k might just be the final piece to this puzzle.

By: gsh

gsh — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:58:52 +0000

civic type r is faster. sorry honda (and s2000 fans), but im not buying anything that doesnt say type r on it from you.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:55:50 +0000

Dude, you may be right, but the car is almost eight – ten years old, so realistically it is more economical to start from scratch then keep on tweaking. Furthermore, all mods that you are mentioning may downgrade reliability. Honda can simply change computer settings and get more HP out of the motor, but this is Honda and they strive for perfect balance.
Lastly, how one would notice the difference between 240 and 260 HP? Those ponies come up at the red line, therefore in 6th gear car has to be above 150 mph for a 240 HP motor. another 20 ponies will give maybe 5-10 mph. Realistically, those ponies is an academic/theoretical discussion not practical application, that is why Honda went after torque few years back: you could accelerate faster on the oval.

By: atourya

atourya — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:52:05 +0000

The base car does a 1/4 in 13.8. That’s pretty impressive for 237hp.

By: jamaicandude

jamaicandude — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:37:42 +0000

autonut:
S2000s with more aggressive cams, intake/exhaust and tuning make significantly more power than stock. And improved valve springs can push the redline up a notch as well. About the only place much performance isn’t gonna be found is in the head, which flows exceptionally well from factory. Also, ITBs have been proven to add as much as 15whp on top of regular bolt ons. There’s a lot more to be had from this motor, and it would make a worthy Type R. And as brilliant as the chassis/suspension is, there’s loads of room for improvement there as well.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:58:49 +0000

pleas remove the horrid wing from this bad ass car.

By: LamborghiniZ

LamborghiniZ — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:58:22 +0000

Niiiice, this is sweet. The S2000 is a beast.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:48:16 +0000

Well in Japan there are different environmental standards. They not better or worse they just differnt, so engine is more attuned to local standard. If you recall the engine in original s2000 was 2 liter 240 HP with 120-130 lbs of torque. To increase torque the displacement was bored (that what I read/recall). When engine was bored the HP output was slightly up, but last year the SAE measurement was modified/adjusted and everyone HP went south. I don’t know if this the same engine that was originally introduced measured in Japan and adhering to Japanese horses (they maybe smaller horses so more of them fit under bonnet )

By: christianboy10

christianboy10 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:44:06 +0000

Agree with autonut these cars are great as is.I own one and the only upgrade I did was exhaust,intake and headers and its perfect I dont need to do anything else

By: gooch02000

gooch02000 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:42:16 +0000

I would agree with you, autonut, under most circumstances, except for two things: first, the s2000 is coming up on the decade mark, and second, they already have the 2 liter engine producing 250hp in Japan. So in short, yes, more R is warranted.

By: autonut

autonut — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:32:48 +0000

Dude, how much more “R” can you squeeze out of 2.2 liter 237 HP engine? Naturally aspirated it’s all it can do. The car already very rigid and suspension is not something that will put you to sleep. Manual prevents bad drivers from owning this car. Go to dealer and test drive one, then ask yourself if more R is warranted.

By: golf4me

golf4me — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:31:54 +0000

So it’s really just a stock S2000 with the J.C. Whitney treatment? Nice wing & flares….not. S2000 is probably one of the best looking Japanese cars ever…why go ruin it?

By: jamaicandude

jamaicandude — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:24:25 +0000

These images have been up on Honda’s global website for quite a while now. It’s nice though… but c’mon Honda: where’s the S2000 Type R?