# Supercharged S2000



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Now please some one gives me the money for one or two of thoses expensive Digi-cams . . . love thoses pictures . . .and car!


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

all that money he must have spent, and he puts in a bolt on roll cage, other than that looks nice.


----------



## WPL (Sep 24, 2004)

Looks lovely, but the roll cage really spoils it.....


----------



## tokes (Jul 16, 2006)

I don't know about you guys, but a blown S2K is meh. Not enough low end, the powerband just sucks.


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

I've always (secretly) loved these cars, but they have to be yellow for me. Saying that, the above is a very nice example of what a S2000 should look like


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

L14M0 said:


> I've always (secretly) loved these cars, but they have to be yellow for me. Saying that, the above is a very nice example of what a S2000 should look like


Not need to like it secretly, they are bloody nice cars . . . .


----------



## markyboy.1967 (Feb 14, 2004)

*Carbon*

Love the carbon engine covers--they look to be very well done..Superb.Those breaks look extremely close to the spokes of the wheels..


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

No low end? I never get why people use that a bad point about VTEC cars.

It's true but why would you be driving it around there? It's designed and geared to be driven between 6000 and 9000. 

You would be shicked at what these will do on track.

I fitted a Vortech to my last car but never ran it for various reasons. It would have been 350 bhp and 0-100 in around 10 seconds 










Fitted myself too.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

A well installed Turbo kit on the S2000 blows the carp out of that engine up to 10000rpms and gives a bit more torque down the rev range, if this is what many people so much dislike on the car.

Honda is actually very puristic with the VTECs, they build cars that are ment to be raced and abused . . . . nothing for the saturday shoppingmall, there are enough Golfs out there to do that job.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Fantastic engine, NA, 240-250hp, 9000 rpm out of the box reliably, supercharged they are even better 

So good in fact, I putting one in my AE86 at the moment


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

You mad bast 

I think I sent a guy with an S/C S2000 your way for a dyno run the other week, Conrad?


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Mark, Thanks but I sold the Racing line last year  Just having fun now


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

Oh!

Enjoy


----------



## WillRobDon (Jul 29, 2006)

That is ace, they really are fantastic motors and coming down in £££ now.


----------



## peatough (Oct 6, 2001)

*S2000*

Stunning engine but bling car - what a waste


----------



## Flint (Mar 31, 2006)

These cars drive superbly.....Must be a laugh with the S/C...

I love the looks of this one - just loose the roll cage and enormous wing...


----------



## psd1 (May 15, 2004)

Great looking car but...I cant fit in one....and the cage is CRAP!!!!!


----------



## tokes (Jul 16, 2006)

Mark B said:


> No low end? I never get why people use that a bad point about VTEC cars.
> 
> It's true but why would you be driving it around there? It's designed and geared to be driven between 6000 and 9000.


And 6000 is "low end" to me on a blown S2K. At 6000 RPM's with a Vortech blower pullied for 8 psi you're lucky to see 2 or 3 psi, it just makes the car feel like you're running a very, very laggy turbo. As GTRLUX said, a well setup turbo kit is the ONLY way to go on an S2K. A GT3071R would have a tremendous power advantage over the Vortech. Where the centrifugal blower is making 3 psi the 3071R would be making a full 8 PSI and making quite a bit more midrange.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

The secret in S2000 forced induction is timing and choice of components. It`s ten times more difficult to come up with a valuable Turbo setup for a VTEC, then just taking the carp out of an RB with more larger Turbos . . .

The S2000 engine makes wonders with small Turbos, thought doesn`t give you 500HP. A big turbine is great for track use but, crap for reliable quality street performance . . .

A Twin Turbo kit would be great, like on the 13B rotor engine. Is there anything in existance in this direction??


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

Tokes - I think you must be a turbo power man. I think a turbo on these cars can be missing the point though.

I used to be a turbo chap also, but having huge low end power isn't what these cars are about. Look at the NSX-R and what time it will go around the Ring. It's N/A and has a smiliar power profile to the S2000. Putting a blower on the keeps the linear power, but it really fattens it up at the top end - where you need to be.

The engine and gearbox are designed to be run at 7-9k and turbo's don't tend to be good in this range.

I have a vid of a Vortech S2000 taking out a 911 C4S in a straight line, so it has plenty of poke! You literally struggle to change gear.

I think a turbo can spoil the ethos of the car though, unless you find one which keeps linear power (like on an Evo)

The Greddy kit starts running out of puff about 7.5k for example, and the fun of these cars ir revving the nuts out of them - it's easy to make it into something it's not meant to be....

I'm not saying a turbo is a bad thing, it will make it more drivebale day to day, but I certainly wouldn't say its the "only" way to go.


----------



## tokes (Jul 16, 2006)

So the greddy kit running out of pull by 7500 is why you don't put a greddy kit on your car. Stuff a 3071R on there and you get the same or better top end power from a Vortech blower, but with more midrange power.

You can't argue against that, more average power with the same peak power means you're going to accelerate harder out of corners and on straightaways.


----------



## NameIsStanley (Aug 16, 2006)

hahah i actually know this car in person. :wavey:

talk about a coincidence. the car belongs to someone who went to my highschool. he is now in college. he takes it to school occassionally and i've seen the cars a couple of times in the school lot. very nice car. the cooper that you see in the 1st picture is his daily.

what a small small world


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

Fair point Tokes - but the car isn't geared that way. You could also just put a smaller pulley on the Vortech to cancel out the Greddy vs 3071 argument 

It's meant to be driven to the redline and I think an S/C is much more complimentary to the car.

I'd bet if you ran a Vortech against a Greddy car there would be no difference though...


----------



## Joeingo (May 11, 2006)

only problems with the s2000 is you could fit a lot more engine in that bay than the 4-banger and there all convertables, but thats a good example of an s2000 in my opinion


----------



## harris2182 (Nov 13, 2006)

superchargers work est for high reving engines.

i had a corrado g60 1800cc 8v. the charger was good but the engine was at top revs and charger wanted to keep going.

did 16v head conversion, gained me an extra 2000rpm and transformed the car to something else . it was like somone had woke up the engine. you could keep it above 5k and the charger was well on boost.

my friend converted his g60 with a turbo kit. obth were making similar power just differet delivery.


----------



## tokes (Jul 16, 2006)

Mark B said:


> Fair point Tokes - but the car isn't geared that way. You could also just put a smaller pulley on the Vortech to cancel out the Greddy vs 3071 argument
> 
> It's meant to be driven to the redline and I think an S/C is much more complimentary to the car.
> 
> I'd bet if you ran a Vortech against a Greddy car there would be no difference though...


Ok, so you run a smaller pulley and 12 pounds of boost on the Vortech. So now instead of making 2 or 3 psi at 6000 it's making say 4.5 pounds of boost at 6000, while that 3071R would be making the full 12 psi the wastegate/boost controller is set for.

Driving to the redline or not, you're STILL going to make more average power with a turbo and it will STILL be faster even if it's driven right to redline. There's no way to argue it, it's pure physics. More area under the curve = the ability to do more work, and make the car accelerate faster.

Just my 2 cents, I've driven Vortech'ed S2000's and 350Z's and an Integra GSR with a Procharger and they all felt horrible to drive to me. Friend went from a Vorturd to a T3/TO4E 57-trim on his S2000, and from 5000-7500 he picked up something stupidly large like an average of 45 ft-lbs of torque compared to his vortech, when they were making about the same peak horsepower/boost.


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

More average power is only relevant in the gear you are in from that point in the rev range, to the point you change up.

When you are on it, you are redlining the car, then shifting probably to 7k rpm then redline and so on. So as long as the power in the S/C car between those rev ranges is as good as your turbo, it matter not whether it will make more power at 2000 rpm because you aren't going to be shifting more.

Granted they make more torque also - but I still maintain a S/C is better fitting with the gearing and ethos of the car.

There is also not sufficient enough experience with turbo S2000 in this country. It might sound simple but alas there have been a few guys here who have had blown engines from people claiming they can map when they can't.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

I also think that given the nature of the engine and its abillity to rev to 9000 rpm its more suited to SC. Many turbos start to die off at 7000RPM where as the S/C just keeps producing the same boost all the way. My friends 2.0 turbo vtec civic powerband is an on/off switch, it wouldnt be fun to drive on the track at all.

Deffo much nicer to drive with the SC, less of the on off 2 stroke type powerband.


----------



## tokes (Jul 16, 2006)

Mark B said:


> More average power is only relevant in the gear you are in from that point in the rev range, to the point you change up.
> 
> When you are on it, you are redlining the car, then shifting probably to 7k rpm then redline and so on. So as long as the power in the S/C car between those rev ranges is as good as your turbo, it matter not whether it will make more power at 2000 rpm because you aren't going to be shifting more.
> 
> ...


Okay, what did you not get? A centrifugal blower makes boost that rises exponentially with RPM's. If you're pullied for 9 PSI at 9000 you don't get 7 PSI at 7000 and 2 PSI at 2000. You're probably making ~6 or so pounds of boost at 7000 RPM's if the car is pullied for 9 PSI at 9000.

This has nothing to do with the proper gearing, even at high RPM's and nearing the redline you will STILL MAKE MORE POWER WITH THE TURBO! The last Supercharged S2000 dyno I saw was making 310 WHP at peak and 230 WHP at 7000 RPM's.

Here's two charts I overlayed. One is a Comptech supercharger @ 14 psi on a 2.0 S2000 with an inlinepro compression-lowering headgasket, compared with a speedcraft turbo kit at 14 psi.



boosted hybrid said:


> Restrictive log manifold, recirculated dump and a unknown turbo dont make for good power.


Just for reference, that's what the tuner said about the turbo kit. This was the lowest power turbo S2000 I could find a dyno graph of on his chart, and it still trounces the blower. Here's what the tuner also had to say about log manifolds.



boosted hybrid said:


> Pretty much any non log type exhaust manifold will make good power over a log (inline pro) manifold. Its typically 50-100whp difference in power at the same boost level from what i have seen.


So a good header on that turbo kit and you're kicking even more ass. I digress. Blower made 380 WHP, Turbo made 375 WHP. Both cars are 2.0 litre S2000's running inlinepro thick headgaskets.










Purple is the Centrifugal blower, green/teal is the turbo kit. So at 7000 RPM's, a point where you claim a blower is better suited to the gearing and RPM range of the motor, the Turbo is making 350 WHP and the Blower is making maybe 290 WHP. I don't know about you, but I'd consider making 60 WHP more for the turbo kit at 7000 a pretty significant difference.

I don't know why you keep arguing that the power band is like an on-off switch or that turbos die out at 7K, because a properly sized turbo definitely doesn't.

How about This Graph, 10 psi from my aforementioned GT3071R on a proper tubular manifold would be beating the crap out of the Comptech blower to the tune of 70 WHP at 7000, and makes more power on 4 psi less boost.

This is the dyno chart I used for the Supercharged chart.

This is the dyno chart I used for the Turbocharged chart.

As I have said *several* times before, you can't argue against physics. Physics says the turbo car will be faster, a properly tuned mildly sized turbo car does not have that on-off feeling of power, and will make up for the S2000's lack of midrange power, contrary to your misguided beliefs about blowers working for the S2000's rev range. opcorn:


----------



## ahapartridge (May 19, 2003)

Is there a twin screw (Whipple/Lysholm type) charger kit available for the S2000?


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Tokes, some great information there, you have obviously done your homework. Nice one.


----------



## Mark B (Jul 28, 2004)

Ok you are right... I can't get that exited about it - both have pro's and con's when you start adding reliability issues in.

PS - no ned to get aggressive.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Now he's got me thinking about putting a GT3071 or GT3076 on my F20C AE86, when will it ever end


----------



## Quail (Aug 26, 2006)

Absolutely awesome! Slight shame about the bolt in Cusco, but that car looks like a weapon!


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

ahapartridge said:


> Is there a twin screw (Whipple/Lysholm type) charger kit available for the S2000?



Yes, there is a screw type MP62 Eaton blower made by Stage One Tuning (SOT) in America, it does around 330WHP at 8psi. Google it and it will come up.

Cheers


----------



## NameIsStanley (Aug 16, 2006)

How ironic that this thread is revived. The car in the original post makes 380 rwhp at ~9 PSI on a Dynopak.


----------

