F20 or F22C

[playboymonk]

Hey guys, I just bought a 2006 s2k. This car is fantastic, however I'm kinda feelin down since I have the F22c engine and can only rev up to 8200rpm while the F20 can rev up to 9k. My whole logic on honda with high revs is, it's not the size of your engine, it's how high you can rev the car to beat the big guns. Pretty much compression and refinement over displacement. Which engine do you think is better? Was it true that some F20 engines would blow up since it couldn't stand the revs, and some drivers was power hungry and would go crazy on the revs? and the strategy behind honda stroking it to a 2.2 was to raise the torque and lower the compression, pretty much to make the car more reliable and more torqey for the american market?

[s2000isu]

do a search youll find tons of info on this subject. Couple points that were brought up were I think america is the only country to get the 2.2 everything else stayed 2.0. How high a engine revs has nothing to do with anything. I know some diesels that would kill our cars and rev to 4 grand maybe a little higher.

9000 rpm rev limiter isnt really a good thing its just an amazing thing for most people

[playboymonk]

well, europe still has the f20, however for 2006 the japanese have also switch over to the f22c. Yes, I also think being able to rev up to 9k is amazing, thats why I do kinda wish I have the f20 engine.

[Scott]

The F22C was, indeed, done as after marketing research in North America showed that perspective customers wanted more torque out of the S2000.

Performance wise however, the difference is pretty negligible. Both are fantastic engines.

[Java Junky]

The power's what gets 'er done. Not the higher revs, unless those higher revs are where the power is.
A higher redline makes for good bench-racin' fodder, but it don't mean diddly when it comes to doin' the deed.
The power's what gets 'er done.
Be well.
Java

[abe_fshr]

are both F20C and F22C spoon engines?

[Java Junky]

Hi Abe, F20C n' F22C r' the engine disignations for the earlier model Stewie (F20C = 2000cc, 2000-2003 AP1) n' the later one (F22C = 2200cc, 2004 up, AP2). To the best of my knowledge Spoon is jus' an aftermarket vendor. (Although the word "jus'" might be misleadin')
Be well.
Java

[DMC_S2000]

Well yeah, you also have other point with your belief " its not how big the engine is, but the higher the revs it can do ". F20c and f22c1 has the same vtec kick in, which is at 6k rpm. F20c has 9k redline and f22c1 has 8k redline so that means you can use a wider vtec powerband in f20c, which is 3k rpm, unlike in f22c1, which is just 2k rpm but has more torque...f20c is slightly better for me, but if its really f22c1, i would just lower the vtec kick in at 5k rpm to get back that 3k vtec powerband back.

[abe_fshr]

yea thanks, i thought so....so the F22C1 is pretty much the F20C with an in house stroker kit, i looked up the specs on the motors and that is what it looks like to me

[Java Junky]

Talkin' strictly about the two engines, the power output difference, if noticeable at all, is not noticeable from the driver's seat.
There's alodda folks that make it out that Ma Honda somehow, n' for a whole bunch'a rumored reasons, took some of the 'nads away from the F20C n' made the F22C. If that were the case (which it's not, by the way. Stop relyin' on the unsubstantiated posts of strangers n' go look it up) the F22C would be less powerful than the F20C. It's not. It has a ridiculously small amount of HP more if you wanna know the truth, but that small amount of difference don't mean diddly.
Quite frankly, it's barely noticeable on paper too, but mine is not a popular opinion. Posts go on for pages claimin' that one engine has an advantage over the other. I don't see it n' strongly disagree.
And this whole "my redline's bigger'n yours" thing is such a load of BS. It's the "more-is-better" gene rearin' it ugly head again. The redline is jus' the fence limitin' an engine's playground. A higher redline is not some magical, glow-in-the-dark talisman that makes one engine/car quicker than another. The redline is jus' the result of 1) how high you can spin it regularly without riskin' turnin' it into a paperweight n' 2) a reminder that you've passed POWER, go back two spaces.
Again, personally, I could live with either engine. I like 'em both equally.
It's when you get to the rest of the parts that make up the AP1 n' the AP2 that you've godda really decide which you like better.
While the end results of the engine powers might be very similar, that can't be said of each model's handlin' characteristics. While it might not be apples n' oranges, it's definitely the tasty differences between Granny Smiths n' Golden Delicious.
Be well.
Java

[Bubblerboy64]

I test drove a bunch of the S2000 cars before buying a 2000 model year car. I agree not much if any difference between the cars related to the engine. However if you are one who uses the engine to its maximum and explores the red line frequently then the earlier cars are likely the better choice. I did not see a great deal of difference in ride quality or handling but again I did not explore the limits of the car. Java Junky has stated that the ride quality of the 04 and up cars is more comfortable and that there are differences in handling at the limits. Perhaps he will expand on that a little. I would be interested in others opinions about these issues. Lets talk. I did notice more difference car to car then year to year. That meaning that some of the cars apparently were "used" more then others? And this is a subjective thing real hard to put your finger on exactly what was different between the cars. I just report that if a dealer had a couple cars to drive (unusual) or if you drove one at one location and then immediately drove another at another location the cars just seemed to feel different. And it was not early cars related to newer. Just my experience. JEH

[Java Junky]

Aaay Bub, owyadoon?
Did I actually say comfortable? 'Don't recall that, but, as I believe (okay, disclaimer time: all of the followin' is life accordin' to Java) the AP2 does wear softer suspenders, comfortable is one way to put it.
I shared a hunt, similar to yours, for something to satisfy the urge. 'Spent the too-little time of dealer-allowed roadtests to determine that the last 2 model Zs were not what I was lookin' for. Likewize the Mini S, a couple'a non-descript Beemers (They were used roadsters. Other than that they didn't leave much of an impression. 'Somethin' 'bout Beemers that always puts me comatose. Obviously I wasn't pilotin' any of their rocketships). The Mustangs (prior to the current model) really caught my interest n' almost came away the winner, n' truth be told: if I'd'a gone with the Mustang I'd'a probably been content. ('Probably less likely to still be in possession of my license too)
For sure it was a hit-n'-miss kind'a search that was mostly powered by drivin' by lots n' seein' somethin' that looked interestin'. 'Tried nothin' brand new. 'Goes against the grain to lose thousands of dollars of value in the first few hundred yards of a new car's travel.
I'm sure I'll think of at least a couple'a others later, but, I spent some time lookin' for somethin' that could carve corners.
For a couple'a months durin' this search, I found that an old friend had picked up an AP1, which he'd been beatin' the begeezus out'a n' I was impressed by the fact that the car was holdin' up so well under this guy. One thing led to another n' somehow he lapsed from his senses long enough to offer it to me to use whenever I had "the urge".
I had the urge alot. To the point'a me wearin' out my welcome n' him tellin' me to go get my own. Once I'd thrown his AP1 into the first corner my search became narrowed down to an unavoidable deal on a hot Mustang r' a reasonable deal on a Stewie. N' I'd read enough about the S2000s to know that there were differences between the AP1 n' the AP2, so I checked 'em both out n' found that the AP2's suspension felt a little more useable to me. (Yeah, we're finally gettin' there. Hey, you're the one who requested that I "expand" on that a little)
So, again, to my way'a thinkin', the reason that I opted for the AP2 over the AP1 was the suspension n' the slightly extra rubber in the rear. While I enjoyed myself in the AP1 (n' make no bones aboudditt: if I'd'a hadda go with an AP1 I would not have been disappointed), with the AP2 I felt faster n' more planted when at the edge of traction in a corner. I suspect that the softer suspension of the AP2 is more forgivin' on the more imperfect surfaces of the street n' allows one to approach closer to that edge n' remain there with more assuredness than with the AP1. While the AP1 is an excellent smooth-surface track car, on the varyin' surfaces of the street I found the suspension prone to be unforgiving of imperfections, n' on the street was where I knew I was gonna be spendin' most of my time (I already knew it was gonna be my daily driver).
So the bottom line of it all was that, in the corners that I'd be makin' the most use of, surfaces were good, but not always track-smooth. The more forgivin' suspenders of the AP2 works better for me there.
If I was gonna use the car strictly on the well-maintained surfaces of a track I'd'a probably opted for the AP1.
But except for one last time when he hadda let me drive his 'cause he wanted to try mine, I'm only allowed the seat in the passenger area of my buddy's AP1.
Apologies for the life history Bub, anybody else on the site would'a know'd better'n to suggest that I "expand".
N', in case anybody's readin' this that I'm sayin' the AP2 is better'n the AP1, go back n' read it again. I obviously put you to sleep someplace durin' the proceedin's.
Be well.
Java

[bladerunner]

You say the AP2 has softer suspenders, which is true only in the rear which has spring rates that are 10% softer than an AP1 while the fronts are actually 6.7% stiffer.

[BabyItsaFact]

Honda softened the rear end and stiffened the front to help keep the inside rear wheel planted in sweepers close to the limit. This was a problem on earlier models used in auto-x and caused many a pulled hair. The ap2's extra torque, while being a small difference on paper, really increases driveability around town and adds significant oomph exiting a high speed corner. MOST comparison reviews I've read give shorter lap times to the ap2. I personally drove both before buying mine. I have NOT driven both on the track. I admit the fact that my wife drives it whenever she's not hauling kids played heavily in the decision to buy the 2007, it really is easier to drive, hear yourself think, live with in general.) That's my .02.

[Java Junky]

So they stiffened the front a bit eh? That didn't get picked up on the ol' 'Nad-o-meter.
'S'near'z I can figure, the cockpit's mounted kind'a aft n' aft is where you've godda locate the majority of your concentration when you're really pushin' Stewie in a corner. ('Can't rightly make it to that apex that you're pointin' to if your tail's about to exit the outside of the corner, tail lights connected to the knee-bone, connected to the front end n' all) So, what registers most is the softer suspension that's been set into play in the rear. N', to me anyway, it makes a noticeable difference n' is why I opted for the AP2. Ma Honda's got some pretty good personnel that earn their paychecks to my way'a thinkin'.
As for that extra torque, not doubtin' anyone for a minute here, so don't get me wrong, but that's not somethin' that I found noticeable.
N' for the record, as much as I'd really like to, I haven't had any Stewie anywhere near a track. But not havin' the ability to jump into an AP1 anymore, any comparison at my end'a things is past tense. I've godda tough it out bein' limited to livin' with an AP2. Damn!
Be well.
Java

[HONDADDICT]

My understanding from reading all the info out there, is that honda increased the displacement to gain more low end torque and passify those out there that wanted a slightly "less frenetic" car. The hp stayed virtually the same and the torque gain was about 10-12 pounds. The compression stayed the same, although the bore and stroke changed as well. Honda is noted for there high reving engines and unless you spend a huge amt of time north of six K, the engine will last forever with proper maintenance. Some of their f-1 engines run all day at 18 to 20k rpm. The only weak areas that i have heard of is the clutch and rear axle. I know if I continue to do burn-outs, I'm pressing my luck with the clutch/drivetrain. I'm sure other members have their own take on these issues. The bottom line is that both engines are excellent powerplants w Honda's reliability and superb engineering!

[Java Junky]

Yeah Addict, there's been alodda reference to Stewie's engines (AP1 n' 2) bein' related to motorcycle engines, which I believe is because of the efficiency n' the fact that with the bikes over the past decade, the real power's up top.
But longevity, even when "north of six K" (very nicely put) shouldn't be any problem. I no longer follow the bike magazines so I'm not current with what Honda's doin' with it's bike engines redline-wize, but I'm certain it's not very different from the 14+ K redline of the not-quite-current Yamahas.
So, with the reputation n' experience that Honda has, and the resultin' ability to build engines that can regularly deal with high RPM, I believe the only thing that would do harm to our engines is poor maintenance n' takin' it past the Ma Honda determined redline. (N' even then, I understand that they've built in a rev-limiter. 'Never miscalculated n' used it o'course. Alright, maybe once jus'ta make sure it was there n' operational)
To the best'a my knowledge, that pretty much describes a "bullet-proof" engine (when unaltered). That's a mighty good feelin', ain't it?
Allows you to focus your concentration on jus' keepin' it out'a the weeds.
Be well.
Java

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by HONDADDICT

My understanding from reading all the info out there, is that honda increased the displacement to gain more low end torque and passify those out there that wanted a slightly "less frenetic" car. The hp stayed virtually the same and the torque gain was about 10-12 pounds. The compression stayed the same, although the bore and stroke changed as well. Honda is noted for there high reving engines and unless you spend a huge amt of time north of six K, the engine will last forever with proper maintenance. Some of their f-1 engines run all day at 18 to 20k rpm. The only weak areas that i have heard of is the clutch and rear axle. I know if I continue to do burn-outs, I'm pressing my luck with the clutch/drivetrain. I'm sure other members have their own take on these issues. The bottom line is that both engines are excellent powerplants w Honda's reliability and superb engineering!

They raised the compression on the 2.2 from 11.0:1 to 11.1:1.

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by Java Junky

Yeah Addict, there's been alodda reference to Stewie's engines (AP1 n' 2) bein' related to motorcycle engines, which I believe is because of the efficiency n' the fact that with the bikes over the past decade, the real power's up top.
But longevity, even when "north of six K" (very nicely put) shouldn't be any problem. I no longer follow the bike magazines so I'm not current with what Honda's doin' with it's bike engines redline-wize, but I'm certain it's not very different from the 14+ K redline of the not-quite-current Yamahas.
So, with the reputation n' experience that Honda has, and the resultin' ability to build engines that can regularly deal with high RPM, I believe the only thing that would do harm to our engines is poor maintenance n' takin' it past the Ma Honda determined redline. (N' even then, I understand that they've built in a rev-limiter. 'Never miscalculated n' used it o'course. Alright, maybe once jus'ta make sure it was there n' operational)
To the best'a my knowledge, that pretty much describes a "bullet-proof" engine (when unaltered). That's a mighty good feelin', ain't it?
Allows you to focus your concentration on jus' keepin' it out'a the weeds.
Be well.
Java

Many people say that the S2000's motor is like that of a streetbike and I could see why with its high revving nature. Motorcylces acheive their extremely high redlines through extreme bore/stroke ratios with a large bore and a very short stroke, 72.0 by 46.0 mm would be a typical bore stroke ratio on a streetbike, the F20c measures 87.0 by 84.0 mm which is pretty much a ratio within the realm of all cars. With such a high redline for a street car and a long stroke it means that the Honda has an extremely high piston speed(piston speed is how far each piston travels in one minute- twice the stroke in feet, multiplyed times the RPM) 4000 feet per minute (fpm) used to be considered the limit. F1 cars run about 4500-5000 fpm. if you do the math for the F20c you'll find them stroking out a racy 4575 fpm. @ peak power (8300 RPM), and a crazy 4960 fpm @ redline. I hope you understand the signifigance of what I just said! So, it's not based on motorcylce engine design whatsoever, just automotive engineering turned up to 11!
(I used the F20c as an example because the math was already done)

[Java Junky]

All very likely true 'Blade. I'm disputin' none of what you say. But, all that spec aside (lately, too many numbers put me in need for therapy n' therapy is clear-air twisties. 'Can't ever get enough therapy) the bottom line of Honda's bike r' car engines is that they, the engineers that design for the manufacturer, determine the redline. That said, Honda's earned enough respect from this particular Ford guy to trust that they have a pretty good idea of what they're doin'.
It serves no purpose (leastwize, none that will do their reputation, stockholders, n' their ability to stay in business any good) to be advisin' clients to drive their products in excess of RPM that will keep said products reliable. If Ma Honda says the redline's at 9000 I'll respect their experience n' knowledge n' keep it below 9000. If they say the redline's at 15,000 I'll respect that too.
Be well.
Java