If you’re Shigeru Uehara, Honda R&D’s Executive Chief Engineer, you spend your last year on the job building a track-ready special-edition version of the S2000.
Lots of engineers build track toys, but not many get their cars approved for production. Uehara isn’t just any engineer, though; he’s credited as the father of the Honda S2000 and the Acura NSX and Integra Type R, the trio that convinced a generation of American tuners and enthusiasts that Honda is a legitimate performance car company. His final gift to the enthusiast world is the S2000 CR.
The renowned high-revving engine delivers 237 horsepower and 162 lb-ft. of torque. Perfectly complimenting the engine’s output characteristics is a compact, longitudinally-mounted, close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission that features a direct linkage for precise shifting and quick throws. The most dramatic changes involve springs and shocks that Honda calls “significantly stiffer.” Although no figures are available, our experience with Uehara’s other creations like the Acura Integra Type R tells us that he knows the meaning of “significant.” Thicker anti-roll bars round out the suspension changes. A quicker steering ratio will allow drivers to avoid shuffling hands in tight corners. A limited slip differential and defeatable electronic stability control carry over from the regular S2000.
The S2000 CR’s biggest handling gain over the regular S2000 may come from gumball Bridgestone Potenza RE070 tires similar to those used on the former Japanese-market NSX-R. The 215/45R-17 front and 255/40R-17 rear tires have a treadwear rating of 140.
A large body kit and a rear cowl fairing behind the seats are claimed to smooth airflow over the S2000 CR. But the most over-the-top aerodynamic modification is the rear spoiler. The wing has three distinct horizontal surfaces: the upturned outside sections produce downforce while a flatter center section smoothes airflow over the car. The whole affair is affixed with black supports. Honda claims overall downforce on the rear axle at speed, a rare trait for a street car.
Air conditioning and the sound system are gone in the name of weight savings, but you can add them back in as options. The S2000 CR also loses its power folding softtop to shed a few pounds, and in its place it gains a beefy rear strut tower brace with four mounting points. This is said to enhance the already stellar rigidity of the S2000’s shell so it won’t flex when cornering. A removable aluminum hardtop provides shelter from the elements and admission to tracks where open-top cars aren’t allowed. With the top off, the S2000 CR will weigh approximately 2765 pounds, almost 90 pounds less than the regular S2000.
The most obvious is the Apex Blue paint, which is a pearlescent bright blue evocative of Audi’s Sprint Blue. Black badges and gunmetal gray five-spoke wheels round out the exterior mods. Abundant yellow stitching on the doors, steering wheel, seats, and shifter (which has shorter throws than the already insanely short ones in the regular S2000) complements yellow woven seat inserts. Faux-suede seat bolsters and door panels replace the leather items on the regular S2000 in the name of grip, and they’ll also broaden the S2000 CR’s appeal to PETA members.
Pricing isn’t confirmed, but it will certainly be more than the regular S2000’s $34k base price and probably less than $40k. Given the expected production volume of less than 2000 units (no limit was confirmed), Honda will lose money on the deal, a fact that company representatives actually admit. Such corporate honesty is rare, but Honda can afford it. The S2000 CR is a fitting tribute to the man who put “Honda” and “performance” together in the popular dictionary.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Hmm doesn't seem tons better than a regular s2k
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93
thats a nasty spoiler.... looks like it was a bad aftermarket addition.
anyways, the 2008 S2K is the first time this car has really had any change when it comes to the entire vehicle. for the most part the only thing that changed before was the engine slightly. one year they made it poduce slightly more TQ and less HP.
1997 RedR - ZedR
the roadster humps are ugly
whitegoose( RedR-ZedR) wrote:thats a nasty spoiler.... looks like it was a bad aftermarket addition.
anyways, the 2008 S2K is the first time this car has really had any change when it comes to the entire vehicle. for the most part the only thing that changed before was the engine slightly. one year they made it poduce slightly more TQ and less HP.
No, not really.
2004 m/y had a freshening and that was the only time it was changed, with re-tuned suspension/wheel set-up, exterior updates, and enlarged engine with more torque. HP never went down, it was just Honda is using SAE's new version of measurement.
The CR is just an limited addition the S2000 line.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
The blue should be a shade or two darker for me and the front bumper isn't the best, but as a whole its looks good. I like the spoiler and wheels a lot. Wish I had enough money for one, someday though.
PSN ID: Phatchance249
So Honda is bypassing the Dealer rice option and going for straight factory rice?
LOL
"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net
Considering the wing is actually functional, why are all these people calling it rice? Only thing I don't like is the lack of a significant upgrade in HP.
Convinced a generation of American tuners and enthusiasts that Honda is a legitimate performance car company"
The Acura Integra Type R tells us that he knows the meaning of “significant.”
Now that ive gotten back in my chair from laughing and sneezing soda from my nose, that has to be the 2nd most hilarous thing I've heard this week (Right behind the fool with a stock 88 Monte Carlo SS trying to accuse other ppl of being slow).
I wasnt aware that 130lb of torque was significant, I must have missed that week in school. Though I am impressed that in just 10 years they have managed to up that impressive number to 162. In all seriousness this car is far from being at the head of the class and is barely noteworthy. I'm still not convinced when I think Honda, I think pathetically weak, I think no low end power. That hasnt changed.
I seriously am confused why anyone would pay up to 40k for this car, I mean for that price you can get a Porsche boxster, or a vette, 350z,etc (You can get a real car!) even looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM. Sure high revving is fun, but theres a difference between high revs and performance and one doesnt mean the other. The S2000 I wouldnt classify as a performance car, it simply lacks the power to be that, its just a fun car, nothing more.
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Rodimus Prime wrote: that has to be the 2nd most hilarous thing I've heard this week (Right behind the fool with a stock 88 Monte Carlo SS trying to accuse other ppl of being slow).
reminds me of a guy with a cobalt ss trying to act all tough
rodimus prime wrote:I seriously am confused why anyone would pay up to 40k for this car, I mean for that price you can get a Porsche boxster, or a vette, 350z,etc (You can get a real car!) even looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM. Sure high revving is fun, but theres a difference between high revs and performance and one doesnt mean the other. The S2000 I wouldnt classify as a performance car, it simply lacks the power to be that, its just a fun car, nothing more.
if you have 40k to spend, does it really matter? not all people look at it for its power, or its weight to power, or all the junk you look at.
if a man in his 30's likes the car and has 40k to spend, then he'll buy it, because he likes it
.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Unless you're Chuck Norris.
Then two wrongs make a roundhouse kick to the face.
Rodimus Prime wrote:
I seriously am confused why anyone would pay up to 40k for this car, I mean for that price you can get a Porsche boxster, or a vette, 350z,etc (You can get a real car!) even looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM. Sure high revving is fun, but theres a difference between high revs and performance and one doesnt mean the other. The S2000 I wouldnt classify as a performance car, it simply lacks the power to be that, its just a fun car, nothing more.
You know, I say the same thing about Cobalts. Who in their right minds would get one? I mean do these consumers not about what is out there? Are they really that ignorant when it comes to car shopping? Don't they understand what is a low-rent build quality, mediocre performance, small interior room, or a chassis that is so dated, that a Yugo has the right to laugh at them.
I think the reason they buy them has to be because Chevy dealerships are a dime a dozen and the competition's dealership are so far away, therefore consumers never get a chance to drive a "real car." You know what I mean, right?
Quote:
I wasnt aware that 130lb of torque was significant, I must have missed that week in school. Though I am impressed that in just 10 years they have managed to up that impressive number to 162. In all seriousness this car is far from being at the head of the class and is barely noteworthy. I'm still not convinced when I think Honda, I think pathetically weak, I think no low end power. That hasnt changed.
When GM ever gets a naturally aspirated 1.8L with 190HP and 130 ft-lb I-4 and a naturally aspirated 2.2L with 237HP and 162ft-lbs, then you'd have room to talk.
Because as of now GM's 1.8L is getting a best of 140HP with 126 ft-lbs and GM's 2.2L is putting 148HP and 152 ft-lbs.
So by your formula, GM, having less torque with the same displacement is "pathetically weak" right?
Quote:
looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM.
Just read this. Don't feel like re-typing. lol By the way, you got the price difference wrong too. lol
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
not a huge fan of the looks, but im more than willing to bet its a total blast to drive. And yeah it may not have a ton of torque, but in that car you dont really need it. Still a quick car.
"Custom cars, custom problems."-me
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:
I seriously am confused why anyone would pay up to 40k for this car, I mean for that price you can get a Porsche boxster, or a vette, 350z,etc (You can get a real car!) even looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM. Sure high revving is fun, but theres a difference between high revs and performance and one doesnt mean the other. The S2000 I wouldnt classify as a performance car, it simply lacks the power to be that, its just a fun car, nothing more.
You know, I say the same thing about Cobalts. Who in their right minds would get one? I mean do these consumers not about what is out there? Are they really that ignorant when it comes to car shopping? Don't they understand what is a low-rent build quality, mediocre performance, small interior room, or a chassis that is so dated, that a Yugo has the right to laugh at them.
I think the reason they buy them has to be because Chevy dealerships are a dime a dozen and the competition's dealership are so far away, therefore consumers never get a chance to drive a "real car." You know what I mean, right?
Quote:
I wasnt aware that 130lb of torque was significant, I must have missed that week in school. Though I am impressed that in just 10 years they have managed to up that impressive number to 162. In all seriousness this car is far from being at the head of the class and is barely noteworthy. I'm still not convinced when I think Honda, I think pathetically weak, I think no low end power. That hasnt changed.
When GM ever gets a naturally aspirated 1.8L with 190HP and 130 ft-lb I-4 and a naturally aspirated 2.2L with 237HP and 162ft-lbs, then you'd have room to talk.
Because as of now GM's 1.8L is getting a best of 140HP with 126 ft-lbs and GM's 2.2L is putting 148HP and 152 ft-lbs.
So by your formula, GM, having less torque with the same displacement is "pathetically weak" right?
Quote:
looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM.
Just read this. Don't feel like re-typing. lol By the way, you got the price difference wrong too. lol
none of those motors you mentioned are in performance cars or so called performance cars are they?
No.
I agree that you really won't need much more tq in a car that weighs that little. It would be nice tho to keep you from having to shift all the time to keep in the V-tec powerband.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:22 AM
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93
Sappy96 wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:
I seriously am confused why anyone would pay up to 40k for this car, I mean for that price you can get a Porsche boxster, or a vette, 350z,etc (You can get a real car!) even looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM. Sure high revving is fun, but theres a difference between high revs and performance and one doesnt mean the other. The S2000 I wouldnt classify as a performance car, it simply lacks the power to be that, its just a fun car, nothing more.
You know, I say the same thing about Cobalts. Who in their right minds would get one? I mean do these consumers not about what is out there? Are they really that ignorant when it comes to car shopping? Don't they understand what is a low-rent build quality, mediocre performance, small interior room, or a chassis that is so dated, that a Yugo has the right to laugh at them.
I think the reason they buy them has to be because Chevy dealerships are a dime a dozen and the competition's dealership are so far away, therefore consumers never get a chance to drive a "real car." You know what I mean, right?
Quote:
I wasnt aware that 130lb of torque was significant, I must have missed that week in school. Though I am impressed that in just 10 years they have managed to up that impressive number to 162. In all seriousness this car is far from being at the head of the class and is barely noteworthy. I'm still not convinced when I think Honda, I think pathetically weak, I think no low end power. That hasnt changed.
When GM ever gets a naturally aspirated 1.8L with 190HP and 130 ft-lb I-4 and a naturally aspirated 2.2L with 237HP and 162ft-lbs, then you'd have room to talk.
Because as of now GM's 1.8L is getting a best of 140HP with 126 ft-lbs and GM's 2.2L is putting 148HP and 152 ft-lbs.
So by your formula, GM, having less torque with the same displacement is "pathetically weak" right?
Quote:
looking at the low end of the spectrum as far as two seat roadsters go, the saturn sky redline and pontiac soltice gxp are 10k less and would absolutely rape the S2000 at half the RPM.
Just read this. Don't feel like re-typing. lol By the way, you got the price difference wrong too. lol
none of those motors you mentioned are in performance cars or so called performance cars are they?
No.
I agree that you really won't need much more tq in a car that weighs that little. It would be nice tho to keep you from having to shift all the time to keep in the V-tec powerband.
They may not be considered performance engines, but the point was displacement to torque rating... And if you know, you normally get more torque when you have a larger displacement. The only high performance aspect out of these Honda engines was the high power figure and taller rev limit. But hey, it is not my fault GM relies on Forced Induction to get to the power/performance levels of a Honda, where here Honda can do it Naturally Aspirated.
"As for shifting all the time," drive one and it is like any other performance 4cyl, get into the upper rev band and the feel is like having a Turbo.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Lol, so gm is damned that they went FI on their small motors but damned if they stuck w/ NA. Who cares if subaru, mazda, dodge and whoever else has boost too.
w/e
Its a legit way of making power either way.
As more my remark about the powerband I was talking about at a track type event.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93
Rodimus Prime wrote:
I wasnt aware that 130lb of torque was significant, I must have missed that week in school. Though I am impressed that in just 10 years they have managed to up that impressive number to 162. In all seriousness this car is far from being at the head of the class and is barely noteworthy. I'm still not convinced when I think Honda, I think pathetically weak, I think no low end power. That hasnt changed.
I wast aware that he said 130lb of torque was significant
I like it, ive always liked s2ks.....
however, I believe it;s time for a new model, not just a refreshening, I mean come on! how long has it been the same car over and over again? (with the exception of minor changes) Its time for a totally new car, It would suck if they keep this car looking the same for over 8 yrs, who would do that?
oh yea, the cavalier was the same for 10 yrs...
Since when did this turn into a discussion about the cobalt? But having said that I choose my particular car based on power and the engine, handling, and overall styling,and something under 23,000. The only things comparable were the SRT4 which stopped production and the Mazdaspeed 3 which wasnt out yet and looks like a shoe. I know about every kind of car on the market, I spend time on manf websites and I have subscriptions to several publications. I'm an educated consumer. I also dont like shoes (vw golf, focus, mini cooper). I like something that actually looks like a car instead of a Golf cart.
mediocre performance - only thing faster in the class is the SRT4 which is now a mini SUV, if you want better you have a get an evo or sti which I wasnt in the market for
small interior room - as compared to what? Theres not even room for my feet in the Scion TC, im also not married with kids, I could careless if there was nothing in the car at all except a drivers seat. Nobody buys a sports car because they are taking the wife and 3 kids to a soccer game.
I happen to live in the Capital city of PA, I have access to just about every type of car except Ferrari, if theres a car, theres a dealer for it here
chassis that is so dated - well thats funny maybe you should spend more time at an auto x, they hold thier own against everyone
Not a performance engine - hmm I suppose the fact that the ecotec is owning NHRA since it came out with a large amount of OEM parts still on the motor
Bottom line for the price I paid for my car there was nothing else in the ballpark from any other manf., I cant say the same for the S2000
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Sappy96 wrote:Lol, so gm is damned that they went FI on their small motors but damned if they stuck w/ NA. Who cares if subaru, mazda, dodge and whoever else has boost too.
w/e
Its a legit way of making power either way.
As more my remark about the powerband I was talking about at a track type event.
Nope damned at all. Difference is one did their homework, invested money in R&D and put brains to work to extract power from their engines, while the other took the cheap and easy route and slapped in F/I. Who here is more impressive?
And since we were talking about Honda vs a narrow-minded fan who seems to not recognize achievement, and not about Subaru, Mazda, or Dodge going on boost.
And if you want to open another Pandora's box, GM's F/I engines still lack in performance, but that is another topic altogether.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
So, its better to have a n/a car w/o a bottome end than a boosted car which actually makes tq before 5000 rpms.
I get it now.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93
Id also like to know how GM is behind in the boosted world.
Their 2.0L make 260hp 260lb ft of tq while mazda has a 2.3L 263hp and 280lb ft tq in the 3 and 270hp 280lb ft tq in the 6.
Dodge has 300hp from a 2.4L and 260 lb ft of tq. Subaru STI 293hp 290ft lb from a 2.5L. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 286hp and 289 ft bls of tq.
That covers most all of them.
The only motor that exceeds w/ the same dispacement is the evo.
GM is sooo far behind...
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93
Rodimus Prime wrote:
mediocre performance - only thing faster in the class is the SRT4 which is now a mini SUV, if you want better you have a get an evo or sti which I wasnt in the market for
And not to forget a GTI, RSX-Type-s, Mazdapeed 3, WRX, hell even the Mini Cooper S will be neck and neck. And the trend will probably continue with the next SRT-4 too.
Quote:
small interior room - as compared to what? Theres not even room for my feet in the Scion TC, im also not married with kids, I could careless if there was nothing in the car at all except a drivers seat. Nobody buys a sports car because they are taking the wife and 3 kids to a soccer game.
To it's predecessor, car went from a compact to a sub-compact and if i that is not backwards thinking, then I don't know what what is. And who in their right minds would consider a Cobalt a "sports car?"
Quote:
I happen to live in the Capital city of PA, I have access to just about every type of car except Ferrari, if theres a car, theres a dealer for it here
Great, so your excuse for not figuring out there were better cars out there was because you were lazy then, right? Look i am helping you. lol
Quote:
chassis that is so dated - well thats funny maybe you should spend more time at an auto x, they hold thier own against everyone
Maybe around your area, but thank the intercooled 12psi S/Ced boost for that, where low-end is needed for auto-x and well S/Cs gives that.
Quote:
Not a performance engine - hmm I suppose the fact that the ecotec is owning NHRA since it came out with a large amount of OEM parts still on the motor
Granted that may be true to degree, but that is when you spend $50-100K on engine modifications and end up with a lifespan of what less then 10-20 miles. What I'm talking about is realistically you can get off the showroom floor.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Sappy96 wrote:So, its better to have a n/a car w/o a bottome end than a boosted car which actually makes tq before 5000 rpms.
I get it now.
You know that you're grasping for air when words are put in to your mouth.
Granted, Honda's torque numbers may be higher then GMs but they also peak 1-2K higher then GM's too. Not a problem, the gearing put into Hondas helps out that minor deficiency.
Anything else?
Sappy96 wrote:Id also like to know how GM is behind in the boosted world.
Their 2.0L make 260hp 260lb ft of tq while mazda has a 2.3L 263hp and 280lb ft tq in the 3 and 270hp 280lb ft tq in the 6.
Dodge has 300hp from a 2.4L and 260 lb ft of tq. Subaru STI 293hp 290ft lb from a 2.5L. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 286hp and 289 ft bls of tq.
That covers most all of them.
The only motor that exceeds w/ the same dispacement is the evo.
GM is sooo far behind...
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Sappy96 wrote:Lol, so gm is damned that they went FI on their small motors but damned if they stuck w/ NA. Who cares if subaru, mazda, dodge and whoever else has boost too.
w/e
Its a legit way of making power either way.
As more my remark about the powerband I was talking about at a track type event.
Nope damned at all. Difference is one did their homework, invested money in R&D and put brains to work to extract power from their engines, while the other took the cheap and easy route and slapped in F/I. Who here is more impressive?
And since we were talking about Honda vs a narrow-minded fan who seems to not recognize achievement, and not about Subaru, Mazda, or Dodge going on boost.
And if you want to open another Pandora's box, GM's F/I engines still lack in performance, but that is another topic altogether.
Read.... PERFORMANCE, it does not say power level. I choose my words carefully. And with that said and since we are talking about the LNF now, the performance numbers are not there, have any doubts read the link i gave up there.
Now you bring up power levels, yes GM is finally competitive on paper with its power rating. And it just so happen all surpassed the LNF in either HP and torque, thank-you. Yes i do realize they are a little bigger but keep in mind that save for the Mazda's engine, none have Direct Injection and all still wind up passing the LNF's power level. When they do get D-I the gap difference will only get bigger.
You'd think the LNF would be in Evo territory by now with all the
NHRA Ecotecs, but that is just the problem, all that racing technology hoopla to achieve power is not put into showrooms.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
I dont care those S2K's handle like STINK now!!! With those upgrades those things will be incredible.
I still think that the Si is better then the cobalt SS for under 23,000. I won't even compare how the handling/braking/feel of the Si compared to my SS test drive.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered 
less power, smaller brakes, weaker engine, im not seeing the appeal here
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
