B20 swap integra vs. S2000

:sunglasse Well this race isn't exactly my story persay. But nevertheless, it's a racer story. My in-laws has a 4 dr integra with a B20 swap motor and one day he decided to put it to the test to see if it was worth the time, money and effort he put into it. So he called out my friend with the S2000.

B20 Integ. B20 motor, si transmission, and GSR head
DC sports header
Complete cat back exhaust system
AEM cold air intake
9mm MSD wires and Denso spark plugs
STR throttle body and cams
Stage 2 ACT clutch and short shifter
A'PEXi Super AFC


S2000 AEM cold air intake
9mm Nology wires and NGK spark plugs
DC sports header
APEXi cat back exhaust system
Stage 2 Masterclutch and short shifter



With all the mods the integ has done. I exspected it to blow away the S2000 but that was not the case. What I exspected actully resulted in the opposit. On first and second gears the B20 had the race won but the S2000 made a come back on third and fourth gears. Althought the race was pretty close, it had me wonder. How did the S2 made a big come back like that I mean it was losing by about 1 1/2 car length at the start of the race. The B20 could of finish off the race easy but it didn't.
:rofl: WHY!!!!
Can it be because the S2 1st and 2nd is weak but 3rd and 4th are very powerful. Or is it the fact that the S2 driver is a much better driver than the B20. What ever the reason maybe, everyone that was there that night was in shock when the race ended the way it did. I myself was the most supprised because I had high hope for the B20, so much hope that I had 200 bucks ridding on it. If anyone out there have a perfect explanation for why the B20 lost then please feel free to explain, because I certainly didn't understand why.

The S2000's redline allows it to pull longer in every gear...I betcha the 'Teg might've gotten to fourth, but the S didn't.

If the S had launched better, and shifted quicker, he would've passed sooner.

The S2K won because not only did it have more power, it had similar weight. It is difficult to launch the S2K for most people...in my opinion, the S2K should have led from start to finish.

Let me get this straight,you say the S2 had more hp. If I understand correctly, the S2 comes 240hp and all the basic done, it should only gain about 30hp wouldn't it. So together, the S2 pushes around 270hp. How much exactly does the B20 pushes. Also, my in-laws B20 redline at 8400rpm, does anyone know exactly what does the S2 redline at?

the b20 with gsr head is probably not even breaking the 200 hp mark... and if it is then not by much... so it starts right off with less hp than the s2000. I am not a bit surprised the teg lost

If the B20 with gsr head is barely breaking the 200 horsepower mark...about how much horsepower am I looking at with a B16A head and B20 block (crvtec...in a hatch)....? Is it all worth it in a place where i cannot properly tune my car because there are NO accessible dyno's...

A car having a high redline doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to make power til redline. You can raise the stock rev limiter on an EX with no mods and you won't see any more power unless you modify the fuel and ignition maps. With the mods you listed for your in-laws car, he won't be making much more than 200 crank horsepower and that is being optimistic. Oh, and to answer your question, the stock redline on a s2k is 8900.

With that at mind, do you or anybody out there know what is the best way to sup up your car? I mean getting the most power for each of your gears. I have a 02 hb si with the basic done and when I race I can't feel the power until 3rd and 4th gears. What would I have to do to give my 1st and 2nd gears more power? Would I have to change the gear's ratio or would I have to increase the pressure on my timing belt?

what is the best way to sup up your car?
:sly:

would I have to increase the pressure on my timing belt?

:screwy:

You probly shouldnt mess with your timing belt.

One thing overlooked... or at least not mentioned is the really low torque put out by the s2000 i think it is only like 146 or something like that. Low torque = slow launch. After he got up to the power band all the way up to 8900 rpm :drool: he'd be pullin on your in law like crazy!

The b20 wont have much torque also, the s2000 shouldve killed that car, that b20 shouldve been around GSR fast, not s2000. If it was turboed, thats another story

it all depends on the transmission too in the b20. my friend with an LS tanny with a b20, type r head ran mid 14s (i think) in a 4 dr teg. If he had a type R tranny i bet he could have maybe kept up with a s2. i dont know what s2's run tho so cant really say anything. by the way im in hawaii so our 1/4 times are a lil slower than mainland since the different air conditions. trust me it makes a difference.

i wasn't surprised the s2k won
but i think the driver played a litlle factor in it too

S2000s run average 13.9-14.2 stock.

Ya'll say that the B20 has low torque, that's surprising to me because isn't a B20 a motor from a CRV. I always thought that SUV motors has more torque than a regular car motors. But I can be wrong.

Ya'll say that the B20 has low torque, that's surprising to me because isn't a B20 a motor from a CRV. I always thought that SUV motors has more torque than a regular car motors. But I can be wrong. They're good. Thats why people like to use them. The engine can create some problems though. Most SUVs are gas guzzling 5+ liter V8s, so yeah, there is a lot of torque. Except for cayenne, its turbo charged...:naughty:

I thought so, I just wanted to make sure.

They're good. Thats why people like to use them. The engine can create some problems though. Most SUVs are gas guzzling 5+ liter V8s, so yeah, there is a lot of torque. Except for cayenne, its turbo charged...:naughty:

Yes, torque is proportional to engine displacement. What type of fuel is needed for the K20 in the Civic Si?

One thing overlooked... or at least not mentioned is the really low torque put out by the s2000 i think it is only like 146 or something like that. Low torque = slow launch. After he got up to the power band all the way up to 8900 rpm :drool: he'd be pullin on your in law like crazy!

The S2000's torque rating is 162 lb feet.

The S2000's torque rating is 162 lb feet.

For the 2004 models with the F22C motors. The 2003 and less versions with the F20C are rated at 154 ft-lbs.

are you telling me i have around the same torque as an s2000 :screwy:

i always thought those things made around 170 or so.

It's still weak as hell for a $40,000 car. The Nissan 350Z is a way better deal because it's got like 287 horses and like 275 lb ft of torque (but cars with more displacement tend to generate better torque numbers no matter their horsepower rating) and it's like $13,000 less. But if I had the money to get either one, I'd still go with the S2000 because it's still a very tunable 4 banger (therefor it will always be lighter then the 350Z and should get better gas mileage), it's rear-wheel drive also, and it looks better.

Honda needs to make an AWD Civic with an F or K series engine to start competing with the WRX STi and the new Evo Lancers (both of which are pretty damn ugly - the WRX being the least ugly IMO - actually with some cosmetic attention, the WRX STi can look pretty damn sweet).

I don't know much about CRVTEC, but the s2k is a bad mickeyflick :evillol: . The tourqe probably had something to do with the lead being taken by the teg, but I think driver had something to do with it too. I don't know who told you a S2k is 40 grand either.(Did I read that right?) And the EVO!!?? That thing is georgeous!! I'll take two, thank you very much.

It's still weak as hell for a $40,000 car. The Nissan 350Z is a way better deal because it's got like 287 horses and like 275 lb ft of torque (but cars with more displacement tend to generate better torque numbers no matter their horsepower rating) and it's like $13,000 less. But if I had the money to get either one, I'd still go with the S2000 because it's still a very tunable 4 banger (therefor it will always be lighter then the 350Z and should get better gas mileage), it's rear-wheel drive also, and it looks better.

ok...sorta contradicting urself, BUT it's ok. i'll jus clear some things up for u...

1st, the msrp for the s2k is actually less than the 350Z (34k-for the track version...33k for the roadster,compared to 32k for the s2k.)

2nd, 274 lbs of torque :biggrin:

3rd, the s2k is actually VERY difficult to tune because honda squeezed so much power out of the motor initially. i/e will show only 2-3hp freed IF that.

4th, in a track comparision, the s2k handles the corners better, but out of the turns the lowend torque of the 350Z pulls it out faster is too much for the s2k to make up.

5th, u saying that those cars are ugly jus ur opinion...many others would disagree. i personally like to think of the STI/EVO as the ugliest beautiful cars ever. they aren't easy to look at, yet are very nice looking all at the same time...(if that makes sense)

I could have sworn I saw that S2K's msrp was at 40k, oh well, I'm not argueing because I wasn't sure.

I've seen some decent looking STi's, but nothing that was all factory exterior wise. I think the STi that's on the cover of Super Street (I'm pretty sure that that's the mag my friend has) looks pretty damn good.