2000 S2000, or a 2004 350z

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  2000 S2000, or a 2004 350z

I am interested in both and am looking for another car as soon as I get rid of my current one. Anyone who owns either of these have an opinon on these cars? Im really leaning towards the S2000 but still am in love with the 350 :(.

Thanks

posted by  Nazzuk

wow toughy, man points for the 350z, but its all about what u want dude

posted by  Stem

honestly, id go with the s2000... dont care much for the 350z. but thats me

posted by  mazda6man

If you type 350z vs s2000 in the search you'll come up with a few threads about this.


I'd go the s2000 as well. :thumbs:

posted by  GreekWarrior

The S2000 looks like a penis. The 350Z is actually attractive. Your call.

posted by  PontiacFan27

I think it's the other way round....the S2000 looks like a proper sports car IMO, and revs to nearly 9,000rpm......when you have whining like that, who needs a turbo? lol

posted by  Cliffy

I always thought the RX-8 looked kinda like a penis :laughing:.

posted by  chris_knows

A little bit, but the RX-8 has some shape and style too it.

posted by  PontiacFan27

S2000 - best car in Top Gear survey so you're not gonna be dissapointed by it.
350Z has a bigger engine though so if you feel that the lack of torque in a S200 is too much then go for the Z.

posted by  fudge

Hmmm... I'd probably go with the torqueless wonder on this one... the S2000 :thumbs:

Although, both cars are pretty good. I would say its your call.

posted by  StiMan

This one's tough, I love both of them. If it were me buying one, I think I'd take the light high reving sports car as opposed to the Japanese muscle car. :2cents:

posted by  elchango36

S2000, and supercharge that bitch,

posted by  Pythias

Some might argue that a penis does, too :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

Touché.

posted by  PontiacFan27

350z. Looks better and is quicker.
But more importantly, in order to achieve decent acceleration in an S2000, you have to launch it at about 5000 rpm. Ridiculous.

Real world acceleration (5-60 mph...rolling starts) are terrible for the S2000. VERY terrible. 7.2 seconds. Almost 2 seconds slower than the 350z.

Away from the track the S2000 is a stupid car. VERY tight interior, NO real hard top, and SLOW acceleration numbers.
And for all the S2000 supporters claiming track superiority, the 350z is consistently faster around a track.


Car and Driver "Hot Tin Roofs".

posted by  What

(copy and paste from other forum)

'05 Honda S2000

Price: $32,600
Miles Per Gallon: 20/26 mpg
Curb Weight: 2835 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/RWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual
Engine
Type: Inline-4
Displacement: 2157 cc
Horsepower: 240 bhp @ 7800 rpm
Torque: 162 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
Redline: 8200 rpm

'05 350Z Track

Price: $34,300
Miles Per Gallon: 20/27 mpg
Curb Weight: 3225 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/RWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual
Engine
Type: V6
Displacement: 3498 cc
Horsepower: 287 bhp @ 6200 rpm
Torque: 274 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Redline: 6600 rpm


Power:Weight
S2000 vs 350Z
11.81 - 11.24

I still think I'd have more fun in the Honda.

posted by  elchango36

oh deffinatly the Honda,,, love it, shapes just right, looks good roof up or down, the nissan only looks good in metal top form i reckon!!!

posted by  True_Brit

Wow, somebody is actually copy/pasting rather than linking us to another Forum, lol :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

C'mon Cliffy, What do I look like, a NOOB?:laughing:

posted by  elchango36

You be suprised how many members ignor that rule, lol. I just tend to ignor such mistakes sometimes, as loyal members wont intentionally advertise! :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

deffinitly s2000 fromwhat i hear 350z's arnt all that great and are heavy and s2000's and very quick and extremely nimble and that high reving n/a engine rulz. get a mugen one theyre hot

and heres some more specs for ya

Honda S2000 Specifications

0-30: 1.8 seconds
0-60: 5.3 seconds
0-100: 13.8 seconds
0-1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
Top Speed: 150 MPH



350z

0-30 2 seconds
0-60 5.4 seconds
0-100 13.9 seconds
0-1/4 mile 14.1 @ 101 MPH
Top Speed: 156 MPH(limited)

posted by  wordsux

These are the correct numbers
2000 Honda S2000
0-60: 5.5 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.2 seconds

2004 Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.77 seconds

posted by  What

ull find different numbers for those cars all over the internet, ive read in more than one place the 350z will do the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds, it was the one a girl at my school got,brand new, it had a tap shifter or something, w/e u call it i cant remember

posted by  dsmracersv98

Hey does anyone remember DSMer? Well I do, and I remember one thing he always use to say:

"Performance isn't just a number."

I agree with him.

posted by  GreekWarrior

i drove a 300ZX for a few years very cool, anyways, i think that the honda is the way to go it is alot more fun to drive, it just keeps reving, what more cold you want, while the Z is nice and powerful but it is like driving around in a boat might go faster but no were ear as much fun, just think when was the last time you went for a burn threw the hills had a great time and actually timed yourself, thats right probably never, so if your car is half a second slower to the next one what does it matter as long as you have had a driving experience.

posted by  DRFT-R

Not to mention the money you save from buying a 2000 S2000 instead of a 2004 350Z.

posted by  fudge

I'd drive the S2000 out of the dealership rather than the Z without thinking twice. First of all, the 350's styling never rated too high in my books. Secondly, it isn't all that often that you come across a 2-2.2 N/A 4 with the performance of an S2000, while a 3.5 V6...isn't all that innovative/unique or sensational IMO.

My last reason which holds the S2000 in favour is its ability to rev...I can't imagine the feeling one experiences when screaming along the road at 9000RPM (with the previous 2 liter variant) or 8200 RPM (with the present 2.2 L) in a car with go cart-like handling. Other than all of this...Honda holds a 'special place in my heart'.:wink2:

posted by  Newspeak

Your Message