The S2000

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  The S2000

I think the S2000 is the best roadster out there, thats why i have one, hehe, but i mean its faster than the Nissan 350 z roadster, and the Z4 and the boxster,and sure is alot faster than the Audi TT. The z4 is a lot of mony and isnt as fast as the S2000, so why spend all that money when you cean get a s2000 for 30, 000 and its faster. Also, The s2000 has the best handling out of all of them. It's a great car all around, and the redline is 9000 rpm's!


tell me what you think the best roadster is, this is just my opinion.

posted by  S2000Boy

And its a good looking car!

posted by  S2000Boy

S2000 are turbo charged from the factory... Errr some how I don't think so

posted by  57ock

yes that is true!

posted by  S2000Boy

It also won't do 0-60 in 5.4. Let the boy play with his Hot Wheels now, okay?

posted by  vwhobo

i think the s2k is a big waste of money, no matter the cost. :thumbs:
turbocharged 2.0 hahahahahahahahaha

posted by  (o) (o)

yeah yeah whatever the s2000 is better than the Z, why dont you go read road and track, the z is not as fast, and does not handle as good, so what if it has more torgue, the s2000 is better in acceleration.

posted by  S2000Boy

Check your facts- the 350Z destroys the S2000...The S2000 doesn't have the HP or torque to touch the Z- I've smoked all the little S2000s I've come across in my Z...The 350 runs against the Porsche Carrera for competition, and while it doesn't beat that vehicle, it comes close and the S2000 is a joke compared to the Carrera...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

HAHAHAHA!! That's hilarious...

Not only do I own a Z, I worked for Nissan...You go right ahead and pretend you know what you're talking about, though...Go ahead and tell yourself that Honda's 2.0 can pull against the VQ35DE...I've ripped every S2000 I've come across...Since you're such an expert maybe you can tell Honda to correct their VTEC so it can get some torque...Where the Hell do you think acceleration comes from?? It isn't all about HP little boy...The Boxster can't hang, the Z3 and Z4 can't hang, and the pitiful excuse for a roadster S2000 gets dominated by bad auto drivers in a 350...If the S2000 can't hang with the Porsche Carrera but the Z can, how is the S2000 faster?? Thanks for the laugh though...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

I'd love to see this turbocharged 2.0 Honda engine...Interesting...And while we're pointing out how wrong you are, outhandles the Z my ass...I'd pay to see an S2000 owner outhandle my 350Z Track...Or my G35 Sedan, for that matter...The S2000 is a girl's roadster- it's there for looks...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

i'm in for pics of the engine bay :thumbs:

posted by  (o) (o)

here you go......

oh yeah by the way, road and track, and car and driver named the s2000 better than the z.

http://www.new-cars.com/2003/honda/honda-s2000-specs.html

check that out boyz!

posted by  S2000Boy

Well.... not actually. Let's look at the Aug 2003 comparison in Car and Driver magazine, a magazine that actually tests the performance of their cars instead of using manufacturers stats like R&T (find link below).

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=1938&page_ number=1

While I'll agree that the S2000 stops and goes around a skidpad better, the 350Z is most certainly faster, quicker, and runs faster lap times at the track they tested on.

So where does this leave us. Well to me it's obvious you're well practiced in spewing misinformation, otherwise known as a bullshitter. If you're going to steal your "DNA" blurb from C&D, at least read the entire magazine, not just the part you want. Have a wonderful day. Comments?

posted by  vwhobo

I can't seem to find the turbo Junior.

posted by  vwhobo

Finally, someone who knows that R&T doesn't research their own stats...I'm really having a tough time finding a factory turbo under the hoods of any S2000s as well, VW...I'll concede the skid pad and the braking (although I believe the Track's Brembos clinch that category), but no way is an S2000 blowing away a Z...

Go right ahead and believe everything you read, "Boy"...Those of us who actually are enthusiasts and drivers make judgments based upon experience...Bottom line: the S2000 is a women's coupe that doesn't belong in the same breath as 350Z- it's not a true sports car...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

I agree with everything you say but... Neither is the 350Z, it's much more of a sport tourer. But then I'm old enough to remember what a true sports car is.

posted by  vwhobo

I'll give ya that...I'm of the opinion that vehicles like the 350Z (just an example, not just because I drive one) are the replacements of the pure sports car...My father doesn't really like the newer sports cars, and he isn't an import fan...I really don't feel that with technology constantly being pushed forward and real drivers getting fewer and fewer in numbers that we'll see a true, raw sports car...People are concerned with cushy rides and cars that think for themselves rather than cars that simply do as the driver instructs or are a true symbiosis of driver/vehicle input...But, I'll take what I can get :D
:evil:

posted by  Machine

67 camaro = true sports car :thumbs:
i'm still laughing at the "stock" turbo s2k :rolleyes:

posted by  (o) (o)

A '67 Camaro is not, never has been, or ever will be a sports car. A pony car yes. Maybe even a muscle car. But NOT a sports car.

And when he says turbo S2000 he means his Matchbox car.

posted by  vwhobo

well i stand corrected. i love the first gen camaro.

posted by  (o) (o)

I can agree with that 100%, especially the '69.

posted by  vwhobo

well every one has there own opinons, i think the s2000 is better than the z from reading specs, but thats just me, and no hard feelings guys

posted by  S2000Boy

No hard feelings at all...

Specs are all well and good when read correctly, real-life application is superior...Two equal drivers, 1 in an S2000 and 1 in a 350Z, will give you the truth- an S2000 can't take a 350Z...Bottom line...I've driven a few S2000s and they were alright and pretty fun, but a 350 is more powerful and in my opinion far superior performance-wise...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

vwhobo wrote -
"I agree with everything you say but... Neither is the 350Z, it's much more of a sport tourer. But then I'm old enough to remember what a true sports car is."

Is a 'true sports car' something that you can define? Is a Porsche 924 a sports car? If not then how about a Ford GT40?

posted by  snoopewite

A 924 is a economy sports touring car. A GT40 is a Gran Turismo (Grand Touring) racing machine.

Some examples of a true sports car would be a Triumph TR2, TR3, TR4, MGA, MGB, MG Midget, Porsche 356 (not coupes), etc. Two seat, drop top, no excess bullshit. Anything with a fixed roof is out. Get the picture? 8)

posted by  vwhobo

vwhobo wrote -
"A 924 is a economy sports touring car. A GT40 is a Gran Turismo (Grand Touring) racing machine.

Some examples of a true sports car would be a Triumph TR2, TR3, TR4, MGA, MGB, MG Midget, Porsche 356 (not coupes), etc. Two seat, drop top, no excess bullshit. Anything with a fixed roof is out. Get the picture?"

Ummm... Yeah. Thanks for the input )

posted by  snoopewite

what about the triumph tr-8?
i have one here at work, i need to rebuild the carbs. "side drafts :( "

posted by  (o) (o)

Uh, no. Misses on the excess bullshit criteria. And really anything with a Rover V8 is well, no. On the other hand I haven't rebuilt any Strombergs in a few months, send 'em to me.

posted by  vwhobo

Just wondering what, in your opinion, is the best or at least your favorite roadster...I know, or at least have been told, that MGs are great fun but maintenance nightmares...I won't pretend to know because I've never owned one and only know 2 people that have...They said they really are fun to drive though...I don't know anyone that's owned a Triumph, but I always thought it would be cool to get my hands on an MG or Triumph, maybe for a project car and weekend fun...

posted by  Machine

http://www.cobracountry.com/CCMkt-fotos/poster-suneenvall-texaco-1b.jpg

If you ask me, this is the best roadster out there. Ahhh...British lines...American Muscle.

The Porsche 550A Spyder is also very nice though.

Just curiously, but how do you think the almost 40 year old 427SC would stack up to a brand new S2000 on a road coarse? How about the 289FIA?

posted by  Widowmaker2k

Back in my pre-teen and early teen years my uncle raced a 427 and my dad raced a 289, SCCA A and B Production respectively. I can assure you that on anything approaching a straight either Cobra will run off and hide. Braking while awesome for it's day is probably about equal. Handling on the other hand goes to the S2000. The 289 does the last two slightly better than the 427 due to less and better distributed weight.

Keep in mind when asking this question you're comparing apples and oranges. Or maybe more correctly a stone axe and a swiss army knife. I like stone axe's.

One more thing. Don't anybody assume the S2000 is a "girls roadster". My wife took one look at it and said she'd rather spend the money building a big block '70 GTX convertible. How about if we call the S2000 "a roadster for people in touch with their feminine side". Sounds very PC.

posted by  vwhobo

Well, I guess I can keep it PC...But I'd have to assume that any woman married to you isn't going to accept some "feminine" vehicle...Looks like you got a keeper- nice pick with the GTX...I still don't think the S2000 is a masculine ride, along with the retired Z3 and new Z4, and I definitely don't think the Porsche Boxster looks like a man's car, but that's just me...I'm not calling a guy who owns one any names or making any assumptions, I just have to wonder sometimes what makes people make some purchases...Unless it's some nondescript grocery-getting commuter image is a part of buying a vehicle (I'll exclude some classics and muscle cars because some of those acqusitions are simply for collecting or old time's sake)...I realize I'm generalizing a bit here, but sometimes I look at a car and then the owner and wonder what happened...

This has gotten long, sorry...I agree with VW (that happens a lot) that the S2000 would outhandle the 427, but I think we all know what vehicle I'd take...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

Invisible Turbo Rocks :)

posted by  57ock

the s2000 is faster than the porsche boxter.

posted by  Arthur

Well, I quite like the S2000, and in my mind any car that can rev happily to 8900RPM gets my vote! obviously if it was a turbo it would be lucky to top 7000RPM. So I think that Honda done a brilliant job with the NA S2000!

posted by  Cliffy

Why would adding a turbo limit the RPM to 7k?

posted by  vwhobo

First off s2000 boy get more than one source of info. I love road and track and have been a happy member for 4 years, however just because they say one thing actually testing cars is something else. My roommate has an s2000... they do not come stock with turbos. i repeat no turbos. it is a nice car but the one thing i find dissapointing is the fact that it is not mod firendly. A 50,000 mugen kit only added 15 hp to the wheels!!! while still keeping the car n-a. In my trollings of forums i have rarley heard of people turboing thier s2000s. Most people add a supercharger for around 5-6 grand. As far as the 350 z is concerned i have seen some that are quite fast indead. And for your information Road and Track ranked the z the second best bang for your buck under the chevy corvette. I will try to find that issue and will inform you all of the page. doubtles you have and maybe will beat a few 350z with drivers who cant drive but as far as saying it is the best roadster ever... i will go with the Shelbys that is a true sports car and may i remind you all it was also the first car to go 0-100-0 in under 10 sec.

posted by  theunbelivaBULL

Sorry for the double post but i for got to say something in the last post about the s2000. The Vtec on the car hits at 6500 rpms i belive. that is way to high. If it were to kick in around 5500 or 5000 much better performance could be aquired. it is possible to change it to whereever you want but i dont know how to do it exactly. And should i mention the s2000 for 04 or 05, destined for the US, have a lower redline more displacement and more torque and there by reducing the best part about the car... it had the most hp per liter. A poor play by honda to try and gain US sales...

posted by  theunbelivaBULL

Is that in dollars$$??

posted by  BavarianWheels

yea that is dollars. i might have over shot a little but not much. I also belive that the entire mugen kit was not engine... they added a cf hood, hardtop trunk and wing. not to mention a few other things but you all get the point.

posted by  theunbelivaBULL

Anyone who spends 50k on a "kit" for a rice-mobile and ends up with 15hp extra...this person is far beyond idiocy!!

::and they think I'm crazy for purchasing a 60k car that does the same...and probably more...with a steel hood, and no rear wing...::

posted by  BavarianWheels

i would agree BW...for $50K I would just buy a different car, one that goes much faster and is just all around better.

posted by  SuperJew

two words:
Kit Car - build what you want, design the engine you want, choose your tranny, choose your rear, choose everything
if it doesn't do what you want it to, it's your fault

posted by  asa67_stang

I love the s2k. The way it looks, the way it sounds, and for the most part, the way it performs. In my opinion it is a great car, but I do not think it can beat a 350Z, granted you have 2 experienced drivers behind the wheel. As for the Shelby, that car is just a classic and definetely has my vote.

posted by  Heat_Seeker

Aside from the FR layout, there's really no point in comparing the 350z and S2000. However, the S2K is a badass little machine- c'mon, 120hp per liter! Of course, with that great Honda power comes no torque and a stratospheric powerband. I'd rather not drive a car that you have to abuse to go fast in... Beautiful car though.

-Josh

posted by  spirited driver

For starters, I didnt say anything about 'adding turbos' and I didnt say that it would 'limit' the RPM to 7000RPM. I was speaking on a sort of average basis, ie; MOST turbo cars wont rev to much more than 7000 RPM! If it came across differently, soz lol

posted by  Cliffy

Rb26dett redlines @ 8,000rpm
Original redtop Sr20 redlines @ 7,500rpm
Black top Sr20 redlines around 7000-7200rpm
The Ca18det & rb25det is about 7500rpm
Rb20det is about 8000rpm
Just some examples

posted by  57ock

The best roadster is most definitely the Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet. It's faster, better handling (a little more expensive), and Porsche is the best sports car company ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by  AJ

A kit "car" was not implied...I thought you meant a "kit" FOR a car...

posted by  BavarianWheels

and its insanely expensive....a little more than double the cost of the s2k. what a waste. the s2k and the porsche arent even in the same league. better do your research before yoy write bullshit like that.

posted by  SuperJew

Sometimes quality costs a bit more.

I would rather pay for a Porsche and fly, than buy a S2000 and hope to fly...

posted by  BavarianWheels

well yeah....but I would much rather spend that kind of $$ ($70K) on say, a BMW.

posted by  SuperJew

Hehe,are you just saying that to impress BW?? :D 8)

posted by  vwmaniac

And I would rather spend $5k and a used 954RR and invest the remaining $65k in real estate. Guess who's is going to keep it's value best over the next 35 years.

posted by  vwhobo

well yeah but were talking about cars here...but if u want it ure way i would just put the 70K in my bank account and wait for college. ill be the RMOC - rich man on campus.

and vwmaniac no im not trying to brown-nose up to BW. why would I do that?

posted by  SuperJew

No,I'm just kidding around.I don't know I had a ton of work yesterday and my brain isn't functioning too well,today because I only ha 2hrs of sleep. :evil:

posted by  vwmaniac

you know Leonardo Da Vinci took 15 minute catnaps throughtout his day, only totaling to your 2 hours of sleep? sorry, im doing a huge report on him for school....

posted by  SuperJew

*scratches head*
ok?

......... no, not okay, huh?
that was completely out of the blue, and confused me
what did you think i was talking about?

posted by  asa67_stang

asa67_stang...I quoted the wrong person and had a brain fart...but it still sounds like the unbelivaBULL bought a kit FOR a car and spent $50k and only gleaned 15hp extra.

posted by  BavarianWheels

ok, that helps clear things up
and truthfully, it depends on the kit, what if most of it is suspension stuff with a few engine components tossed in? (but for $50K that thing better climb walls)

posted by  asa67_stang

how does one glean 15 hp?

posted by  SuperJew

In other words, the $50k kit only produced an extra 15hp...I can to that by putting all my windows up when racing!!

posted by  BavarianWheels

:D :D :D

posted by  SuperJew

the s2000 is a very good car, fast good performer handles good. Good gas milage and power. Same with the 350z. they are different cars made by different companys Why compare? Both great cars. I highly Doubt it is a 50k kit. a rough basis for converting Yen to U.S dollars is takking off the last Digit, its Rough but a Decent way of converting if you dont have a currency converter thingie majig. So if you saw 50,000yen its going to be around 5 thousand something.

so stop tthis bullshit and just admire whichever car you like, OK?

Its like comparing the saab 900 mid 90's with the V6 to the Alfa romeo 164 i believe or maybe one of those against the ford taurus SHO. THEY ARE DIFFERENT CARS SO DONT.

posted by  Arthur

First of all NO S2000 ever came from the factory with a turbo installed although several have been modified afterwards...........and 1 in particular achieving 530rwhp! The S2000's claim to fame is being able to get more HP per liter than any other NA motor on the planet. The 350z is also a very nice sports car. "Most" magazines state the S2000 is a better car, depending on what part of the performance specs you're interested in, although I believe that they are sooooo close, it would come down to the drivers ability to make a difference..........and a small one at that. Like they say "Pays your money and picks your poison"...........You wouldn't be dissappointed with either one.

posted by  oneaudiopro

I have a black '03 s2000, Which I bought new and I have 13,000 miles. I love it and it is fun to drive. I'm having several problems and Honda is sandbagging me hard!!

posted by  matthew88

Seriously where do these come from?

posted by  Voda48

damn, the thread starter's got some balls to say what he said.
s2k is a nice car and all, does very well in autox, but it still has no torque, like every other honda. id take the 350z over it anyday, considering they are in the $30k range now. also, i cant imagine a s2k for a daily driver, it'd be a pain in the a$$.

posted by  importluva

I find that comment especially amusing because I just so happen to have a Car and Driver from Dec. '02. In the cover article named "Hot Tin Roofs" they tested the S2000, Audi TT, 350Z Touring, and the Mach1 Mustang.....the S2000 placed 3rd place overall, out of the 4 cars...lol. 3rd in quarter mile, 1st in the 300ft skidpad, 2nd on the road course and lots of complaints about driving the S2000 in "the real world" where you don't keep it above 6000rpm.....yeah, i wouldn't want a car that makes peak torque at 7500rpm and peak hp at 8300rpm to drive on a daily basis.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Sure it has a 9000rpm, but that's only fun on the track.

120hp/liter, just Honda and the media bullshitting everyone. The truth is you have to rev the heck out of it, as many VVTi 4-cylinder Japanese cars, to get the power out of it. Not good for daily driving, but not bad either.

Peak torque of 153 lb.ft. comes at a high 7500rpm; not good, who drives at 7500rpm on the street?

The transmission is smooth, and handling is good thanks to the 50/50 weight distribution and the front engine completely behind the axle, but only at the advance of a long hood now Honda.

Like theunbelivaBULL said, the newer version in America has enlarging the engine to 2.2 liters. Compression ratio also increases slightly from 11.0:1 to 11.1:1. Maximum torque now reaches 162 lbft (up from 153 lbft) and it arrives at 6500rpm instead of 7500rpm. Between 1000 and 8000rpm, the engine produces 4-10% more torque than before. Nothing big, but improved! Maybe the newer 2.2 S2000 is the one magazines acclaimed? Oddly, the enlarged 2.2liter S2000 is only in the US, and Japan and Europe kept the older 2.0liter model, funny??

posted by  cwzilly

I like the s2000, what really disapoints me is its a group 20 for insurance, so you either have to be 35+ with the city job, or some sort of sports star to drive it. Just plain sux.

posted by  cinqyg

I agree, group 20 is the highest grouping for UK insurers, is there really any need to group the S2000 that high?

I disagree with you there, I strongly believe a car is what you make it, If I had 9000rpm to play with I can garentee it would be fun, and I'm sure you wouldn't turn it down either. You can drive any road car sensibly on the street with ease, but as I said, a car is what you make it, fair enough, it might be extreamly difficult to stop yourself from pushing it to it's red line, but it can be done!

posted by  Cliffy

Surely the rpm isnt the be all and end all, its more dependent where the power is and the gearing. If you have ever ridden a superbike then you pull away from traffic lights with 8000rpm,most dont redline until 13+k rpm. Look at the mazda rotary engines there spinning around at 20000rpm.

posted by  cinqyg

That's exactly right, it takes a hell of a lot more than just the RPM to determine what makes a good car :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

The S2000 does 0-60 in 5.8, the 350Z 0-50 is 5.5, the Carrera 0-60 is 5.0 flat. How is a half second 0-60 difference "hanging" with a Carrera when there is only a .3 second difference between the Z and 2000???

Oh and S2000boy, the S2000 is really, really slow. My automatic 4000lb SC430 is almost equal in speed. Help is on the way however in 3 weeks when the Carrera 4S arrives.

posted by  slayerjsh

tell me what you think the best roadster is, this is just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

posted by  JAGOETL

MGs aren't maintenance nightmares: far from it, in fact. Some Triumphs are a little easier to work on, but the MGA, MGB and Midget are an absolute doddle to work on. And everything is still available, right down to a complete, new shell!

A couple of jobs on the B are pretty tricky: I spent five hours changing the gearbox mounts on my BGT V8 last weekend, but that's known to be one of the trickier jobs on the car.

In the UK, there's a fair bit of rivalry between Triumphs and MGs. I prefer MGs, because they tend to be basic, and work fairly well. Some of the later Triumphs (Stag, Dolomite Sprint) were poorly developed and problematic, whereas most MGs will plod along forever. Also, Triumphs tend to be a softer, more 'touring' ride, whereas my B has a really firm ride and you know exactly what's happening at each corner.

posted by  heebee

since when could an s2000 "smoke" a 350z???s2000 has 240 horsepower and 200 torque, while the 350z has 287 hp and 371 torque!

posted by  nissanZfan

the 350z roadster would have to be my fav roadster.then the rx7

posted by  nissanZfan

Just for the sake of your simplistic little mind, what if the S2000 weighed in at 2000 lbs and the 350Z weighed in at 3000 lbs. At that time the Honda would in fact "smoke" the Nissan. Odd as it may seem in your little world twinkie, there is more to being fast than just a horsepower number. Vehicle weight and balance, the power curve of the engine, power to weight ratio, driveline gearing and aerodynamics are all things that need considered.

That being said, the Nissan is somewhat faster than the Honda. You just don't understand why.

posted by  vwhobo

Your Message