Thinking of buying a Honda S2000 (1 Viewer)

[AjayM]

I'd call the S2000 a sports car...but not an exotic car or anything like that. The M3 while certainly an awesome machine still isn't the text book definition of a sports car, but it comes REAL close. But on the other hand, a Porsche 911 can't be a sports car either with those little, tiny child seats it has, neither is the Ferrari 456. And then the other side of the spectrum, that definition doesn't work with something like a Mercedes SL500 which has 2 seats and is certainly a capable car at high speeds, but isn't a sports car. Defining "sports car" could take awhile for sure.

And does anybody know if there are any published track (like a regular race track, such as Laguana, Buttonwillow, etc) numbers on the M5? I love the M5 and wouldn't hesitate to pick one up if the means were available, but I just don't see it beating up on a Vette in more than maybe one or two specific categories.

Andrew

 

[AjayM]

I understand that you're a sensitive person, but saying I don't like the S2000 is my opinion.

Well you are certainly welcome to your opinion, it is shared by more than a few people. The S2000 isn't for everybody, in fact Jason was looking for all opinions - positive and negative (although the "bitch car" comment was probably a little out there).

Andrew

 

[Chris Moe]

Actually technically speaking the 911 and the 456 are Grand Touring cars, normally referred to as GT cars. The SL500 is a sports car, just not a very good one.

 

[Todd Hochard]

If you can't handle Free speech, don't live in America.

This isn't America, this is the HTF. You have to play by the house rules, and you're not. Simple.

I'm out. Jason, I hope you got something out of this thread.

Todd

 

[Josh Lowe]

the bmw M3 is a sports car.

It's a grand tourer, just like the corvette, 996, etc. It has 4 full seats.
I would suggest to many people posting on this thread to expand your knowledge of performance cars as I've read quite a few statement borne from misconceptions, biases and sometimes plain old ignorance. www.corner-carvers.com is a great place to learn about performance cars of all nationalities/brands/models from people who own and race them frequently. Some of them being very well-known professional drivers.

 

[Chris Moe]

You may be correct that it only comes as an automatic, if that is the case it is no longer a sports car, just Roadster.
I do disagree with you that the Vet is a GT though, only two seats, so its a sports car
If you want to get even more quintessential, take a look at the Lotus 340R, even more bare bones then the Elise. The Elise is very nice though.

 

[Clinton McClure]

Mmmmmmmmm.............the Motorsport Elise is my dream car.

 

[Josh Lowe]

I do disagree with you that the Vet is a GT though, only two seats, so its a sports car

Well, if you say so. I don't know much about Corvettes, anyway. Here's the garage. Edit - Well it WAS the garage, the Cobra was sold in early June. Roommate's vette is on the block, he's starting a family and wants of them there fancy Nissan Altima family cars. I don't see what's wrong with strapping a child to the roof of the vette, personally.

 

[BrianW]

I don't see what's wrong with strapping a child to the roof of the vette, personally.

You can't be serious!!! Why would you do such a horrible thing? Don't you have any idea what that would do to your aerodynamics? You'd lose at least a quarter second getting to 60!!

But then, maybe with one of those aftermarket sunroof wind deflectors, you may be able to minimize the kid's drag. I dunno, maybe it's worth a try after all.

--------------------------------

I usually prefer displacement to high revs, but under the right conditions, high revs can sure be a good (and fun!) substitute. For the record, I've driven the same Honda CRX for the past 14 years, and I have no intention of ever getting rid of it. It's just too much fun. Displacement is good, but fun and fuel efficiency (for me, anyway) are more important.

 

[Josh Lowe]

I usually prefer displacement to high revs, but under the right conditions, high revs can sure be a good (and fun!) substitute. For the record, I've driven the same Honda CRX for the past 14 years, and I have no intention of ever getting rid of it. It's just too much fun. Displacement is good, but fun and fuel efficiency (for me, anyway) are more important.

In the end I won't be happy without the best of both worlds: A very broad, flat torque curve and a wide powerband that goes into high RPMs.

My favorite paths to this end are big bore, short stroke motors like the LT5 engine found in the 89-95 ZR1 Corvettes. 380-405 horsepower with the ability to run hard all day long thanks to a bang up design by lotus and implementation by Mercury Marine. The LT5 is one of the greatest engines ever designed. There are naturally aspirated LT5 strokers making upwards of 600+hp in a streetable configuration. There are a few (4 I believe) twin turbo incarnations making 700-900hp depending on the configuration. They make huge torque and power from idle all the way to the 7500+ RPM range.

And the other path I love: forced induction, namely turbocharging. An inline six cylinder motor = near perfect balance. Again, go for a healthy amount of bore and a shorter stroke to allow for high revs. Add in a healthy twin or single turbo setup and have at it. The MKIV Toyota Supra is the perfect example of how lethal this combination is, not to mention of course the various turbo Porsches (though they use flat, air cooled six cyls, at least until the current gen which is now watercooled). There are Supras making in excess of 1000hp that are streetable due to the fact that boost can be adjusted for driving conditions.

The third method is the good old Carrol Shelby method: Stick the biggest goddamn engine you can into the car and build the crap out of it. The Viper is such a beautiful example of this. It oozes raw power, it makes insane amounts of HP and torque when modified, and comes with one of the most aggressive suspension and braking setups you'll ever see. But it's a double edged sword, Vipers love to punish drivers who screw up.

 

[Jason_H]

So I have another option. I have just realized there are a fair number of NSXs out on the market...around 1993 or 1994 with 40k or so miles on it for almost the same price as a new S2000 with hardtop. Would I be a fool to pursue this? Would my maintenance costs just be through the roof? It seems to me like the NSX hasn't changed much in at least 10-12 years.

 

[Max Leung]

You serious? An NSX for the price on an S2000? OMFG! Is that an acceptable depreciation rate? Or do they fall apart under moderate driving like any other good sports car?

 

[Jason_H]

That's what I'm wondering. Am I going to wind up getting it fixed every 3 months?

 

[Josh Lowe]

NSX is very reliable but -very- expensive when things do need repair or replacement. you don't even want to know how much body work costs due to it being largely aluminum.

And honestly, the S2000 is a worthy competitor compared to the pre-1997 NSX. Honda made a lot of changes from 97-present, including a horsepower bump that was much larger than claimed, revised gearing and a 6 speed transmission. The 97-present NSX is a different animal.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Am I going to wind up getting it fixed every 3 months?

Are you kidding? No way! It is, after all, a Honda.
Josh is right, though- newer ones are much nicer. And much pricier. IIRC, the 91-92 NSX had an MSRP of under $40,000. Talk about holding value!
Given a fat wallet of cash, my car of choice would probably be a turbo'd '02 NSX.
Josh- regarding the LT5, did you forget about that first run, that had a propensity for seizing?
Todd

 

[Jason_H]

Yeah, I just kind of figured that out after doing a little research the past few hours. The 1991-1996 models aren't THAT much better in terms of engine performance over the S2000. I have always wanted an NSX, but I think I am going to get the S2000 now and get my dream NSX in a few years when I can afford a newer one. But I'm still riding the fence on the S2000...I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Josh- regarding the LT5, did you forget about that first run, that had a propensity for seizing?

Actually I didn't know that. I guess no engine is without its rough start. The LS1 in the current (well no longer) F-bodies and Corvettes had a bumpy start but is now pretty much a benchmark. 380+hp out of a 346 cube V8 that still qualifies as low emissions vehicle compliant. gotta love the marriage of technology with tried and true methods.

The first I really knew about the LT5 was when the ZR1 was setting all kinds of endurance records.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Actually I didn't know that. I guess no engine is without its rough start.

IIRC, Mercury Marine had goofed something up on the production line, and there was an oiling issue. That was on the 1990, 375hp engines.
I remember the endurance records- first production car to sustain a 175mph AVERAGE for 24 hours (done at their proving grounds track). VERY impressive.
Today's LS6 in the Z06 is really a better engine, with lower technology. Guys are getting close to 12.0 in the 1/4 with a few bolt-ons (intake, exhaust, etc.). I know it really chaps the multi-cammers' butts.
I wish Honda would put the TL-S engine in the S2000. I like my TL-S (traded a '92 Vette for it), and its engine would be (even more of) a hoot in a lighter, better handling car. I'm really beginning to dig Honda's power/efficiency/reliability mantra- like the tech in the DN-X.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...7927.html?NEWS
Todd

 

[Jason_H]

Just an update, I FINALLY got to test drive an S2000 today. I LOVED IT. I'm pretty much sold now...it is really like my Prelude times ten, I felt confortable in it after about 30 seconds. I have sent off an email to the local dealer to reserve the last 2002 they are getting in, the silver ext/black int one I want. They had it yesterday, here's hoping they still have it tomorrow morning!

 

[BrianW]

Congratulations!