RE: PH Heroes: Honda S2000
Discussion
So i have been quietly looking for a summer convertible for the last few weeks, nearly took the plunge with an impulse purchase of a Boxster S last week but then impulse purchases never normally go well for me. Tomorrow i am driving 3 S2ks, two that are early models (2000 and 2002) i have been looking at for a couple of days and one later (2006) model that i figured might be worth a punt although i am most interested in the 2002. What has annoyed me is that earlier this week no one else was interested in it because it is cold outside, the car has a snappy reputation and it's a little to early for convertible buying season to start. After today two others have booked test drives. 
Damn you PH, you couldn't wait two weeks could you?
Damn you PH, you couldn't wait two weeks could you?
braddo said:
pthelazyjourno said:
I'd say Toyota was put through the grinder because the Mk2 MR2 was a lardy old bus (relative to the Mk1) with a massive dollop of torque to catch out people half way round a corner (mmmm turbo).
So a long way from the fondly remembered AW11, and a long way from the later, lighter and NA MR2s.
With torque and the MR2's turbo in mind, it's also quite a bit different from the S2000 - it's certainly not the engine and power delivery that catches people out mid corner in the latter.
No, it wasn't the turbo that the caused the criticism, it was the early ('rev 1?') MR2s' handling balance that was criticised. Reports at the time were that the handling was much improved in later revisions of the Mk2 MR2.So a long way from the fondly remembered AW11, and a long way from the later, lighter and NA MR2s.
With torque and the MR2's turbo in mind, it's also quite a bit different from the S2000 - it's certainly not the engine and power delivery that catches people out mid corner in the latter.
Many a person enjoyed a good old fashioned spin when the "twin entry turbo kicked in yo". Mine certainly was a little bit tricky on the limit... Nearly ran out of talent more than once.
robinandcamera said:
rtz62 said:
Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the turbo or supercharged examples that loiter darkly around, owned by masters of the dark arts; I'm sure they have found the alchemy to fill the big hole in the torque curve....
One lurking here. Supercharged with 410 bhp and climbing still at 9k rpm with 250 ft lbs has delivered what I was after 
Mines a keeper!
Last time we spoke he was having a custom lump made in the US to go with the twin scrolling turbo he was bolting on to it.....EPIC!
Edited by crispyshark on Friday 22 February 16:21
firebird350 said:
Doesn't the final drive ratio plus the car's weight have to be factored in alongside the torque figure in order to assess whether a car feels 'low' on torque? Years ago my old Fiat Strada Abarth had 130 BHP at 5900 RPM allied to 130 ft.lbs. torque at 3600 RPM., figures that seem a bit pathetic today, but the car was light with a low final drive ratio and thus felt superbly torquey at all times. Trouble was it was SO low-geared that it could only pull 70 MPH at 3500 RPM in fifth gear so was hardly relaxing on a motorway cruise! A buzz-box on long journeys in fact.
Yes, of course. That's what I was getting at in a round about way. The MX5 is lightweight and has a short final drive, so probably behaves quite similar to your old Fiat.bicycleshorts said:
I've wondered this as well, my current mx5 only makes 100 lb ft and I've never felt a "lack of torque".
More generally, I've never felt any lack of torque because I always try to have the engine in the power range. But then again, I've never owned a turbo-diesel so I have no reason to think that power should be readily available regardless of gear. I even changed down when I had the Impreza, despite the fact it was on boost in 5th at 70mph.
braddo said:
pthelazyjourno said:
I'd say Toyota was put through the grinder because the Mk2 MR2 was a lardy old bus (relative to the Mk1) with a massive dollop of torque to catch out people half way round a corner (mmmm turbo).
So a long way from the fondly remembered AW11, and a long way from the later, lighter and NA MR2s.
With torque and the MR2's turbo in mind, it's also quite a bit different from the S2000 - it's certainly not the engine and power delivery that catches people out mid corner in the latter.
No, it wasn't the turbo that the caused the criticism, it was the early ('rev 1?') MR2s' handling balance that was criticised. Reports at the time were that the handling was much improved in later revisions of the Mk2 MR2.So a long way from the fondly remembered AW11, and a long way from the later, lighter and NA MR2s.
With torque and the MR2's turbo in mind, it's also quite a bit different from the S2000 - it's certainly not the engine and power delivery that catches people out mid corner in the latter.
As for the S2000, I too have had one and didn't really get on with it. It could be slid, but it needed a lot of provoking and the (relative) lack of torque meant it was very difficult to do with any sort of safety margin built in.
firebird350 said:
Doesn't the final drive ratio plus the car's weight have to be factored in alongside the torque figure in order to assess whether a car feels 'low' on torque? Years ago my old Fiat Strada Abarth had 130 BHP at 5900 RPM allied to 130 ft.lbs. torque at 3600 RPM., figures that seem a bit pathetic today, but the car was light with a low final drive ratio and thus felt superbly torquey at all times. Trouble was it was SO low-geared that it could only pull 70 MPH at 3500 RPM in fifth gear so was hardly relaxing on a motorway cruise! A buzz-box on long journeys in fact.
Torque at the wheels will be affected by gearing, as gearing is a torque multiplier. But it won't alter the general characteristic of the engine or how the engine performs at any given rpm.bicycleshorts said:
I've wondered this as well, my current mx5 only makes 100 lb ft and I've never felt a "lack of torque".
Also remember HP = torque x rpm
So shorter gearing will multiply the torque, but at the expense of wheel rpm (speed or terminal speed in gear).
The MX-5 is low on torque - overall and in comparison to other cars. Go drive a 5.0 TVR and then say it isn't
This is not a PH hero car for me, I've owned one, and coming from owning a very long list of powerful RWD cars this car was a bit of a dud for me.
Its got a 5 star engine and gearbox, fantastic but the rest of it lets it down.
I am a big fan of quick honda's, maybe if they'd made a Type R version it would have qualified as a hero but not the standard S2000.
It was a let down to me having such a good engine and gearbox in a car that was not as good to drive as it should be, and horrible cabin and excesive noise when cruising on the motorway.
Its got a 5 star engine and gearbox, fantastic but the rest of it lets it down.
I am a big fan of quick honda's, maybe if they'd made a Type R version it would have qualified as a hero but not the standard S2000.
It was a let down to me having such a good engine and gearbox in a car that was not as good to drive as it should be, and horrible cabin and excesive noise when cruising on the motorway.
rallycross said:
It was a let down to me having such a good engine and gearbox in a car that was not as good to drive as it should be, and horrible cabin and excesive noise when cruising on the motorway.
Yeah I can see that Honda really should have upped the priorities of cabin noise and motorway cruising ability when designing this 9000rpm screaming redline convertible... rallycross said:
This is not a PH hero car for me, I've owned one, and coming from owning a very long list of powerful RWD cars this car was a bit of a dud for me.
Its got a 5 star engine and gearbox, fantastic but the rest of it lets it down.
I am a big fan of quick honda's, maybe if they'd made a Type R version it would have qualified as a hero but not the standard S2000.
It was a let down to me having such a good engine and gearbox in a car that was not as good to drive as it should be, and horrible cabin and excesive noise when cruising on the motorway.
This is an interesting point, I've never actually checked if there ever a Type R, or a hotter version of the S2000. Wiki says the CR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000#2008_Hond...Its got a 5 star engine and gearbox, fantastic but the rest of it lets it down.
I am a big fan of quick honda's, maybe if they'd made a Type R version it would have qualified as a hero but not the standard S2000.
It was a let down to me having such a good engine and gearbox in a car that was not as good to drive as it should be, and horrible cabin and excesive noise when cruising on the motorway.
Has anyone ever driven one? It doesn't say how many they actually sold.
omgus said:
Bugger off PH, i'm off to view two of these this weekend and i don't want any more competition for them.
Gits!
OK, but if you're planning to let your other half drive, be aware that incredibly, there is no height adjustment for the drivers seat! -that could be a good thing, depending on the way you look at it, I went for the 6-cylinder noise of BMWs E85 offering instead, (well, it was her car!) Gits!
bicycleshorts said:
This is an interesting point, I've never actually checked if there ever a Type R, or a hotter version of the S2000. Wiki says the CR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000#2008_Hond...
Has anyone ever driven one? It doesn't say how many they actually sold.
CR was US only with a new aero kit and some weight savingHas anyone ever driven one? It doesn't say how many they actually sold.
Not that much different to an AP1
Prof Prolapse said:
Yeah I can see that Honda really should have upped the priorities of cabin noise and motorway cruising ability when designing this 9000rpm screaming redline convertible...
Dont just pick out that bit, the thing that let it down for me was it should be a hoot to drive sideways and its just not able to do that, I've never found that a problem in any of my other 200-350 bhp rwd cars just the S2000 was no fun to jump in and slide (I could do it but was not pleasant to do).RocketRabbit said:
Basically, Honda created an extremely focused car and then tried to dumb it down because people were throwing them off the road. People still do throw them off the road, but that's a possibility with a car that has its major masses inside the wheelbase. Just like when a figure skater draws their arms in they spin faster, the S2000 wants to rotate and is not a car for the Pub ammo warlord.
The biggest problem with these cars is cold tyre syndrome. People complain it's the wet, but it's all down to cold tyres, inparticular the standard fit Bridgestone RE050s don't work from cold.
I appreciate it's not for everyone, but it's definitely a drivers car and a great one at that
This.The biggest problem with these cars is cold tyre syndrome. People complain it's the wet, but it's all down to cold tyres, inparticular the standard fit Bridgestone RE050s don't work from cold.
I appreciate it's not for everyone, but it's definitely a drivers car and a great one at that
I had 2 as company cars (hey, they said I could have 'any Honda' and I couldn't stretch to the NSX....) and as a day-to-day commuter car that can do weekend road trips and trackdays, I never found a better car.
If an S2000 loses it's back end it's usually on cold tyres, has been 'set up' by a dealer (it really needs a decent 4 wheel geometry setup but most dealers were completely oblivious to that, some even left the spring spacers in) or is driven by a Troy Queef type whose bag of talent is far shallower than he claims it to be. It says something that a large proportion of S2000 "the back end just went, no warning" or "must have been a diesel spill" incidents seem to have happened while exiting roundabouts (so you're sure you weren't flooring it off the greasy roundabout then....) or lifting off on a bend with a tightening radius.
Torque is sufficient at lower revs for day-to-day driving and when the opportunity arises, drop into second and floor it - something which never got tiring in 5 years of ownership. Unlike motorway driving which was noisy, but at least the seats were comfortable.
Steering was adequate but as reported by many, it doesn't have MX5, Elise or even BMW levels of feel with the poor electric assistance. It's such a shame they did that, I often wondered what the car would have been like with really communicative steering. Having said that it wasn't as bad as many make out, you could sense what the front wheels were doing unless you were gripping the wheel like your life depended on it.
Sadly, family responsibilities meant that a 2 seat sports car seldom got used, so the S2000 went in favour of an Impreza and subsequently a series of towing cars.
When I did go back to the 2 seater, only Lotus could beat the Hondas for fun, and by then I had a second car so communting wasn't a problem as it was then. Now I spend all my 'play' time in the race cars, so for the forseeable future I can't see me having another - should circumstances change though I'd happily have another, especially at the prices they're currently going for.
It's a flawed car - a Boxster is a more sensible buy in many ways - but the flaws seem to pale into insignificance when you hit 9000rpm and change up or you feel the passive RWS 'help' you tighten the line on a favourite corner, it's definitely a car you 'just take for a drive' and that makes it a petrolhead's car in my book.
240hp from 2.0L was good, but the Renesis engine in the RX-8 made 230hp from just 1.3L of swept volume.
advantage Renesis.
except we're not supposed to compare it with poppet valves....
of course the ultimate power/displacement engines in cars are F1 engines - staggering numbers, although they may find doing 100k miles a tad difficult......
advantage Renesis.
except we're not supposed to compare it with poppet valves....
of course the ultimate power/displacement engines in cars are F1 engines - staggering numbers, although they may find doing 100k miles a tad difficult......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff