Honda S2000 for daily driving - good idea?

Honda S2000 for daily driving - good idea?

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
krunchkin said:
The OP is asking about a "daily drive":- I just can't see, as an s2000 road and track user - where those moments when it gets out of shape are going to occur. You have to be really giving it some fking beans, or a really awful driver, to activare hedgefinding mode
There are people who love them, that's fine but lots end up being reversed into hedges and not just to being 'a really awful driver'. I'm just saying their not forgiving. Standing water, low grip situations mid corner all of these can be a daily occurrence and I'd rather be sat in another RWD car in either situation.

krunchkin

2,209 posts

140 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Crusoe said:
Easy - fit some P6000s of varying tread depth (other dodgy tyres are available), add some old dampers and bushes, a starter rwd entry price and some badly maintained roads you have a recipe for plenty of scenery interactions.

A well maintained s2000 with recent geometry checks and the recommended tyres is a much more stable car that should only bite when provoked though the limits can be quite low on cold damp days.
I could not agree with this post more. When I bought mine it had advisories on a couple of tyres for tread . Spending 500 quid getting a lovely fresh set of Bridgestones all round and a proper Geo done transfomed it. I pushed it as hard as i dared at Snetterton track day a few weeks ago and it absolutely refused to let go, A car like this needs quality wheels and geo before you even think about saying "oooh - scary in the wet! Love hedges!!!'
It's ballls

krunchkin

2,209 posts

140 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
yonex said:
krunchkin said:
The OP is asking about a "daily drive":- I just can't see, as an s2000 road and track user - where those moments when it gets out of shape are going to occur. You have to be really giving it some fking beans, or a really awful driver, to activare hedgefinding mode
There are people who love them, that's fine but lots end up being reversed into hedges and not just to being 'a really awful driver'. I'm just saying their not forgiving. Standing water, low grip situations mid corner all of these can be a daily occurrence and I'd rather be sat in another RWD car in either situation.
but as a "daily drive" - as per the OP's post - when are you going to encounter this at more than 40/50 mph?

Riknos

4,700 posts

203 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
I drive my S2000 as a daily driver. Miles more grip than any mk1 or mk3 MX-5 (owned both). So is less likely to get her into trouble than an MX-5.
Not driven the pre-facelift cars, but a 2004 onwards S2000 doesn't have the snappy set up of the earlier ones. As with any car, make sure it has decent tyres / brakes and get the suspension alignment done and it's extremely capable!

Get it bought!

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
krunchkin said:
but as a "daily drive" - as per the OP's post - when are you going to encounter this at more than 40/50 mph?
True but I am betting a test drive back to back and she'd prefer the Boxster. More torque, nicer place to be IMO. Either seems a bit of a waste for poodling about smile

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
yonex said:
True but I am betting a test drive back to back and she'd prefer the Boxster. More torque, nicer place to be IMO. Either seems a bit of a waste for poodling about smile
Depends, if she's ruled the Boxster out because she thinks it looks like a pushmi-pullyu, she's not going to change her mind by driving it.

Riknos

4,700 posts

203 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
yonex said:
True but I am betting a test drive back to back and she'd prefer the Boxster. More torque, nicer place to be IMO. Either seems a bit of a waste for poodling about smile
Boxster is easier to drive, and does suit a 'less enthusiastic' driver due to the way the engine works.

But it costs a lot more to run than an S2000 too!

Puddenchucker

4,036 posts

217 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
I had an S2000 (2002 model) that I used as a daily driver (23 miles each way to/from work) for 18 months.
This included driving it in heavy rain and, on at least 4 occasions, snow covered roads. It was on the OEM spec Bridgestones and apart from comedy levels of traction up steepish snow covered hills it was fine.

It's not the ideal all-weather car, but as others have said, unless you're unlucky with black ice / deep standing water, the only thing that will make it spin is your driving. Treat it with caution, measured throttle inputs and the revs low in adverse weather and you'll be fine, but that may mean travelling slower that 'ordinary' hatchbacks/saloons.

RenesisEvo

3,602 posts

218 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
yonex said:
They're not myths! It's why insurance on the S2K is ridiculous. Plenty of people have said that they're perfectly fine and then been caught out, mainly in the wet. Its not a forgiving car and IME of driving them the chassis isn't the greatest at letting you know what's going on. I am sure it would be fine for a daily car apart from the cramped cabin. Nice looking cars but no love from me.
I agree with this.

My brother is currently recovering from concussion after being passenger to his friends accident in an S2000 in the rain last week. An unfamiliar corner on a wet road resulted in a pirouette before clouting a barrier, my brother hit his head on the side of the roof. Admittedly fairly anecdotal, but evidently they can bite. I had a choice a few years ago between S2000, 350Z, TT qS, Boxster, Z4. Honestly if I could chose again, it would be between the Z4 and the Boxster.

It really depends on what 'daily' actually means - for me it is frequent 1.5-2hr motorway slogs at 4am to start the day, or 1am after a very long day working, so anything requiring significant concentration to drive in the rain is a non-starter. That's why I didn't buy one - that and the interior is no better than a cheap early-90's hatchback. But if daily use is a short commute and pottering to the shops, then any nervousness is much less of a problem.




anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Snowboy said:
They are closer to a track based race car than they are to a road car.
Not being funny but I've driven a few examples and they would be perfectly fine for a daily driver. Unless you feel the need to drive 10/10ths everywhere.

RichwiththeS2000

443 posts

133 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
I've daily'd 2 of them a 2001 and now a 2005. They are great cars to drive every day, good enough on fuel and a lot of fun, while being reliable and practical enough to not ruin your life. Such a good all rounder which is why I went back to one smile

Same with any RWD car, be smooth and progressive in the wet/cold and you'll be fine. Don't do silly things like suddenly lift off harshly mid-corner. Basically just have a remote clue about how to drive biggrin

As above, get one with a recent geo so you know all the wheels are pointing where they should, nice tyres and enjoy smile

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
I would think the widow maker tag comes from badly maintained ones.

A bad geometry on an s2000 makes a huge difference.
I've never known a car quite so sensitive.
Even a bit of wrong tyre pressure in a wheel makes a huge difference.

The difference between a well maintained one and a badly set up one is massive.

identity_crisis

934 posts

215 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
I owned an early S2000 for 2 and a half years and never fully gelled with it. I should have had the suspension geometery checked but never got round to it so a well setup later model may be a different story.

For me the car was noisy with a cramped interior with the roof up which made it a pain using every day. I found the wind noise on the motorway especially annoying as it made long journeys tiring. The engine is the best and worst thing about the car. Its a great engine when you are gunning it and has fantastic throttle response but took some winding up to get into the vtec zone which meant you were starting to get into licence losing speeds.

The engine does suffer from weak torque compared to the top end and before people starting banging on about how its the same as any other 2.0 litre N/A engine, ive driven a renault sport clio which had bags of mid range torque and no fancy valve timing.

I found mine would bite when I wasnt expecting it especially on a damp road changing from 2nd to 3rd even driving pretty much in a straight line and nearly caught me out a few times. I also found the rear end very fidgity on bumpy roads which didnt inspire much confidence in the car.

Ive driven/owned a few performance cars now and the S2000 was the only car I didnt miss after I sold it.

Monkeylegend

26,226 posts

230 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Welshbeef is your man. A mine of useless information and I don't think he has crashed his yet.

J4CKO

41,282 posts

199 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Another myth is the insurance, I have had quotes recently and they arent generally under or around £300, as low as £220 if I use my NCD, but then I am 42, was expecting it to be a no go based on insurance.

I think myth versus reality is potentially a dangerous thing, the Honda has this reputation as a vindictive bd yet the 944 has the reputation of something of a pussycat, progressive, adjustable, benign etc etc and though it kind of is, it is still an old car with 200 plus bhp through the rear wheels which will catch anyone who takes liberties with it, no electronics and most have either been messed with or are just tired, there cant be many now that are bang on the same setup as tested in Autocar in 1982, 1988 or whatever, people put Boxster wheels with ditchfinders on them, coilover kits and bugger around with the geometry.

Even the best set up car may bite, after all, people still manage to crash cars with ESP, there are so many variables and what works in one circumstance may not in another, driver skill is a massive factor, we had a sales lady who used to visit us when I worked at the Police, she just bought a shiny red open sports car and never drove it fast or had a clue about vtec, she didnt care, never crashed it and chopped it in for an SLK.






Speed_Demon

2,662 posts

187 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all

As it happens, the clio does have fancy valve timing at the top end, and below about 4.5k is pretty docile, though it doesn't need write the winding up as the S2k. Worst thing I found with the s2000 was cabin space, but I have a big frame (ill never forget having to get out onto my knees rofl

I'd definitely say the fidgety rear end was a set up issue though.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Speed_Demon said:
I'd definitely say the fidgety rear end was a set up issue though.
On the three I have driven all of them were bad for this. It never felt like the car settled which made putting the power down a bit hit and miss. It definitely didn't inspire confidence on a bumpy road and felt quite wayward, not in an exciting way like a Caterham does but just unstable. The lack of torque was also an issue on unfamiliar roads. I found that it made you work much harder but with the snappy rear end there wasn't great progression from below VTEC to above it. One of the most marmite cars of recent times. Look at the owners of them who moved from DC2's only to go back a few years later. Says it all really.

Riknos

4,700 posts

203 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
yonex said:
Speed_Demon said:
I'd definitely say the fidgety rear end was a set up issue though.
On the three I have driven all of them were bad for this. It never felt like the car settled which made putting the power down a bit hit and miss. It definitely didn't inspire confidence on a bumpy road and felt quite wayward, not in an exciting way like a Caterham does but just unstable. The lack of torque was also an issue on unfamiliar roads. I found that it made you work much harder but with the snappy rear end there wasn't great progression from below VTEC to above it. One of the most marmite cars of recent times. Look at the owners of them who moved from DC2's only to go back a few years later. Says it all really.
Fidgity rear end = poor geo, easily. I've had the same on MX-5s, which have nowhere near the grip level, and the difference between a well aligned one, and a mis-aligned one is night and day. Ask any MX-5 owner. Or any S2000 owner who knows what they're doing. Someone owning one for years, and having a dodgy back end and NOT getting the alignment sorted is just asking for trouble really. To me, this fall into not maintaining the car properly, which with a lot of performance cars, can mean you're more likely to crash. It's simple.

RichwiththeS2000

443 posts

133 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Yep, that's suspension/geo problems, or something else is broken. Good one's don't twitch or feel unstable, and certainly shifting up from 2nd to 3rd in a straight line shouldn't cause you any problems.

They have a chassis that is designed to be used to its full potential so are quite highly strung in the sense that if something isn't quite right then you know about it. Unlike most cars where they leave a lot more "wiggle room" for sloppy maintenance. (in the form of less aggressive suspension and chassis set ups)

AMH82

Original Poster:

350 posts

180 months

Thursday 4th July 2013
quotequote all
Well - didn't expect to get such a response!!

Well to sum up, her daily drive will be a 20 min journey to & from work for the usual 9-5pm slog, mainly B roads. Then general weekly stuff like going to the gym, shopping, etc - then at the weekend could be anyhting really. So being a little noisy or cramped is fine, it's not going to be a mile muncher.

I 'think' the main reason she didn't want a Boxster, is because she didn't want a Porsche. Work that one out, but that's women for you! I took a 3.2S out (one of the late special edition ones) and liked it a lot, sharp throttle response, weighty steering and lovely noise - but I was surprised how noisy it was with the roof up. An MX5 sure, but you'd expect a premium german roadster to be quieter.
Then we looked at a 2.5 Boxster together, again nice enough car, but salesman was a total prick which ruined it even more!! So I think the Boxster is out. Z4 is a maybe, she isn't that keen about the Z4 looks, preferring the Z3, but I think she's coming around to them.

I can certainly see an S2k having more grip than an MX5, a bit more weight, wider & larger tyres - and I'd agree that a car that in your mind you know you should respect, you will drive carefully if the roads dictate - just didn't want her to have something that causes her to panic everytime it drizzles!!

Ditto on the insurance, £270 for us (both 31), which was £30 more than a mk3 MX5 2.0 Sport.

Hopefully this weekend we will take one out for a spin to see what we both think.

She's generally careful in her BMW, but has often seemed surprised when the DSC light is flashing, so maybe she's not fully clued up what is going on with the car, etc - although tbh, I do find the E46 a little numb in that sense.

Certainly in higher powered rwd cars I've had, I am always pretty careful in the wet or cold. It was almost comical that I (felt like) nearly ditched my Eunos the other day. This is a car that in the dry, doesn't have the power to twitch, and feels like you can literally corner like a go kart. I'd had the car off the road for 18 months, first drive in a while around some back roads, it had started raining but nothing major and I just turned into a sharp 90 degree bend pretty quick without even thinking - but then when I felt it go, it felt like I was going to spin, I over countered and it snapped back. No harm done, but I really didn't expect it - yet with a more powerful car I know I would have been much more careful & smooth, in fear of stepping out under power - which is funny really as sliding due to power is probably easier to correct than due to weight shift. Lesson learnt there!!