RE: Honda S2000: Spotted
Tuesday 12th August 2014
'Or go buy an S2000?' is the second Facebook comment from our BBR MX-5 Super 200 drive yesterday. It's a valid point, especially given the significant outlay required for the full upgrade (for BBR to fit the power kit, suspension and wheels totals £3,788). For argument's sake let's say the budget is £10K; what's on offer?
Nice shortsThis Honda S2000 is a 2006 car, the year traction and stability control was added to the S2000's options list. The advert doesn't make clear whether these are fitted but there's plenty to be encouraged by; it's a standard car in decent condition with no apparent interior, hood or paintwork issues. Of course you will take a copy of the PH S2000 Buying Guide to a viewing to be especially diligent in your checks but, on first inspection, it looks pretty good. With the MOT due next month there should be some negotiating room on the £8,995 price too.
Sun's out, roof's down; looks fun, no?It's hard to make a call on handling without driving the two back to back but you would think the MX-5 would be the slightly sharper device with its uprated components and lighter weight. Again there's nothing to stop some tweaking of an older S2000 either...
Honda S2000: Spotted
Standard S2000 or BBR-tweaked MX-5? Decision time!
Nice shorts
And the MX-5? This NC look like a good basis for some BBR fettling. A 2.0-litre Sport with low mileage (45K) but also at the bottom of Mk3 values by virtue of its age (£5,570) it would surely suit 204hp rather well. Add the £3,788 and the total price is £9,358. With the £745 exhaust that sounds like a worthwhile investment you're just over the imaginary £10K threshold.
Even with BBR's tweaks, the S2000 still has the more exciting engine. The MX-5 is revvy and eager with the Super 200 boost but a standard S2000 is something else again. As mentioned in the buying guide it's a key part of the appeal for many people and the major turn-off for others. But given both cars are fairly light on torque (the BBR MX-5 makes 161lb ft at 4,000rpm and the S2000 151lb ft at 7,500rpm) so you'd assume a prospective buyer of either isn't afraid of revs. Having said that, Dan's driving impression of the BBR would suggest there's a more linear delivery in the MX-5 than the archetypal VTECness of the Honda.
Sun's out, roof's down; looks fun, no?
Some will argue standard versus modified isn't a fair comparison but we'd like to think PH car purchases aren't always the most logical. As something of a VTEC convert I would probably plump for the Honda. As a man mildly in love with his Eunos Dan would surely opt for the Mazda. Either way you'll have an excellent roadster with one of the sweetest manual gearshifts ever known for less than £10,000. And that's got to be worth celebrating.
HONDA S2000
Engine: 1,997cc 4-cyl
Transmission: 6-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 240@8,300rpm
Torque (lb ft): 152@7,500rpm
MPG: 28.5 (NEDC combined)
CO2: NA
Year registered: 2006
Recorded mileage: 67,000
Price new: £27,940
Yours for: £8,995
See the original advert here.
Discussion
I'd go for the BBR MX5, not because the S2000 is worse but I think the MX5 takes account for your mistakes rather than punishing them.
These little cars are all 9 or 10 tenths, which also means the corners. If a car is rear-snappy, like the S2000 seems to be from the comments from the owners, the limiting factor seems to be not the car but the owners minds, once bitten twice shy and all that.
Test pilots in planes talk about pushing the envelope, with cars it is the same, but you want the car to be forgiving if you do push that envelope and then make a small mistake.
Having said all that the S2000 still looks better than the MX5 to my eyes and of course the engineering is (Alan Partridge voice on) sooperb. Why Honda are not doing a follow up rather than being distracted by supercars with battery and turbo charged Civic I am not sure.
Mazda has sold 87 billionmajillion MX5's since they came out. Honda and Toyota have missed out on this, which is shocking especially considering Toyota had the MR2 but let that particular field go fallow.
Imagine if Mazda, Honda and Toyota had got into a battle for 2 seater top down motoring like Subaru and Mitsubishi competed in the 4WD saloon segment, the cars would have been epic. But Honda and Toyota just had too many other things to think about in those years rather than the 2 seater road car it seems. So Mazda got a bit lazy to be honest.
As long as this market segment does not get forgotten we will all be happy, I just hope the next MX5 does not fall into the trap of not having traditional old fashioned steering.
These little cars are all 9 or 10 tenths, which also means the corners. If a car is rear-snappy, like the S2000 seems to be from the comments from the owners, the limiting factor seems to be not the car but the owners minds, once bitten twice shy and all that.
Test pilots in planes talk about pushing the envelope, with cars it is the same, but you want the car to be forgiving if you do push that envelope and then make a small mistake.
Having said all that the S2000 still looks better than the MX5 to my eyes and of course the engineering is (Alan Partridge voice on) sooperb. Why Honda are not doing a follow up rather than being distracted by supercars with battery and turbo charged Civic I am not sure.
Mazda has sold 87 billionmajillion MX5's since they came out. Honda and Toyota have missed out on this, which is shocking especially considering Toyota had the MR2 but let that particular field go fallow.
Imagine if Mazda, Honda and Toyota had got into a battle for 2 seater top down motoring like Subaru and Mitsubishi competed in the 4WD saloon segment, the cars would have been epic. But Honda and Toyota just had too many other things to think about in those years rather than the 2 seater road car it seems. So Mazda got a bit lazy to be honest.
As long as this market segment does not get forgotten we will all be happy, I just hope the next MX5 does not fall into the trap of not having traditional old fashioned steering.
Its a funny thing even with the extra weight of s2k and less torque no matter what honda in NA form still feel quite rapid. 200bhp on that mazda seems a too rounded figure your probably talking more like 185bhp with those tweaks same as GT86 only putting out 180 rather than stated 197.
dufunk said:
Its a funny thing even with the extra weight of s2k and less torque no matter what honda in NA form still feel quite rapid. 200bhp on that mazda seems a too rounded figure your probably talking more like 185bhp with those tweaks same as GT86 only putting out 180 rather than stated 197.
If you read the MX5 thread they have cars over that with there lower spec kits without the cams.But with the imaginary 10k surely the modified car will cost more to insure for the younger chap/girl or is the S2000 as silly as i've heard for insurance.
Also you'll need to do more servicing etc I imagine on the 5. More cost.
A decent exhaust and remap of the S2000 will easily see in excess of 160lb/ft of torque, and lower down the rev range too. People who should know better keep banging on about the lack of torque from the Honda 2L engines but they're actually very torquey (for an NA engine) when mapped accordingly. FWIW, the remapped K20A (plus bolt ons) in my FD2 Civic makes 186lb/ft at 5300rpm - not bad for any 2L NA!
Beams engine was probably the closest engine to the F20 outside of honda only let down was it was a cast iron block yet still very robust at high revs.
http://www.trdparts.jp/english/parts_engine-3s-ge....
http://www.trdparts.jp/english/parts_engine-3s-ge....
Edited by dufunk on Tuesday 12th August 15:36
S2000 for me, no contest. This has real classic car potential too. 2.0 Litre engine revving up to 9k. Its worth 5k for the engine alone IMO. It also looks better.
The 160bhp 2.0 engine in the Mazda on the other hand may not have been engineered to take on the tuning offered, so future reliability would be a question, not to mention potentially higher insurance resulting from it being 'tuned or modified'.
Finally, in its latest guise the MX5 just looks ugly.
The 160bhp 2.0 engine in the Mazda on the other hand may not have been engineered to take on the tuning offered, so future reliability would be a question, not to mention potentially higher insurance resulting from it being 'tuned or modified'.
Finally, in its latest guise the MX5 just looks ugly.
Did a double take when I saw this article - thought someone had sneakily photographed my car! Like many S2000 owners I previously owned two MX5s (or Eunoses in my case) and while the second one benefited from coilovers, their engines were standard. In terms of steering, I'd take the MX5. You do get used to the Honda's electric PAS but it isn't as sweet and communicative as the MX's. When it comes to handling, the Mazda was immediately easy to push hard but then (on my cars) there was far less power going through the chassis and you could attack corners without the possibility of overpowering the back axle. In the Honda, especially if approaching the 6,000rpm mark, you need to make sure you're paying attention and feeding in the power progressively. In the wet, especially, you don't want to overpower one wheel and have the Torsen diff lock up when you're not concentrating! Having decent modern rubber obviously helps, as well. The net result is handling and cornering speeds that, in my view, are just fine.
As for the torque 'issue', in my experience the car only feels gutless in the lower range because of the contrast to the manic shove when VTEC does its thing. In fact, when poodling and mostly staying below 6,000 I find it decently lively. Anyway, what's the point of having a great gear change if you object to changing down a couple of cogs as and when required?
Overall, I enjoyed my Mazdas and I love the sound of the BBR conversions but the Honda just feels like a league above.
As for the torque 'issue', in my experience the car only feels gutless in the lower range because of the contrast to the manic shove when VTEC does its thing. In fact, when poodling and mostly staying below 6,000 I find it decently lively. Anyway, what's the point of having a great gear change if you object to changing down a couple of cogs as and when required?
Overall, I enjoyed my Mazdas and I love the sound of the BBR conversions but the Honda just feels like a league above.
gdaybruce said:
As for the torque 'issue', in my experience the car only feels gutless in the lower range because of the contrast to the manic shove when VTEC does its thing. In fact, when poodling and mostly staying below 6,000 I find it decently lively. Anyway, what's the point of having a great gear change if you object to changing down a couple of cogs as and when required?
Agreed I had one for 2 years and never found it that bad at low revs, not that much worse than my 993. You have to work it but that is the fun bit of n/a quick engines Gandahar said:
I'd go for the BBR MX5, not because the S2000 is worse but I think the MX5 takes account for your mistakes rather than punishing them.
These little cars are all 9 or 10 tenths, which also means the corners. If a car is rear-snappy, like the S2000 seems to be from the comments from the owners, the limiting factor seems to be not the car but the owners minds, once bitten twice shy and all that.
That reputation isn't true of a post 2003 car. 04MY cars are not a problem at all unless you really are acting like a nob, or lift on a bend at 9000RPM in first gear. But that is also driving like a nob These little cars are all 9 or 10 tenths, which also means the corners. If a car is rear-snappy, like the S2000 seems to be from the comments from the owners, the limiting factor seems to be not the car but the owners minds, once bitten twice shy and all that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff