RE: Honda S2000 GT 100 Edition

[GravelBen]

It depends if you're more interested in driving or bragging about how much power you have. If you're interested in driving then its plenty.

[Diderot]

GravelBen said:

It depends if you're more interested in driving or bragging about how much power you have. If you're interested in driving then its plenty.

I'd suggest that it is not enough for the crowded UK roads. Driving everywhere in 2nd gear just hoping you get a sniff of an overtaking opportunity does not make for an interesting drive.

[DJC]

Diderot said:

GravelBen said:

It depends if you're more interested in driving or bragging about how much power you have. If you're interested in driving then its plenty.

I'd suggest that it is not enough for the crowded UK roads. Driving everywhere in 2nd gear just hoping you get a sniff of an overtaking opportunity does not make for an interesting drive.

?

I can make reasonably rapid progress whether Im in a Mk 1 Mx5, the wifeys Fabia, or the Integrale or Sagaris.

Anticipation is the key.

[Diderot]

DJC said:

Diderot said:

GravelBen said:

It depends if you're more interested in driving or bragging about how much power you have. If you're interested in driving then its plenty.

I'd suggest that it is not enough for the crowded UK roads. Driving everywhere in 2nd gear just hoping you get a sniff of an overtaking opportunity does not make for an interesting drive.

?

I can make reasonably rapid progress whether Im in a Mk 1 Mx5, the wifeys Fabia, or the Integrale or Sagaris.

Anticipation is the key.

It is, but it depends where you live and how busy the roads are.

[havoc]

Diderot said:

It is, but it depends where you live and how busy the roads are.

And as has been said before - if the roads are really THAT busy, then should you be "making progress" anyway?!?

The ITR I find can be a little frustrating in give-and-take driving - it's JUST enough to keep up with the modern diesels pre-VTEC. But the S2000 was fine...

[Berger 3rd]

The thing is i dont think you need to be in 2nd gear to make "progress" You can be in 6th gear at 3krpm, give it a dab of throttle and it moves along with plenty of pace for normal driving, I honestly think the lack of torque thing is just partly an illusion because of the insane noise and improved performance above 6krpm, in my honest opinion you could never go above 6krpm and it would still get you about at similar speeds to a warm/hot hatch, for when you are not in the mood as some say, for taking it up to 9krpm.

[briancorish]

DJC said:

Diderot said:

GravelBen said:

It depends if you're more interested in driving or bragging about how much power you have. If you're interested in driving then its plenty.

I'd suggest that it is not enough for the crowded UK roads. Driving everywhere in 2nd gear just hoping you get a sniff of an overtaking opportunity does not make for an interesting drive.

?

I can make reasonably rapid progress whether Im in a Mk 1 Mx5, the wifeys Fabia, or the Integrale or Sagaris.

Anticipation is the key.

I think where the confusion is coming from is yes the S2000 has enough torque on paper, but it comes in very high up the rev range, meaning you can't for example cruise in 6th on a motorway at 50 and accelerate briskly up to 70 without dropping a gear and raising the revs = tiresome.

[Dracoro]

If changing gear on a slip road to a motorway is "tiresome" then it's clearly not the right car for you.

Do you also find changing gear at 6000rpm tiresome when overtaking/accelerating or would you rather another 3000rpm to play with?

6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

Most people with high revving powerplants KNOW that you don't accelerate briskly at 50 in 6th so would already be in 3/4th With one of the best gearchanges going, it's hardly a chore.

Of course it's not a lazy drivers car, that I'm not denying but I'm not that middle aged yet

The only "solution" is to have a big engine that revs to 9000rpm. You won't get that in a £20k car.

Edited by Dracoro on Saturday 8th August 14:24

[havoc]

briancorish said:

I think where the confusion is coming from is yes the S2000 has enough torque on paper, but it comes in very high up the rev range, meaning you can't for example cruise in 6th on a motorway at 50 and accelerate briskly up to 70 without dropping a gear and raising the revs = tiresome.

~90% @ <3,000rpm, from memory.

The torque curve is very flat, with a spike-up another 10% when VTEC kicks-in. The issue a lot of people have is that a flat torque-curve DISGUISES accelerative ability! RX-8, for example, is a very quick car (> almost all hot hatches), yet doesn't feel it...

(Yes, seriously - what most people 'feel' as acceleration is actually rate of change of torque)

[Diderot]

havoc said:

briancorish said:

I think where the confusion is coming from is yes the S2000 has enough torque on paper, but it comes in very high up the rev range, meaning you can't for example cruise in 6th on a motorway at 50 and accelerate briskly up to 70 without dropping a gear and raising the revs = tiresome.

~90% @ <3,000rpm, from memory.

The torque curve is very flat, with a spike-up another 10% when VTEC kicks-in. The issue a lot of people have is that a flat torque-curve DISGUISES accelerative ability! RX-8, for example, is a very quick car (> almost all hot hatches), yet doesn't feel it...

(Yes, seriously - what most people 'feel' as acceleration is actually rate of change of torque)

The torque curve maybe flat, but what you're talking about is only 90% of 153 ft/lbs! And peak torque, such as it is, doesn't come on stream until 7500rpm. And the RX8 has the same problem. Neither are particularly quick cars these days. And Honda is charging 28k for the S2000!

Edited by Diderot on Saturday 8th August 16:36

[Andy G Bmth]

havoc said:

Andy G Bmth said:

...but have to disagree about the torque/ power comment. It may have had enough when launched but nowadays below 6k it simply doesn't stack up against the opposition. I have been fortunate to own a fair few different 2 seater roadsters incl a s2000 and as much as I like them there are better drivers cars out there that are either real world faster or more involving to drive.

Everyone talks about "real world faster"...yet TBH on the twisty B-roads which are IMHO the last bastion of 'fun' driving in this country I found myself short-shifting on occasion, simply because you CAN'T use even all 240bhp...and I found the E46 M3 I drove recently literally TOO capable to be properly fun.

So where do all you people that have all these mega-fast cars drive that you can use all of their capability?!?

there are very few roads that you can use all the cars ability - thats the point i am making.

when i say real world driving, i don't mean twisty b roads, i'm talking about proper real world.

example: my current Elise has give or take 145bhp (nothing compared to the s2000 i had) but it is much faster to 70ish and then probably much slower above that. driving along in light traffic and the car in front turns off and you have about 150 yards clear gap before you get to the next safe distance to the car in front. The elise will give you a shove in the back regardless of what gear you are in. My Sl500 would cover the gap in about 5 seconds with no fuss and no fun. The Supra would of come on boost covered the gap and then ploughed you into the car in front The z4 with the 3 litre straight six would give you the push in most gears to enjoy driving and would go round corners so long as you get rid of the runflats and finally the MX5 Sport doesn't quite have the grunt to allow you to take advantage of every gap without drogging a cog and this is what the s2000 suffers from.

i still think they are one of the best looking roadsters available even 10 years on but its time to see a s3000 or even a supercharged version of the s2000 (even Lotus produce one for the Elise range! as has the SLK and the Z4 now comes with a twin turbo version). Don't forget when it came out circa 1999 it was up against BMW z3, gen 1 boxster, gen 1 slk, mk2 mx5 and s1 elise - all of these are on their 2nd generation with some on their 3rd!

don't get me wrong i like the s2000 (hence why i owned one) but anyone who honestly says the s2000 still competes has rose tinted glasses on i'm afraid.

Edited by Andy G Bmth on Saturday 8th August 16:59

[Berger 3rd]

Diderot said:

And Honda is charging 28k for the S2000!

Edited by Diderot on Saturday 8th August 16:36

Erm they havent been £28k for a long long time, you can still just about pick up a new one for as low as £17500 from motorpoint, and one of these final run GT100 models were at max £23000 and have been had for as little as £20000, and being limited to 100 these are sure to retain value pretty well.

[CJ2000]

Think you can tell by my user name what I drive. This is my second S having traded in my 55 for a GT100.

I love this car, I love the fact you don't see that many of them, the engine noise (especially with the cover off), how it makes me makes me smile every time I drive it, the owners club that I am part of, the 'cockpit', the seats..... Think the only thing I don't like is the tax!

I drive this car as it makes me feel like I've driven it rather than just got into an arm chair and arrived at my destination.

It's not for everyone and there are better cars out there but right this minute, this is the only one for me.

[GravelBen]

Diderot said:

The torque curve maybe flat, but what you're talking about is only 90% of 153 ft/lbs! And peak torque, such as it is, doesn't come on stream until 7500rpm.

You seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat - accepting that the torque curve is flat and then claiming its bad that peak torque doesn't arrive until 7500rpm. With a flat torque curve its not particularly important where the peak is. Perhaps you'd prefer a diesel with a peak torque at 1900rpm and redline at 4500?

Diderot said:

And the RX8 has the same problem. Neither are particularly quick cars these days.

So they're slower than when they came out?

Like I said earlier in the thread, it would appear to depend whether you're more interested in driving or bragging about having more power than [insert name of other car here].

[havoc]

Andy G Bmth said:

...driving along in light traffic and the car in front turns off and you have about 150 yards clear gap before you get to the next safe distance to the car in front. The elise will give you a shove in the back regardless of what gear you are in. My Sl500 would cover the gap in about 5 seconds with no fuss and no fun. The Supra would of come on boost covered the gap and then ploughed you into the car in front The z4 with the 3 litre straight six would give you the push in most gears to enjoy driving and would go round corners so long as you get rid of the runflats and finally the MX5 Sport doesn't quite have the grunt to allow you to take advantage of every gap without drogging a cog and this is what the s2000 suffers from.

Your scenario is fallacious - who in their right mind would WANT to use full-beans there?!?

As for 'dropping a cog' - it's not a hardship, the S2000's 'box is IMHO the easiest, slickest, quickest and most intuitive in the business! If you don't like changing gear then stick with your slush-box Merc and leave those of us who DO like driving to the manuals, eh!


As for the Elise's "shove in the back" - check the torque curve, you'll find it's no different to the S2000's, and I suspect it's probably inferior, in that it's not as flat-topped. The Elise's advantage is solely down to weight, which is no bad thing but must be taken as that, not as something engine-related.

[GravelBen]

havoc said:

As for 'dropping a cog' - it's not a hardship, the S2000's 'box is IMHO the easiest, slickest, quickest and most intuitive in the business! If you don't like changing gear then stick with your slush-box Merc and leave those of us who DO like driving to the manuals, eh!

As good as/better than an MX5? I quite like the idea of an S200 as a potential upgrade for mine sometime in the hazy future...

[kambites]

I think the Elise has about 130 lb-ft in most guises (except the SC). The S2000 has about 160. That gives the Elise a better torque to weight ratio, but not by a huge amount.

Elises are pretty gutless unless you're in vaguely the right gear.

Edited by kambites on Monday 10th August 13:26

[Diderot]

GravelBen said:

Diderot said:

The torque curve maybe flat, but what you're talking about is only 90% of 153 ft/lbs! And peak torque, such as it is, doesn't come on stream until 7500rpm.

You seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat - accepting that the torque curve is flat and then claiming its bad that peak torque doesn't arrive until 7500rpm. With a flat torque curve its not particularly important where the peak is. Perhaps you'd prefer a diesel with a peak torque at 1900rpm and redline at 4500?

If you want to split hairs, then let's split them: the torque curve isn't flat.

GravelBen said:

Diderot said:

And the RX8 has the same problem. Neither are particularly quick cars these days.

So they're slower than when they came out?

Like I said earlier in the thread, it would appear to depend whether you're more interested in driving or bragging about having more power than [insert name of other car here].

Have you ever heard of a comparative analysis? When they came out their specs were vaguely decent. Today their specs are not decent.

I am interested in driving, which is why I have cars with a little more power and torque.

Edited by Diderot on Monday 10th August 13:34

[Diderot]

kambites said:

I think the Elise has about 130 lb-ft in most guises (except the SC). The S2000 has about 160. That gives the Elise a better torque to weight ratio, but not by a huge amount.

Elises are pretty gutless unless you're in vaguely the right gear.

Edited by kambites on Monday 10th August 13:26

Though the Elise is nearly half a tonne lighter, so the torque to weight is a lot better.

[kambites]

The Elise 111R weighs roughly 900kg so it has roughly 145ish lb-ft/tonne. The S2000 weighs, what, 1250kg? So that's 130 lb-ft/tonne.

Hardly a huge difference.