RE: Honda S2000 GT 100 Edition
Discussion
Diderot said:
...but, as I soon found out on the weekend I had one on test, there's simply not enough grunt.
I'd be interested to see stats comparing the in-gear performance with the Z4 (3.0 and 2.5 - the 2.5 is the closer on price, the 3.0 the closer in ultimate performance) and the 2.7 986-model Boxster. And the VX220, while we're at it......because I'd venture the only one of those cars to be anywhere clear of it will be the 3.0 Z4! All 3 of the others will be around the same ball-park as the S2000...although I'm ready to be proved wrong. As I've said twice already - the feeling of acceleration comes from the rate of change of torque.
Steve350 said:
Will the fanboys please stop trying to tell everyone that its the best car ever bar non, it isnt and never has been for anyone except yourselfs (and your in the minority) the best car is the one that the individual finds the most exciting or has the most passion for. Budget offten dictates what people choose to drive, if you can afford a Ferrari or Lambo your not exactly going to buy an S2000 are you?
i don't think anyone on here is trying to say it's the best car ever bar none. just that it's a superb car and that the common faults that most people pick with it (perceived lack of torque for example) in the real world aren't really an issue.obviously it's not for everyone, as you say a lot of people prefer cars with larger capacity engines where the performance is less work to get at. it'd be a boring world if everyone liked the same thing.
i think, however, that a lot of those people dismiss the s2k as a peaky screamer and that's unfair.
dinkel said:
skiddy1903 said:
i think, however, that a lot of those people dismiss the s2k as a peaky scro theamer and that's unfair.
Peeps who say such a thing probably never drove one.I prefer a larger CC N/A engine and don't care if it costs more or is in a different engine class. The 153 ‘torques’ isn’t enough; high revving/low torque engines are better suited to racing applications or very light cars, not road cars. It would make much more sense in an Elise, but there’s no way Lotus could build an engine like that would last five mins at 9000 revs
Porscheplayer said:
The engine is peaky, you can't get 237 BHP for a 2.0l engine (n/a) without some sort of compromise and the compromise is when you put your foot down in 6th at 4000revs nothing happens, the engine lacks flexibility/torque,
Don't agree with that at all.I plant the go-pedal in my DC5 at 28mph in top gear, (6th), and it pulls without fuss.
I had an '09 Focus 1.6 TD hire-car a few weeks ago and did the same thing, foot to the floor in top gear at 28mph, (5th), and it almost stalled. I had to change down to 3rd.
On paper the Focus has more torque than my DC5 but in the real world torque means diddley. It's the power-band that matters.
My work vehicle, a Scania truck develops 2500Nm but the power band, like all diesels, is very narrow...around 300rpm from 1100 to 1400rpm. If you're not in the power-band, you're not going anywhere...regardless of how much torque is available.
Porscheplayer said:
when you put your foot down in 6th at 4000revs nothing happens
You CLEARLY haven't driven one then. 6th at 4000rpm is 80mph and it pulls at those speeds without any issue. Not blindingly fast obviously (there's 3rd/4th/5th for that) but certainly plenty to get going with normal traffic and so on.Porscheplayer said:
the engine lacks flexibility/torque
For a 2.0 it has just as much (if not more) torque than any other 2.0 n/a engine. I don't know many cars that have more pulling power without either having a larger or turbocharged engine. Up to 6000rpm it will be faster than most typical cars on the road. Porscheplayer said:
If it was such a great idea other manufactures would all be making peaky engines too, but they don’t
Except for BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Audi and so on. All of them make high revving cars where the big power it high up.The main reason why others don't now is emissions and they are moving to turbocharging rather than revs as it means they can get their cars into a lower tax banding.
I'm not going to claim it has V8 high gear low rev pulling power but for a car that only weighs 1.2 tonnes it has plenty to get going in normal traffic (certainly no problem dispatching bmw 318s without going near VTEC
) and if you want full acceleration you use the revs. It's one of the reasons it's a petrolheads enthusiast car and a tdi isn't.It may not be your cup of tea, that's fine, we don't all like the same thing.
As for "fanboy" comments. Grow up Mr I'm Such A Fanboy That I Have To Include The Marque In My Username And Don't Understand Irony
skiddy1903 said:
i think, however, that a lot of those people dismiss the s2k as a peaky screamer and that's unfair.
As above, it IS a peaky screamer. In a fairly lardy body, well, lardy compared to most other things that have peaky screamers anyway 
But there isn't much else like it, so it is shame it is going. It was always going to be a niche. Screaming high revs but not quite the performance to match to stellar engine.
havoc said:
Diderot said:
...but, as I soon found out on the weekend I had one on test, there's simply not enough grunt.
I'd be interested to see stats comparing the in-gear performance with the Z4 (3.0 and 2.5 - the 2.5 is the closer on price, the 3.0 the closer in ultimate performance) and the 2.7 986-model Boxster. And the VX220, while we're at it......because I'd venture the only one of those cars to be anywhere clear of it will be the 3.0 Z4! All 3 of the others will be around the same ball-park as the S2000...although I'm ready to be proved wrong. As I've said twice already - the feeling of acceleration comes from the rate of change of torque.
)apart from new generations that i mentioned earlier you have the following models on other marques over and above the ones mentioned
z4 (2.5, 3.0, z4m and the new twin turbo model)
boxster, 2.7, S
VX200 Turbo, VXR
Elise S, R, SC
SLK - 55AMG
If they bought out a fresher higher performance model i would be in the queue for one. who would seriously prefer not to at least have the choice?
Andy G Bmth said:
z4 (2.5, 3.0, z4m and the new twin turbo model)
boxster, 2.7, S
VX200 Turbo, VXR
Elise S, R, SC
SLK - 55AMG
boxster, 2.7, S
VX200 Turbo, VXR
Elise S, R, SC
SLK - 55AMG
Z4's (above 2.5) are a LOT more money than the S2000. Z4M and the Z4 3.5i are another class above.
Boxster-S ditto
VX-Turbo - fair point. But they have their own compromises, don't they?
Elise - S/Charged ones are >£35k, even a sensibly-specced 111R is a few £k more than the equivalent S2000.
SLK55?!? HOW much???
So, for similar money (new), what either is or was recently out there that is a clear S2000 competitor that gives clearly more in-gear kick than the S2000?!?
Where did the price issue come from?
I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model,
I think the s2000 is better looking than all mentioned except the elise and I'm sure if they launched a bigger engined, blown or charged model as an OPTION not a replacement there would be a fair few takers.....
I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model,
I think the s2000 is better looking than all mentioned except the elise and I'm sure if they launched a bigger engined, blown or charged model as an OPTION not a replacement there would be a fair few takers.....
Andy G Bmth said:
Where did the price issue come from?
I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model,
I think the s2000 is better looking than all mentioned except the elise and I'm sure if they launched a bigger engined, blown or charged model as an OPTION not a replacement there would be a fair few takers.....
Yes its a fair point, but its not the point the majority of other posters ar trying to make from what i have read, its generaly a discussion on the current car and the misguided preconceptions that get chucked around everytime its mentioned.I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model,
I think the s2000 is better looking than all mentioned except the elise and I'm sure if they launched a bigger engined, blown or charged model as an OPTION not a replacement there would be a fair few takers.....
yes a new model would be great, but at the moment it aint going to happen, honda are moving in a very different direction. yes things have moved on, but so have prices, and its a very valid point that at its current end of line price point, there still isnt anything that compares for the money.
and for the umpteenth time, there is plenty of go in 6th, you can drop a gear or 2 and go much faster, if you so wish, but if you dont it performs just as well or better than any other 2.0 litre car on the road, and I never seem to see any posts from 320 bmw owners complaining about their car being tireing on the motorway, how hard is it to comprehend?
I agree with you to a certain extent regarding the price issue but IMO (and this only my opinion not fact) you'd have to be mad to spend £20k on a new one when you can have a 2-3 year z4m or equivilant make for the same money.
Then again the same can be said for all new cars at the moment........
Then again the same can be said for all new cars at the moment........
I have, just this week bought a new S2000 from Honda. Paid £19k for it and its fantastic. IMO thats fantastic value for a brand new 2 seater, convertible sports car with a 3 year warranty and 'in context' cheap running costs. I owned a CTR some years ago so to be fair, am a fan of high revving engines but have also owned a Boxster S and just come out of a Noble, both grunty, largeish capacity engines. The S2000 is definitely not as quick in a straight line but last night round the country roads was a blast. Keeping it on Cam, using the brilliant gearbox (don't think anyone can deny that!!), was so much fun. Chasing the redline, screaming it out of corners, felt like a mini race car. As soon as i got into town though, popped it in 5th, felt like i was driving a civic. Easy, light, comfy. Thats the beauty of the S2K - Possessed racer one minute, comfy potterer the next.
Regarding the torque. Its not going to rip the guts right out of you from 40mph in 5th but has enough pull to see you round that bloody annoying caravan!!
I think if you look at the others (my Dad's got a Z4M) and the VX, Elise, MX5 etc all great cars in their own field, Z4M quicker in a straight line but needs 3.2 litres to get it there then you can see where the S2K slots into the market. For 19k i could have bought a Z4M but it would have been out of warranty and come with the lovely BMW 'value' running costs.
Its a shame the S2K has gone, just glad i got one of the last ones to enjoy!!
Regarding the torque. Its not going to rip the guts right out of you from 40mph in 5th but has enough pull to see you round that bloody annoying caravan!!
I think if you look at the others (my Dad's got a Z4M) and the VX, Elise, MX5 etc all great cars in their own field, Z4M quicker in a straight line but needs 3.2 litres to get it there then you can see where the S2K slots into the market. For 19k i could have bought a Z4M but it would have been out of warranty and come with the lovely BMW 'value' running costs.
Its a shame the S2K has gone, just glad i got one of the last ones to enjoy!!
Noger said:
skiddy1903 said:
i think, however, that a lot of those people dismiss the s2k as a peaky screamer and that's unfair.
As above, it IS a peaky screamer. In a fairly lardy body, well, lardy compared to most other things that have peaky screamers anyway But there isn't much else like it, so it is shame it is going. It was always going to be a niche. Screaming high revs but not quite the performance to match to stellar engine.
the reality is that it's a very usable sports car that gives you enough power to have plenty of fun when you want (you've just got to do a bit of work by changing gear sometimes) and the flexibility to drive around town with no fuss but still have a respectable amount of power outside the vtec to handle most situations.
as i said it's not for everyone but it's still a fantastic car.
Andy G Bmth said:
Where did the price issue come from?
When you suggested it was slow in-gear versus a bunch of more expensive cars with bigger and/or turbo'd engines. Keep the playing-field level, eh?Andy G Bmth said:
I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model...
w/o supercharging (which Honda haven't done in any car, AFAIK) or turbocharging (which wouldn't suit the F20C), there's no real way of launching a 'higher-spec' model without radical re-engineering and developing a whole new engine.Suggestions are good, but please keep them realistic. Yours was akin to asking Lotus to fit a V6 to the Elise WITHOUT the versatile chassis architecture they'd developed!
Andy G Bmth said:
I was lamenting the lack of choice. You would still have the current model but as most other marques have done - why not launch a higher spec model...
w/o supercharging (which Honda haven't done in any car, AFAIK) or turbocharging (which wouldn't suit the F20C), there's no real way of launching a 'higher-spec' model without radical re-engineering and developing a whole new engine.Suggestions are good, but please keep them realistic. Yours was akin to asking Lotus to fit a V6 to the Elise WITHOUT the versatile chassis architecture they'd developed!
Almost anything can be achieved if wanted enough. Lotus Elise with a charged type R engine in is proof enough (even if its not done by the manufacturer
Andy G Bmth said:
...Lotus Elise with a charged type R engine in is proof enough (even if its not done by the manufacturer
The reason it wasn't done by the mfr was the need to provide a warranty with it (and therefore test it to destruction), and emissions-test it, etc. etc...
Lotus bought the off-the-shelf ready-tested s'charged VVTi engine because that meant NONE of that mucking around which they didn't have the resources for. Honda would have had zero-choice but to develop in-house a new engine which would have had only one (already long-in-the-tooth) application for. It would therefore have been a loss-making exercise...
Sorry Andy, but you're really starting to sound like you haven't a clue about the costs and timescales involved in developing cars...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff