RE: Honda S2000 GT 100 Edition

[havoc]

Beanoir said:

I think you'll struggle to prove a Lotus Elise "slower" than the S2k in all honesty unless possibly you were drag racing, and lets face it, I dont think anybody here is really into that kind of game...especially in a 2 seater sports car.

I agree that it's not all about drag-racing, but I disagree with your comment re: the Elise.

I've driven an Elise S2 K-series, an Elise S2 111R and a VX220 n/asp. And the only one of those which point-to-point would be quicker than the S2000 in average hands is the 111R. The S2000 has every bit as much grip as the lesser Elise's/VX's (more at the front-end, IMHO), and a greater power-to-weight ratio. It's also got better weight-distribution at 50:50 vs ~40:60. None have any form of TC (optional on post-06 S2000's and post-06 111R's), so it's all down to the driver...

...but the Elise's have never been about pace, straight-line or otherwise - they're just a fantastic, involving machine. It IS, however, a factor for a buyer...and some people will want the extra grunt!

Beanoir said:

In the majority of cases people buy cars second hand. Lets say you're Mr Joe Average, you had £15k in your back pocket, you were looking for a 2 seater sports car that was anywhere between 3 and 7 years old and then compare the competition, it starts to get a bit more interesting then. Thats true real world comparison.

In which case the S2000 looks even better value, as it depreciates quicker than the other 3 cars being considered (due to badge, again), so you can get a (much) newer car for the same money or a (much) cheaper car of the same age...

(I was in that exact position 3.5 years ago, narrowed it to VX220 or S2000 (didn't consider Boxster due to running costs and the fact that at the time it'd have been a 4-5y.o. 2.7 with higher mileage or a very early/tired -S). TBH I would have been very happy with either car...I went for the S2000 as it was a '3rd car' for both me and Mrs Havoc and she didn't like the VX220 that much.)

[briancorish]

I have to agree with a lot of the comments here,I was always disappointed with the S2000, apart from the fantastic gearbox, the engine was harsh, and unless you drive everywhere like your pants are on fire, the lack of torque becomes really annoying and you never felt completely comfortable driving one at speed. A friend of mine bought a new one two years ago as it was his dream car as a teenager.
He drove the Boxster S I had at the time and the s2000 was gone a week later...

[havoc]

briancorish said:

the engine was harsh

It's one of the smoothest engines out there. What planet are you on?!?

briancorish said:

He drove the Boxster S I had at the time and the s2000 was gone a week later...

So a £40k car is better than a £26k car. No surprises there then...why didn't he go the whole hog and get a 911?!?

[Hellbound]

Well there's no point in getting all emotional about it. I've never driven one but have always liked the way it looked. I have to admit a lot of the comments here have highlighted a few things regarding handling. The only car I've written off was my MR2 turbo, handling of which was ridiculous (talk about a steep learning curve) so I don't expect the S2K to equal that in rear weight bias.

To borrow the £15-£26k scenario, I wouldn't buy a an S2K unless it was in the sub £10k bracket. For £26k you could quite literally buy a decent NSX which would hold its value better than anything else I can think of.

Fantasies aside, I'd be drawn to cars like the Boxster S, Cayman S, Exige, SLK AMG and maybe, just maybe a new 09 model Z4. I think the 'lacking character' comment is banded about because, lets face it, 99% of japanese cars are as exciting cardboard. The few good ones, cars like my beloved old CRX, are tarnished with the same brush.

What's the S2000 like on long journeys? Like around Europe for example?

[Andy_stook_2k]

I still miss my black one, would be a good future investment as the enthusiast following is massive.

[dan1502]

Though there's a lot of valid comments on here some are a tad harsh. The S2000 certainly has character. I considered an Elise, Exige, Boxster, RX8, Nissan 350Z..... and the only car that provided driver focussed open top motoring at that price point combined with practicality and reliability and good looks was the S2000. Yes it lacked low down torque but just it wasn't that slow below 5000 rpm and you can just drop a gear. Like someone said, it could do with a reach adjustable steering wheel and slightly lower seats - I'm 6'3 and I think I might have been scalped if I rolled it.

I found it fun in the wet though admittedly the earlier model (I owned both) was a bit more dicey - you just have to respect it, get the geo set up properly and not use the accelerator peddle like an on off switch. I'm sure owning mine has made me a better driver. It was fun on track too and though I only drove it in the dry on track I was able to keep up a good pace around Brands Hatch. It offers a great combination for those who can't live with a Lotus and can't afford a Boxster (or don't like the looks).

I've now got a 996 and whilst I do love it, I wouldn't necessarily say it's better. They're both enjoyable in their own way and I'm starting to wonder how much power is usable these days anyway (I still want a monster V8 or V10 one day though!).

They're not completely bomb proof by the way. Mine had a new gearbox under warranty after about 15000 miles.

The memories of driving around the N Wales country roads with the sun shining, top down and revs hanging around the limit are flooding back .....

[Dracoro]

Hellbound said:

What's the S2000 like on long journeys? Like around Europe for example?

Well the wife and I drove all round France in mine, use soft bags and lot gets in the boot.

Averaged 34 mpg (much easier to do there than in the UK!) without much effort and plenty VTEC, esp through Swiss tunnels! It sounds fantastic in tunnels at 9000rpm!! Don't get that sensation with any of the competition! D

Sits on motorways fine. Granted it's no luxobarge but for the type of car it's fine, well built so not much in the way of wind noise for a convertible.

I'm sure a Boxster or Z4 would have been just as fine on that sort of journey (other than mpg) but I wouldn't like to do that sort of mileage in an Elise type car.

Anyway, as I'll say to anyone, drive one, if you like it, great, if you don't then fine. I think it as a car that set out to appeal to a certain enthusiast demographic rather than trying to appeal to as many people as possible. That's what makes it great, it's also why many people may not like it.

[Johnny Rocco]

Man, if only I'd come up with that feature idea.

[Hellbound]

I hear you Dracaro. I may get one for a little while as the earliest batch of cars are starting to look very cheap and shouldn't fall much further so the prospect of having a free car for a while is very attractive.

[Porscheplayer]

havoc said:

Beanoir said:

...it's priced to compete with offerings from BMW, Porsche, Lotus etc etc, in view of the competition I think it loses out theses days as other car manufacturers are producing much more exciting alternatives...

A £26k Lotus is one of the 135bhp "Elise-S" models (which is still a good, if much slower, car).
A £26k BMW (up to '07) is a well-specced Z4 2.0 or a poverty Z4 2.5...both of which are slower than the S


The S2000 'lost out' as you put it due to badge snobbery, the same as the NSX did - people want a car like that to say "look at me", which sadly in Europe means the badge, not the substance... Look at the US and the S2000's substantially outsold the Z4 throughout their comparative lives...

Honda fan boys would love this to the true, trying to justify the S2000 ‘also ran’ status as badge snobby, it’s nothing to do with the badge. The MX5 sold by the bucket load and Mazda is even lower down the food chain.

There are two main reasons wasn’t as popular as it could have been, firstly the S2000 is a very niche car, the engine may produce 237 BHP but it lacks flexibility and has to be worked hard when your in the mood for fun, not a problem when your on a charge, but tiresome when your not to many non petrol head. It doesn’t matter the S2000 has one of the highest outputs for a 2.0L engine, many people can’t be bothered or don’t want to draw attention by screwing the engine to generate some shove.
The second reason is the cars are flawed in a few areas where its competitors are not. The interior of the car is cramped and the seating position is too high, the interior also feels flimsy and looks cheap, even if it is very driver focused and ergonomically designed, the car lacks refinement on the motorway or at speed and handling on early cars caught many people out as they ran out of talent, but the major flaw is the steering, being numb and offering no feed back, a big no-no on a sports car

It’s all very well dismissing the Porsche Boxster because it costs more, but it doesn’t suffer from any of the above faults and combined with cheap finance meant the more expensive Porsche with its broader appeal was much more popular and wiser choice for the keen driver or rich bloke’s wife alike, even if it was less reliable and more costly to run.

I was always disappointed Honda never really developed the car like other manufactures did; it was a good starting point and could have been a great car if Honda could be bothered to sort out a few issues and an extra 70BHP wouldn’t have gone a miss

[Asterix]

I had a MY03 for a couple of years and still still think extremely fondly of it - brilliant car and a smile a mile.

I stuck 04 wheels on it, had a proper set up done and it handled like a dream - ok, it could be twitchy but you had to concentrate and drive it - it didn't suffer fools.

The engine is a masterpiece and for that alone I'm honoured to have owned and driven one. It has/will go down as a motoring legend.

I never got the whole torque thing - drop a cog using one of the best boxes in the business if you wanted to accelerate faster! I believe that it is still the most powerfull N/A engine per litre? Taking the engine up to the redline was lovely.

Should I have to downscale a touch I know exactly what I'd get.

[havoc]

Porscheplayer said:

Honda fan boys would love this to the true, trying to justify the S2000 ‘also ran’ status as badge snobby, it’s nothing to do with the badge. The MX5 sold by the bucket load and Mazda is even lower down the food chain.

The MX-5 was cheap to buy and run. It also looked just like the old Lotus Elan, and hit the right spot at the right time. It was also very good to drive, which helped but wasn't essential.

The S2000 pitched in halfway between the MX-5 and the Boxster/top-end Z3. Which meant it was too expensive for those who wanted a convertible, not the performance. It didn't have the badge for those who wanted to pose. Which meant it only appealed to those who wanted a quick car and didn't care about the badge...i.e. petrolheads.

Sadly those people are too few in Europe...

Your other comments betray ignorance...I found the cockpit to be just fine, and the handling was just the fun side of it's edgy reputation...


As for you...hardly unbiased, are you?!?

[briancorish]

havoc said:

briancorish said:

the engine was harsh

It's one of the smoothest engines out there. What planet are you on?!?

briancorish said:

He drove the Boxster S I had at the time and the s2000 was gone a week later...

So a £40k car is better than a £26k car. No surprises there then...why didn't he go the whole hog and get a 911?!?

The engine is harsh. It is a 4 cylinder engine that revs to almost 9000rpm, I would hardly describe it as one of the smoothest engines ever.. an rx8 on the other hand.. and on the price comparison point, My boxster was a 2001 model (sorry didn't mention that) and he still found it better in every department (with the exception of looks, I have to give the S2000 that) than his 2007 S2000...
On another point if you compare prices of 2001 - 2002 Boxster S with S2000 there isn't much in it, and on the 911 comment, I personally prefer the Boxster to drive.

[Hellbound]

Porscheplayer said:

I was always disappointed Honda never really developed the car like other manufactures did; it was a good starting point and could have been a great car if Honda could be bothered to sort out a few issues and an extra 70BHP wouldn’t have gone a miss

Very true. The sad fact is there won't be another S2000 any time soon. Honda seem to have a habit of creating a model, taking their eye off the ball and then canning it because it hasn't sold as many as they'd liked. It started with the CRX, then the Integra (canned it to sell more civic type r's!!Why?!), the NSX was underpowered because of manufacturer politics, and now the S2000 has gone. All Hondas moolah is going on projects like the Clarity hydroelectric and CRZ hybrid. Even the current bloated Civic Type R needed a rethink but instead of making some changes they've brought in Mugen and inflated the price - during a recession! They're slowly eating away at their own racing heritage.

No worries, Nissan is bringing out another 200SX and Toyota is coming out with a new rwd Celica. Hey, when Mazda bring back the RX7 in the form of a 2 seater roadster, as rumored, we'll have our S2K replacement

[vz-r_dave]

briancorish said:

havoc said:

briancorish said:

the engine was harsh

It's one of the smoothest engines out there. What planet are you on?!?

briancorish said:

He drove the Boxster S I had at the time and the s2000 was gone a week later...

So a £40k car is better than a £26k car. No surprises there then...why didn't he go the whole hog and get a 911?!?

The engine is harsh. It is a 4 cylinder engine that revs to almost 9000rpm, I would hardly describe it as one of the smoothest engines ever.. an rx8 on the other hand.. and on the price comparison point, My boxster was a 2001 model (sorry didn't mention that) and he still found it better in every department (with the exception of looks, I have to give the S2000 that) than his 2007 S2000...
On another point if you compare prices of 2001 - 2002 Boxster S with S2000 there isn't much in it, and on the 911 comment, I personally prefer the Boxster to drive.

If your calling a high revving engine harsh then what on earth is an F1 to you, are they not smooth either??? Monger

[havoc]

Hellbound said:

...the NSX was underpowered...

Spoken by someone who does more reading about cars than driving them. IMHO the 3.2 NSX is every bit as quick as (probably quicker than) an E46M3 in a straight line...a car which 'allegedly' has 70bhp more!

...gotta love some of the textbook experts on here...

[vz-r_dave]

Hellbound said:

Porscheplayer said:

I was always disappointed Honda never really developed the car like other manufactures did; it was a good starting point and could have been a great car if Honda could be bothered to sort out a few issues and an extra 70BHP wouldn’t have gone a miss

Very true. The sad fact is there won't be another S2000 any time soon. Honda seem to have a habit of creating a model, taking their eye off the ball and then canning it because it hasn't sold as many as they'd liked. It started with the CRX, then the Integra (canned it to sell more civic type r's!!Why?!), the NSX was underpowered because of manufacturer politics, and now the S2000 has gone. All Hondas moolah is going on projects like the Clarity hydroelectric and CRZ hybrid. Even the current bloated Civic Type R needed a rethink but instead of making some changes they've brought in Mugen and inflated the price - during a recession! They're slowly eating away at their own racing heritage.

No worries, Nissan is bringing out another 200SX and Toyota is coming out with a new rwd Celica. Hey, when Mazda bring back the RX7 in the form of a 2 seater roadster, as rumored, we'll have our S2K replacement

OH FFS not another one, Honda did not bring in Mugen. Mugen are building the car themselves i.e. taking the car from Honda and improving it....

[JohnG1]

My first car was an S2000. A brave intro to rwd having learnt in a mini and a clio....

Yeah, it's bonkers when you work it and I loved that car. A crying shame that Honda have not really done much with it for a few years. Resurrect as the S4000 with a V10 revving to 10,000 and I'll sell my Aston Martin and go back to the Honda....

[sami_voodoo]

I've always been confused by the evolution of the S2K over the years. When CAR magazine did a piece on a production-ready prototype in '96 or thereabouts, the journalist in question said it offered the tactile feedback of an electric guitar fretboard while the engine note was akin to a frenzied riff as it touched redline (or something like that). When the car came out, it was panned in a lot of publications as being slow-witted at first and then catching you out. On the other hand, Auto Motor und Sport did a comparison of one with a Z3 and a Boxster. The S2K beat them silly in every respect, and they said so.

Re: Torque figures, it produces a bit more torque than a Renault 1.5 dCi, and just a bit less than an RX8. So what's the problem? Of course it doesn't have the torque to go with 237 bhp, because it's a small engine.

Sadly for me, the academic and career choices that I've made have never enabled me to buy one for myself. I suppose I'll have to settle for a Miata when I am able to buy one...

[kambites]

havoc said:

It's also got better weight-distribution at 50:50 vs ~40:60.

I would say that 40:60 is better than 50:50 in a RWD car but it's entirely down to personal preference. The idea that 50:50 is "perfect" is BMW marketing crap.

I doubt there's much in it in terms of B-road speed between an S2000 and an Elise - the Elise puts its power down better but starts to run out of steam rather sooner. Neither will be limited by absolute grip in many situations on the road but I doubt there's much between them in absolute grip anyway.

Outright speed isn't really the point of either car anyway.


I wasn't overly impressed with the S2000 as a driver's car - it's raw but lacks finesse, which struck me as the worst of both worlds. It's alright, but all in all I preferred the handling of the (mk2.5) MX5. Obviously the S2000 has a far better engine than the MX5 though.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 11:05