RE: Honda S2000 GT 100 Edition
Discussion
Mattmeister said:
agreed, very underrated car in my opinion and still looks good. (esp in white!)
I don't think they are underrated at all. They have a specific audience that's all.All this b
ks about the lack of lowdown torque is rubbish as well. If you use the gears it is a joy to drive in every condition.I had the misfortune to drive a 147 this holiday: less grunt than my 1.6 Dacia ffs!
Shame the S2K has to go . . .
kambites said:
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. Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 6th August 11:48
dinkel said:
The centre of the weight should be low! Try an X Beemer to find out.
Indeed. The fact that the engine is mounted so high up in the Elise is far more of a problem than any perceived imperfection in the front/rear distribution. Fortunately it's a very light engine.Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 11:19
Honda made the S2000 as a present to themselves. It was an embodiment of their engineering of the 80s/90s in a 2 door sportscar.
Looking at the cars they produced in that time, it was never going to be turbocharged or 6 cylinder or even that friendly on the limit- that wasn't what Honda were about at the time.
They weren't looking for a MX-5 in terms of sales or a Boxster in terms of image.
It was always going to appeal to the people who liked high-revving Hondas and their behaviour.
When I hear people complain about how they bought one and got sick of the high revving and the plain interior, I think- why didn't you test drive it properly before buying and choose a car you actually like?
Looking at the cars they produced in that time, it was never going to be turbocharged or 6 cylinder or even that friendly on the limit- that wasn't what Honda were about at the time.
They weren't looking for a MX-5 in terms of sales or a Boxster in terms of image.
It was always going to appeal to the people who liked high-revving Hondas and their behaviour.
When I hear people complain about how they bought one and got sick of the high revving and the plain interior, I think- why didn't you test drive it properly before buying and choose a car you actually like?
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 6th August 11:24
10 Pence Short said:
When I hear people complain about how they bought one and got sick of the high revving and the plain interior, I think- why didn't you test drive it properly before buying and choose a car you actually like?
That could be said about most complaints about most cars. kambites said:
10 Pence Short said:
When I hear people complain about how they bought one and got sick of the high revving and the plain interior, I think- why didn't you test drive it properly before buying and choose a car you actually like?
That could be said about most complaints about most cars. But the engine doesn't change character between test drive and ownership. The interior doesn't change. The handling doesn't get worse (in fact, it usually gets better on the S with a bit of fettling).
So to complain about those things like they're some cardinal, unexpected sin is pretty worthless.
Mind you, enough people buy cars these days without even trying them properly. As long as they look good on the drive and have the right image at the right time.
Absolute classic machine - if i had the cash I'd be buying tow, one to (try and) drive to death (after what, 500k miles?) and the other to keep in a dry warehouse as the retirement fund. I'm sure these will trade for big money in 40ish years (look at the quaint petrol engine! Wow! Rubber tyres! etc.).
Any thread involving VTEC always ends up with a mixture of about 80% rubbish from people who have never driven the car but love to spew out the whole 'no torque' thing.
I used to own a CTR and would constantly hear my car with less power could take you as I've more torque, particulary from the diesel crowd.
The S2000 is no different. It's an awesome bit of engineering and a damn good drive, the engine is also one of the best 4 cylinder engines I've ever experienced but I can understand it's too hardcore and some would prefer a more relaxed power delivery. The comments about the interior are valid to, it's hardly the nicest place to be.
I think anything Honda VTEC will always cause a strong opinion either way but I suspect we are seeing the begining of the end of everything VTEC with Honda's green policy.
I used to own a CTR and would constantly hear my car with less power could take you as I've more torque, particulary from the diesel crowd.
The S2000 is no different. It's an awesome bit of engineering and a damn good drive, the engine is also one of the best 4 cylinder engines I've ever experienced but I can understand it's too hardcore and some would prefer a more relaxed power delivery. The comments about the interior are valid to, it's hardly the nicest place to be.
I think anything Honda VTEC will always cause a strong opinion either way but I suspect we are seeing the begining of the end of everything VTEC with Honda's green policy.
vz-r_dave said:
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?!? 
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 you actually read what I wrote I mentioned the Mazda RX8 as a smooth engine which revs just as high as the Honda, it was just the S2000s engine that I found harsh.
Most VTEC Hondas are great fun when you're in the mood to rev the nuts off it, but not a great proposition day to day. And before you start, yes I have owned and driven several of them.
well at least they sold all the 100 editions.....some petrolheads have got themselves a proper good car but in the pics it doesnt look champ white that would be my colour to have it in...i wish they made a type r version in champ white with better lower seats and no electric steering..
Ok I've not driven the NSX but I've read (reading from experts' first hand accounts isn't a bad thing) Honda would have preferred more power if it wasn't for the restrictive 280bhp crappy gay-mans agreement at the time.
It's worth noting that I am a fan of Honda and have owned a few high revving examples. I'd love a NSX-R in my garage but because of its rarity I've more chance of getting a Mugen HondaJet!
It's worth noting that I am a fan of Honda and have owned a few high revving examples. I'd love a NSX-R in my garage but because of its rarity I've more chance of getting a Mugen HondaJet!
Dracoro said:
kambites said:
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. - It's part of the reason why the Boxster/Cayman are so good.
- It's what a lot of the FR supercar manufacturers are aiming for now.
Kam - agreed it's personal preference.
- I'd suggest that ~40:60 is better for circuit work, as the masses are in the right place for better traction out of corners.
- However I think ~50:50 is better for the road, certainly if you like to push a car's limits, as (combined with a low c-o-g and as little roll as possible) it'll make the rear-end more progressive.
I don't generally push a car's limits that hard on the road, but you may well be right. I can happily four-wheel drift the Elise around a roundabout though (although I've only ever tried in an empty car park) and I'm far from a brilliant driver.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 13:14
havoc said:
Spot-on. Minimise polar moment of inertia and you get a very responsive and (comparatively) docile car.
However it doens't explain why the (front engine, rear transaxle) Porsche 968CS is generally felt to be one of the best handling road cars ever, or why mid-50's F1 cars like the Maserati 250F (#4 on S. Moss's best-ever list) also ended up with this layout.SS7
shoestring7 said:
havoc said:
Spot-on. Minimise polar moment of inertia and you get a very responsive and (comparatively) docile car.
However it doens't explain why the (front engine, rear transaxle) Porsche 968CS is generally felt to be one of the best handling road cars ever, or why mid-50's F1 cars like the Maserati 250F (#4 on S. Moss's best-ever list) also ended up with this layout.SS7
1) Wasn't the 968 nearly front-mid anyway - that had a big 4-pot, so I suspect little of that engine was ahead of the axle-line, and the transaxle would have been 90% ahead of the rear axle too. (Just checked - the #4 cylinder is ahead of the suspension-turret-tops)
2) 250F was fully front-mid, if you look at the car or a diagrammatic view.
...so the Maser probably did have ~50:50 distribution with all major masses within the axles (once you add driver and fuel-tank behind the engine). And the 968 DOES have 50:50 weight distribution...and again almost all major masses within the axles...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff