S2000 or TT Roadster?

[ST270]

As the title says really - car is for my old man and me and been to look at a few S2000's around the 2002 / 2003 age range - each had done around 70k+ and price wise was under £6k which is about the target price. Not looked at any TT's as yet but the 1.8 180 bhp Quattros are coming up around the same price/age/mileage.

Car is for weekends and commute some days but not a daily.

We previously had a Lotus Elan m100 which had over 100k and he was nervous that the mileage was getting a bit high for having fun with the car. Against my protests that it had a Japanese engine and it would be fine if serviced properly...(yes i know a TVR would fit the bill too, but the apparent robustness of the Honda and Audi is swaying my old man.

Personally i like the looks and drivers reviews of the S2000 but the interior and quality of the Audi look better... any thoughts?

[rudecherub]

For me S2000

For your old man, probably the TT, if he's had a front drive elan the faux quattro front bias won't be an issue.

[daveco]

If it's for hoonage then the S2000. I would only go the TT route if you wanted to use it daily.

There is a marked difference in character between the two cars you mention though. I think you should be looking at Z4's and Boxsters as well if you are considering the S2000.

[toon10]

Despite being open top 2 seaters, they are very different cars. I don't know how old your old man is but the S2000 is a more raw experience. Loud, has to be revved really hard to get the most out of it and it is the "drivers" option. The TT is more of a cruiser than an out and out sports car. Both have their merits but it depends on what sort of car he's looking for.

[sneaky schnell]

I used to own an S2000 and have extensively driven a mk1 Audi TT, albeit a 225 version. Personally, I would go for the TT. For me the engine of the S2000 is only interesting above 6,000 RPM whereas the TT has more useable torque. The TT is also a nicer place to be.

You really have to drive both cars as although they might be priced similarly, they don't have that much in common. If you go for a TT, try and stretch to a 225.

[TTwiggy]

If you do go for a TT, don't waste time with the 180bhp version. Costs (purchasing and running) are virtually identical to the 225, so why do yourself out of 45bhp (plus much more tuning potential) and an extra 'zorst?

[ST270]

He's 63 and despite having a turbo the Lotus had to be driven pretty hard to get the most out of it so I don't think he would be adverse to that with the S2000 (he hasn't driven one yet though so who knows)

The Z4's at that price range seem to be a bit leggy and the Boxsters concern me with parts prices at that price / age range can a lot go wrong?

[TTwiggy]

ST270 said:

The Z4's at that price range seem to be a bit leggy and the Boxsters concern me with parts prices at that price / age range can a lot go wrong?

Google 'IMS failure'. It's not guaranteed to happen, but as a past owner of a Boxster, I can tell you that it does play on the mind a bit.

[ST270]

Just done a quick search for a 225bhp and this came up - looks quite nice in blue and the interior is spotless!

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

[TTwiggy]

ST270 said:

Just done a quick search for a 225bhp and this came up - looks quite nice in blue and the interior is spotless!

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

It does indeed.

The TT gets a bad time on here, because some people have swallowed all the Clarksonisms, while others, more accurately, point out that it's not much of a driver's car.

This is subjective of course. I've owned a 225 TT Roadster, I've also owned 'driver's' cars like the MX5, Lotus Elise, and Boxster S.

OK, the TT is not going to give the sort of feedback that those cars above will, but in its favour: The engine is very strong and a simple remap gives 240-260 bhp. The Quattro system may 'only' be Haldex, but I drove mine out of a muddy field very easily, while other car owners were up to their knees in mud, pushing. The interior is lovely, even all these years down the line and it's a design classic - one of the first cars to go into production actually looking like the original concept.

[russy01]

ST270 said:

He's 63 and despite having a turbo the Lotus had to be driven pretty hard to get the most out of it so I don't think he would be adverse to that with the S2000 (he hasn't driven one yet though so who knows)

The Z4's at that price range seem to be a bit leggy and the Boxsters concern me with parts prices at that price / age range can a lot go wrong?

Fair enough, but the S2000 really needs its neck ringing. Its absolutely fine for driving around town on a daily basis, so dont listen to ppl when they say it doesnt move beneath 6k. Its still got like 180hp at 6k so its still more powerful than your typical drive around when you are not in VTEC.

TT - Stupidly boring to drive, but cheap and easy to tune (so can be boring but faster). Interior is probably nicer than the S2000 - although the S2000 interior is completely harmless and has aged better.

Needs to drive them.

[ST270]

russy01 said:

Fair enough, but the S2000 really needs its neck ringing. Its absolutely fine for driving around town on a daily basis, so dont listen to ppl when they say it doesnt move beneath 6k. Its still got like 180hp at 6k so its still more powerful than your typical drive around when you are not in VTEC.

TT - Stupidly boring to drive, but cheap and easy to tune (so can be boring but faster). Interior is probably nicer than the S2000 - although the S2000 interior is completely harmless and has aged better.

Needs to drive them.

Agreed a drive of both and possibly a Z4 will be getting arranged shortly. All 3 are nice looking cars but the S2000 wins for me - low nose, long bonnet you just don't see that anymore it has real presence and its quite rare on the roads compared to the other 2. Your right about the power too - the Lotus had around 170 bhp and he was happy with the delivery of that so I suspect a S2000 would be fine.

[TTwiggy]

ST270 said:

Your right about the power too - the Lotus had around 170 bhp and he was happy with the delivery of that so I suspect a S2000 would be fine.

The Lotus is about 300kg lighter than the S2000 however...

[russy01]

ST270 said:

russy01 said:

Fair enough, but the S2000 really needs its neck ringing. Its absolutely fine for driving around town on a daily basis, so dont listen to ppl when they say it doesnt move beneath 6k. Its still got like 180hp at 6k so its still more powerful than your typical drive around when you are not in VTEC.

TT - Stupidly boring to drive, but cheap and easy to tune (so can be boring but faster). Interior is probably nicer than the S2000 - although the S2000 interior is completely harmless and has aged better.

Needs to drive them.

Agreed a drive of both and possibly a Z4 will be getting arranged shortly. All 3 are nice looking cars but the S2000 wins for me - low nose, long bonnet you just don't see that anymore it has real presence and its quite rare on the roads compared to the other 2. Your right about the power too - the Lotus had around 170 bhp and he was happy with the delivery of that so I suspect a S2000 would be fine.

Z4 has the nicest interior of the bunch and has a strong engine. Id be looking at at least a 2.5 (but again its the same as the TT, if you get a 2.5 you may aswell get a 3.0i and have the extra umph - but neither will disappoint compared to the old Lotus).

Z4 is ok to drive, but feels very front heavy and more of a GT compared to the S2000. If you see under the bonnet you have a honking great straight 6 hanging right over the wheels where the S2000 is a tiny 4pot which is actually mounted behind the front axle (so technically I think it could be called mid engined?)

Performance wise a 3.0i Z4 with 230bhp is almost indentical to the S2000 in a straight line, but its delivered very differently. Although the Z4 has 50% more displacement the fuel consumption will be similar if driven sensibly.

Its all down to your/his taste.

[ST270]

TTwiggy said:

The Lotus is about 300kg lighter than the S2000 however...

Very true and there was little turbo lag too...(to be honest I wish we hadn't of sold that car it was a gem - it was the best fwd I ever drove)

[ST270]

Update - been to look at this http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

The car is very tidy given the age - not even a parking dent, history file is as described with all mots to verify mileage. Alloys look new and new tyres all round. Only grip is a small tear on the hood which is just above leading edge of passenger door so not very noticeable, haven't driven it yet as it was blocked in by several cars. My concern is the mileage @ 122k should i be looking for anything? - there were no rattly sounds on start up etc. There are others around the same price with fewer miles but the condition of this particular one is fantastic so should it be a case of buy on condition not mileage?

[nottyash]

ST270 said:

Update - been to look at this http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

The car is very tidy given the age - not even a parking dent, history file is as described with all mots to verify mileage. Alloys look new and new tyres all round. Only grip is a small tear on the hood which is just above leading edge of passenger door so not very noticeable, haven't driven it yet as it was blocked in by several cars. My concern is the mileage @ 122k should i be looking for anything? - there were no rattly sounds on start up etc. There are others around the same price with fewer miles but the condition of this particular one is fantastic so should it be a case of buy on condition not mileage?

That is a grand overpriced with that milage.
I just sold a black 2001 car with 76000 for £4700, I did have a few parking dents, but nothing dentmaster couldnt remove for £60.

[karl_h]

Agreed I just sold my 2002 s2k that was excellent for its age with 65k on the clock for 5800. The market has dropped like a stone for them.

[carinaman]

I agree that S2000 looks over priced.

Will an S2000 be a little twitchy after the M100? The M100 does feature in the Tiff Needell Top Gear feature from 1989 explaining understeer and oversteer.

Why a soft top?

Is fuel an issue?

There's a blue 2004 3.2 TT convertible on autotrader for £5800. A 3.2 TT DSG Coupe isn't of interest?

[carinaman]

ST270 said:

We previously had a Lotus Elan m100 which had over 100k and he was nervous that the mileage was getting a bit high for having fun with the car. Against my protests that it had a Japanese engine and it would be fine if serviced properly...(yes i know a TVR would fit the bill too, but the apparent robustness of the Honda and Audi is swaying my old man.

Personally i like the looks and drivers reviews of the S2000 but the interior and quality of the Audi look better... any thoughts?

Sounds like many car buyers, making what sounds like excuses to change their car because they want to.

I'm no M100 expert, but I'm only aware of rear subframes getting a bit crusty on them. I've never heard that the engine could be problematic.

So a possible replacement for a 100K mile M100 which was unlikely to depreciate much more is a Honda S2000 with 120K miles on it? I can appreciate that both the TT and S2000 seem more robust, but he could find himself in a replacement that could have more faults and issues with it than the M100 he sold.

Looking for a positive hpefully someone has picked up a sound M100 at a good price.