Discussion
Just looking at this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
What faults do these cars develop over the years and where would I be able to read a buyers guide?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
What faults do these cars develop over the years and where would I be able to read a buyers guide?
k9l3k said:
I think people still getting the wrong idea of the s2000 you have to appreciate that this little 2.0 engine will keep pace with any z4 or 350z if needs be. And even the bmw may have more lower tourqe but still will have to go down to lower gear if you wanted to get alot out of it like the 350z you couldnt just put your foot down and would get a burst of power you just get a modest stronger pull then the s would lower down the rev range. If you want tourque buy a turbo .will feel alot faster then any like for like na
The s2000 will be a classic for a reason I find it has really good feedback but have not driven the facelift one or early model mine is 2003 and feedback is very good proberly not as good as the z4 would be.
It is a twitchy car though in the wet and you have to know what you doing or you can easily get cought out but drive properly and is fine.
Also I have done 145 easy enough on a private track and still had more should be 150 top speed so saying its good for 130 is rubbish ye its no monster at that speed but still keeps going. And will be same if not bit better then the ź4 fron 120 to 150.
Z4 will pull of the line easyier and slightly quicker and will be nicer place to be in
An S2000 wont get near a Z4M The s2000 will be a classic for a reason I find it has really good feedback but have not driven the facelift one or early model mine is 2003 and feedback is very good proberly not as good as the z4 would be.
It is a twitchy car though in the wet and you have to know what you doing or you can easily get cought out but drive properly and is fine.
Also I have done 145 easy enough on a private track and still had more should be 150 top speed so saying its good for 130 is rubbish ye its no monster at that speed but still keeps going. And will be same if not bit better then the ź4 fron 120 to 150.
Z4 will pull of the line easyier and slightly quicker and will be nicer place to be in
Edited by k9l3k on Sunday 28th July 18:46
There's a hundred horsepower difference for a start, but its pretty similar to the early 3.0 Z4, the later Z4 is more powerful, but yes there wouldn't be much in it.Your point about it being a little 2.0 doesn't figure to me, yes its powerful, and yes its fast but only when your over 6000 revs, and fuel economy isn't good, in fact its worse than a 3.0 Z4 and a 3.2 Boxster, its actually slightly worse in the real world than the engine in a E46 M3, which powers the Z4M so what's the advantage of a high revving 4 pot?
Also the post March 06 S2000 is £470 tax a year, where as the more powerful Z4 3.0 si is about half that.
Evoluzione said:
Just looking at this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
That's the VTEC, the sellers confused yo. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
I bought one as a weekend toy just over a year ago, cracking car. Took a fair bit of getting used to the VTEC, and the steering is a little light but that engine when you thrash it... so enjoyable, and what a fantastic gearbox!
Cracking cars and a real performance bargain.
The GF has now inherited it as her daily drive and I've just got a Tuscan as a weekend toy. Whilst it cant compare in the performance and drama stakes its every bit as fun to drive, in fact I took it out only yesterday over the Tuscan for a spin.
Cracking cars and a real performance bargain.
The GF has now inherited it as her daily drive and I've just got a Tuscan as a weekend toy. Whilst it cant compare in the performance and drama stakes its every bit as fun to drive, in fact I took it out only yesterday over the Tuscan for a spin.
ILoveMondeo said:
I bought one as a weekend toy just over a year ago, cracking car. Took a fair bit of getting used to the VTEC, and the steering is a little light but that engine when you thrash it... so enjoyable, and what a fantastic gearbox!
Cracking cars and a real performance bargain.
The GF has now inherited it as her daily drive and I've just got a Tuscan as a weekend toy. Whilst it cant compare in the performance and drama stakes its every bit as fun to drive, in fact I took it out only yesterday over the Tuscan for a spin.
really? I'm already thinking about moving on from my s2000 and am thinking a TVR is going to give me a BIG increase in buzz and thrills, on road and track. Are you really saying it's not that much more fun?Cracking cars and a real performance bargain.
The GF has now inherited it as her daily drive and I've just got a Tuscan as a weekend toy. Whilst it cant compare in the performance and drama stakes its every bit as fun to drive, in fact I took it out only yesterday over the Tuscan for a spin.
exgtt said:
Evoluzione said:
Just looking at this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
That's the VTEC, the sellers confused yo. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
krunchkin said:
really? I'm already thinking about moving on from my s2000 and am thinking a TVR is going to give me a BIG increase in buzz and thrills, on road and track. Are you really saying it's not that much more fun?
Which TVR are you looking at?The Tuscan is a lot faster, and noisier and provides a lot more drama. Crazy quick even by todays standards. 2nd and 3rd gear blow your socks off. Gearbox is nice and direct, but a bit agricultural compared to the super-slick honda box.
The Honda is far more predictable and "chuckable" on the roads and loves having it's neck wringed to get the power out. The honda is a little smaller and feels more nimble too, if you see what I mean. Far easier to get the arse out and keep it under control. It really is as fast as you ever really need on the roads.
Different kinds of fun really.
As a second car, I'd still choose the Tuscan, but I'm just fortunate enough to have the choice!
I'm too old and creaky to want to drive either as a daily though!
As a track car... hmmm toughie, probably a stripped out S2K (can lose up to 60-80kg allegedly). I tracked my old Tuscan and it was a hoot, but I ended up just being a straight line hero as I was papping it in the fast corners (worried about a nasty off costing big time more than anything). I know, NOT a driving god, I should be banned... Also lots cheaper to track an S2K and can be done on "quiet" days.
Once I've got a few bits and bobs done to the Tuscan and with any joy move to a house with a larger driveway/garage next year I'm going to look again at picking up an early S2K to strip and turn into a track toy.
krunchkin said:
As an S2000 owner I have to kind of reluctantly agree with the above post. They're a fabulous fun little 4 pot revver, with plenty of grin inducing fun and VTEC lolz, but put one on a track against some other fast metal, even a turbocharged MX5, and they look very very weedy.
Don't get me wrong, I loved mine but it was flawed in a few areas. But I suppose that's what makes cars like the s2000 special. On looks alone the front of the s2000 is fantastic, compared to the z4. Then I would prefer the back of the z4. The cars don't suit everyone, largely due to the high revving nature of the engine. There really isn't much else like it so most buyers come to the S2000 from something very different, and after only one or two test drives, so it never surprises me that some never bond with the car.
The contrast between the car and others with bigger, lower revving engines is marked, even more so with forced induction, but the notion that the car is underpowered is rubbish. This is usually coupled with the accusation of a lack of torque and anyone that says this doesn't really understand how the car needs to be driven to extract its performance.
If you want full power at 5,000 rpm, then you need to buy a big V8 and maybe an auto. The S2000 was designed to be revved hard, way higher than people are used to, and that isn't a weakness. It is however a requirement that some people never get accustomed to, which is translated into a criticism of the car. I think it's no different to criticising a 5.0 V8 for not revving above 6,000 rpm. Well it wouldn't, would it, and if that's what you want, why did you buy a car with that type of engine?
To put the lack of power (and the oft quoted lack of torque accusation) into perspective, just try and find another 2.0, four cylinder, na engine that beats the S2000's bhp and torque figures. Then have a look at the car's weight. Drive the car as it was designed to be driven and you'll never think it's underpowered, unless you pick the wrong fights.
The gearbox is sublime and handling is fun, nimble and predictable provided you don't do anything stupid. You will be vulnerable to spinning in the wet in the same way as any other reasonably light, powerful rwd car if you are hamfisted with steering, accelerator or braking. In the dry, you need to be driving irresponsibly to unstick it. Standard car against standard car, drivers equal, an MX5 won't see which way the S2000 went.
Tyres and correct pressures are important. Oil level needs to be checked regularly. Seized geo bushes are something of an Achilles heel but an enthusiast owner will have had them freed up and greased. Timing chain tensioner rattle isn't uncommon but isn't hard to fix but if the engine develops serious problems it's usually scrap (ditto gearbox). They are not engines that are easily rebuilt like many others. Servicing is usually routine and cheap.
Overall, terrific cars, but they are marmite. Try very thoroughly over several test drives before buying.
The contrast between the car and others with bigger, lower revving engines is marked, even more so with forced induction, but the notion that the car is underpowered is rubbish. This is usually coupled with the accusation of a lack of torque and anyone that says this doesn't really understand how the car needs to be driven to extract its performance.
If you want full power at 5,000 rpm, then you need to buy a big V8 and maybe an auto. The S2000 was designed to be revved hard, way higher than people are used to, and that isn't a weakness. It is however a requirement that some people never get accustomed to, which is translated into a criticism of the car. I think it's no different to criticising a 5.0 V8 for not revving above 6,000 rpm. Well it wouldn't, would it, and if that's what you want, why did you buy a car with that type of engine?
To put the lack of power (and the oft quoted lack of torque accusation) into perspective, just try and find another 2.0, four cylinder, na engine that beats the S2000's bhp and torque figures. Then have a look at the car's weight. Drive the car as it was designed to be driven and you'll never think it's underpowered, unless you pick the wrong fights.
The gearbox is sublime and handling is fun, nimble and predictable provided you don't do anything stupid. You will be vulnerable to spinning in the wet in the same way as any other reasonably light, powerful rwd car if you are hamfisted with steering, accelerator or braking. In the dry, you need to be driving irresponsibly to unstick it. Standard car against standard car, drivers equal, an MX5 won't see which way the S2000 went.
Tyres and correct pressures are important. Oil level needs to be checked regularly. Seized geo bushes are something of an Achilles heel but an enthusiast owner will have had them freed up and greased. Timing chain tensioner rattle isn't uncommon but isn't hard to fix but if the engine develops serious problems it's usually scrap (ditto gearbox). They are not engines that are easily rebuilt like many others. Servicing is usually routine and cheap.
Overall, terrific cars, but they are marmite. Try very thoroughly over several test drives before buying.
Papa Hotel said:
Baryonyx said:
There is a nice EK9 in the background there.
Cringeworthy. It's like you've shoe-horned that in just to show you know the number. The guy posted an entirely valid and harmless comment and you're being a dick for the sake of it.
9mm said:
The gearbox is sublime and handling is fun, nimble and predictable provided you don't do anything stupid. You will be vulnerable to spinning in the wet in the same way as any other reasonably light, powerful rwd car if you are hamfisted with steering, accelerator or braking. In the dry, you need to be driving irresponsibly to unstick it.
Completely agree.9mm said:
Standard car against standard car, drivers equal, an MX5 won't see which way the S2000 went.
In my experience of the cars an MX-5 would do a pretty good job of sticking with an S2000 unless it was a fast road/track with plenty of straights. For many drivers the more forgiving handling of an MX-5 will let them get closer to the limits than an S2000. Fantastic cars! I test drove one several years ago and loved it (the engine, the gearbox, the digital dials, the seating position, the build quality) but I ended up not buying one because I needed something a bit more practical (unfortunately for me). Love these cars in metallic grey/silver with red leather.
Papa Hotel said:
TheJimi said:
I also know it as an EK9, and I'm not an owner.
The guy posted an entirely valid and harmless comment and you're being a dick for the sake of it.
As did I. The guy posted an entirely valid and harmless comment and you're being a dick for the sake of it.
Do bore off, it was done with until you brought it up again, being a dick for the sake of it.
nottyash said:
An S2000 wont get near a Z4M There's a hundred horsepower difference for a start, but its pretty similar to the early 3.0 Z4, the later Z4 is more powerful, but yes there wouldn't be much in it.
Your point about it being a little 2.0 doesn't figure to me, yes its powerful, and yes its fast but only when your over 6000 revs, and fuel economy isn't good, in fact its worse than a 3.0 Z4 and a 3.2 Boxster, its actually slightly worse in the real world than the engine in a E46 M3, which powers the Z4M so what's the advantage of a high revving 4 pot?
Also the post March 06 S2000 is £470 tax a year, where as the more powerful Z4 3.0 si is about half that.
oh yes forgot about the z4m now thats a car worth comparing great cars they are with very good power yes. There's a hundred horsepower difference for a start, but its pretty similar to the early 3.0 Z4, the later Z4 is more powerful, but yes there wouldn't be much in it.Your point about it being a little 2.0 doesn't figure to me, yes its powerful, and yes its fast but only when your over 6000 revs, and fuel economy isn't good, in fact its worse than a 3.0 Z4 and a 3.2 Boxster, its actually slightly worse in the real world than the engine in a E46 M3, which powers the Z4M so what's the advantage of a high revving 4 pot?
Also the post March 06 S2000 is £470 tax a year, where as the more powerful Z4 3.0 si is about half that.
what i am stating is the z4 3.0 will not be fast in any gear so in theory you need to do similar to what you would have to do in the s2000 to get a good burst of speed out of it in a instance. disadvantage of the s2000 is at motorway speeds revs very highly so consumtion struggles i agree.
also the fact is the s2000 is a 4 year older car then when the z came out so have to appreciate how good it was of a car for that year compared to more modern stuff anyway the fact is they are all good cars and have pluses and cons on both sides
9mm said:
The cars don't suit everyone, largely due to the high revving nature of the engine. There really isn't much else like it so most buyers come to the S2000 from something very different, and after only one or two test drives, so it never surprises me that some never bond with the car.
The contrast between the car and others with bigger, lower revving engines is marked, even more so with forced induction, but the notion that the car is underpowered is rubbish. This is usually coupled with the accusation of a lack of torque and anyone that says this doesn't really understand how the car needs to be driven to extract its performance.
If you want full power at 5,000 rpm, then you need to buy a big V8 and maybe an auto. The S2000 was designed to be revved hard, way higher than people are used to, and that isn't a weakness. It is however a requirement that some people never get accustomed to, which is translated into a criticism of the car. I think it's no different to criticising a 5.0 V8 for not revving above 6,000 rpm. Well it wouldn't, would it, and if that's what you want, why did you buy a car with that type of engine?
To put the lack of power (and the oft quoted lack of torque accusation) into perspective, just try and find another 2.0, four cylinder, na engine that beats the S2000's bhp and torque figures. Then have a look at the car's weight. Drive the car as it was designed to be driven and you'll never think it's underpowered, unless you pick the wrong fights.
The gearbox is sublime and handling is fun, nimble and predictable provided you don't do anything stupid. You will be vulnerable to spinning in the wet in the same way as any other reasonably light, powerful rwd car if you are hamfisted with steering, accelerator or braking. In the dry, you need to be driving irresponsibly to unstick it. Standard car against standard car, drivers equal, an MX5 won't see which way the S2000 went.
Tyres and correct pressures are important. Oil level needs to be checked regularly. Seized geo bushes are something of an Achilles heel but an enthusiast owner will have had them freed up and greased. Timing chain tensioner rattle isn't uncommon but isn't hard to fix but if the engine develops serious problems it's usually scrap (ditto gearbox). They are not engines that are easily rebuilt like many others. Servicing is usually routine and cheap.
Overall, terrific cars, but they are marmite. Try very thoroughly over several test drives before buying.
very spot on good write up The contrast between the car and others with bigger, lower revving engines is marked, even more so with forced induction, but the notion that the car is underpowered is rubbish. This is usually coupled with the accusation of a lack of torque and anyone that says this doesn't really understand how the car needs to be driven to extract its performance.
If you want full power at 5,000 rpm, then you need to buy a big V8 and maybe an auto. The S2000 was designed to be revved hard, way higher than people are used to, and that isn't a weakness. It is however a requirement that some people never get accustomed to, which is translated into a criticism of the car. I think it's no different to criticising a 5.0 V8 for not revving above 6,000 rpm. Well it wouldn't, would it, and if that's what you want, why did you buy a car with that type of engine?
To put the lack of power (and the oft quoted lack of torque accusation) into perspective, just try and find another 2.0, four cylinder, na engine that beats the S2000's bhp and torque figures. Then have a look at the car's weight. Drive the car as it was designed to be driven and you'll never think it's underpowered, unless you pick the wrong fights.
The gearbox is sublime and handling is fun, nimble and predictable provided you don't do anything stupid. You will be vulnerable to spinning in the wet in the same way as any other reasonably light, powerful rwd car if you are hamfisted with steering, accelerator or braking. In the dry, you need to be driving irresponsibly to unstick it. Standard car against standard car, drivers equal, an MX5 won't see which way the S2000 went.
Tyres and correct pressures are important. Oil level needs to be checked regularly. Seized geo bushes are something of an Achilles heel but an enthusiast owner will have had them freed up and greased. Timing chain tensioner rattle isn't uncommon but isn't hard to fix but if the engine develops serious problems it's usually scrap (ditto gearbox). They are not engines that are easily rebuilt like many others. Servicing is usually routine and cheap.
Overall, terrific cars, but they are marmite. Try very thoroughly over several test drives before buying.
Evoluzione said:
Just looking at this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
What faults do these cars develop over the years and where would I be able to read a buyers guide?
cant help you on the camshaft but here is one buyers guidehttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPOSSESSION-PART-EX-200...
What do you think 'Noisy camshaft' would be?
What faults do these cars develop over the years and where would I be able to read a buyers guide?
http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/590849-what-to-loo...
also a good forum to join. these are very reliable cars and don't think there is anything major to go wrong
good servicing is the most vital for these cars and they will stay very reliable so fsh is good.
some may have a rattle chain type noise on warm start up this 99% of the time is the TCT chain tensioner which gets a very smooth surface over time which causes the chain to rattle and sounds like a bad engine which it is not. its is cheap easy diy fix i done mine yesterday and sounds like a new engine and cost nothing to do. on cold start up you wont hear it warm the car up turn it off and back on again and there you will notice it. its a piece that needs sanding down and ruffed up
i think the late 2002 where much improved on handling due to different set up and made a lot safer, 2004+ had traction control added
check the roofs for rips tears or leaks and that it goes up and down ok. make sure car drives well no funny engine noises and really need to make sure it engages into v tec ok and pulls strongly but is very hard on a test drive as you have to wait till 5800 to get there.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff