RE: Honda S2000: Spotted
Discussion
NorthernSky said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Bought one, admired it in many respects, but not for me. It lasted 3 months before I sold it on, the shortest period I've ever owned a car.
What were your reasons? Please articulate further.ETA
The exceptions were (contrary to most, seemingly) the driving position & controls, even the digital dash, which I thought were brilliantly conceived, for me, at least. The gearchange is simply magnificent, too (they put the Ti knob on mine after I grumbled at the standard one being scratched, which was nice). The first few times I took it to 9k were amazing, too.
And I got all my money back when I sold it with a few K extra miles on it, too.
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Saturday 19th May 15:21
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Sunday 20th May 08:38
slipstream 1985 said:
I'm going to go against the grain here but i didn't like it. Drove a mates one (well looked after as well) Gearing was too tall and steering was artificial. It put me off rwd NA cars for a while but luckly I had a drive in a bigger engined NA car which I loved. I suspect closer gearing across the range even if it limited the speed to 140 would be much better.
You sir are entirely incorrect about the gearing. The best matched engine/ gear ratio combination ever and probably the lowest ratios on a car over 1litre. From memory approx 40mph/64mph/86mph/ 108mph/130mph/160mph (geared not possible top speed). Agreed the steering is a flaw.I think, as someone has said above, these won't go up much further. £7.5k for a 79k year 2000 is quite a lot next to a 2000 79k Boxster 3.2S for £6.5k.
Don't wanna rain on anyone's parade. Just wanna set the record straight regarding the comments in the last paragraph of the article. Don't park one these in the garage and expect the cash to roll in, cos it won't, at least for a very long time. Get one of these if you really want one and are going to use it.
Don't wanna rain on anyone's parade. Just wanna set the record straight regarding the comments in the last paragraph of the article. Don't park one these in the garage and expect the cash to roll in, cos it won't, at least for a very long time. Get one of these if you really want one and are going to use it.
I have a 2005 GT picked up at 34k miles a year back so familiar now but still getting used to it
It makes me grin on a country road blast. I think they are cheap to buy and run against the Boxster S option for what you get in fun per £
Cost allowing the Porsche would be a more finished car, nicer to be in, for all round use inclusive of motorway work.
Would it be more fun at back road speeds in the UK to justify the cost premium? - I haven't been in one long enough to really call that out.
Before jumping in I drove used examples of most of the usual suspects
Vs BMW Z4
The Honda is so much more old school analogue than the point and squirt big engine Z4 35is with its clever computer stuff going on. V Fast and nice in its own way but planted and "heavy" where the Honda is lighter and more direct. The BMW boot/hood arrangement is properly s
t. My E46 hood was great many years prior albeit it looked like a pram. A poor packaging effort by BMW
Vs Mazda
Honda faster + VTEC fun - the small engine Mazda soft top is a pretty little thing and a load of fun in its own similar way also requiring thrashing to make progress. Bigger 2.0 engine a bit better but loses some feels light and direct on the front appeal of the baby one. Drove them back to back and agree with the magazines about that. I found the RF is ever so slightly too small inside.
Yet absent other options - for a newer car - I would seriously look at a BBR or equivalent treatment of the MX5 2.0 soft top with a blower and suspension and brake fettling but this approach gets you up into more serious territory vs newer Boxster/Cayman £££ and is then a bit specialist on the way out.
For me in the end it was the Honda or a late enough 987/981 Boxster to sidestep painful if it's you engine risks and yet early enough to be an acceptable cost of toy.
One Honda flexibility "downside" that I have found
Not a good daily for a long commute over motorway concrete e.g. Birmingham M6/M42
Unbelievably noisy over that surface due to the lack of sound proofing and perhaps old rubber. An aggregate of tire, wind and >4K engine noise. I had read, test driven and knew it would be loud - but first time over concrete section - it was louder than that. This one goes to 11.
My old E46 cab was a star by comparison for the fast motorway stuff to 130k - proper soundproofed body and multi-layer hood. Not meaningfully fun to drive. Just competent. Horses for courses.
It makes me grin on a country road blast. I think they are cheap to buy and run against the Boxster S option for what you get in fun per £
Cost allowing the Porsche would be a more finished car, nicer to be in, for all round use inclusive of motorway work.
Would it be more fun at back road speeds in the UK to justify the cost premium? - I haven't been in one long enough to really call that out.
Before jumping in I drove used examples of most of the usual suspects
Vs BMW Z4
The Honda is so much more old school analogue than the point and squirt big engine Z4 35is with its clever computer stuff going on. V Fast and nice in its own way but planted and "heavy" where the Honda is lighter and more direct. The BMW boot/hood arrangement is properly s
t. My E46 hood was great many years prior albeit it looked like a pram. A poor packaging effort by BMWVs Mazda
Honda faster + VTEC fun - the small engine Mazda soft top is a pretty little thing and a load of fun in its own similar way also requiring thrashing to make progress. Bigger 2.0 engine a bit better but loses some feels light and direct on the front appeal of the baby one. Drove them back to back and agree with the magazines about that. I found the RF is ever so slightly too small inside.
Yet absent other options - for a newer car - I would seriously look at a BBR or equivalent treatment of the MX5 2.0 soft top with a blower and suspension and brake fettling but this approach gets you up into more serious territory vs newer Boxster/Cayman £££ and is then a bit specialist on the way out.
For me in the end it was the Honda or a late enough 987/981 Boxster to sidestep painful if it's you engine risks and yet early enough to be an acceptable cost of toy.
One Honda flexibility "downside" that I have found
Not a good daily for a long commute over motorway concrete e.g. Birmingham M6/M42
Unbelievably noisy over that surface due to the lack of sound proofing and perhaps old rubber. An aggregate of tire, wind and >4K engine noise. I had read, test driven and knew it would be loud - but first time over concrete section - it was louder than that. This one goes to 11.
My old E46 cab was a star by comparison for the fast motorway stuff to 130k - proper soundproofed body and multi-layer hood. Not meaningfully fun to drive. Just competent. Horses for courses.
rtz62 said:
what is the car like with a supercharger kit from TTS performance?
this one has an HKS and puts 363hp to the wheels:https://youtu.be/XgW7_8C5O48
I suggest watching only from the 1:25 mark and onward.
I looked at replacing my 944 S2 a few years ago & tried them out for comparison. I had to conceed the 944 was a better car (even though it is dated). The S2000 was disappointing in a few areas - the complete lack of torque meant you were in the wrong gear 90% of the time & it didnt feel any quicker. The boot space was terrible. The dash buttons reminded me of a fisher price toy. I kept the 944 until recently.
I went to a networking breakfast in the week at a hotel in deepest, darkest, Devon and it turns out there's a collection of classic cars there. Nosing round that was enjoyable - 911 cab, former press-car XK150 etc etc.
As I was nosing round, a chap turned up in his S2K which sounded particularly good with its Mugen cat-back on it.
I've always considered these a logical progression from the NC MX5 2.0 I had up until a few years back.
Alas, the Porsche scratch needs itching and I'd struggle to resist a Boxster at this price-point methinks. Still wouldn't stop me thinking about how fun these must be though.
As I was nosing round, a chap turned up in his S2K which sounded particularly good with its Mugen cat-back on it.
I've always considered these a logical progression from the NC MX5 2.0 I had up until a few years back.
Alas, the Porsche scratch needs itching and I'd struggle to resist a Boxster at this price-point methinks. Still wouldn't stop me thinking about how fun these must be though.
Having the thrash it to make it go, poorly spaced gear ratios, lack of cabin storage space, no steering wheel adjustment, high road tax & a drivers seat set too high if you're over 5'10" all these things will in the end irritate as I found out. It was my hero car after a MK1 MX-5 & a huge disappointment.
WJNB said:
Having the thrash it to make it go, poorly spaced gear ratios, lack of cabin storage space, no steering wheel adjustment, high road tax & a drivers seat set too high if you're over 5'10" all these things will in the end irritate as I found out. It was my hero car after a MK1 MX-5 & a huge disappointment.
How can you describe having to thrash an S2000 as something that makes it a disappointment? If you really think that you've missed the point on the car. I drove a 981 boxster S but it didn't have the fireworks, gearshift or edginess of the s2000.
Factor in the reliability of the Honda and it's a real no brainer as the boxsters are far more expensive to maintain and suffer from well documented reliability issues.
Stick an aem v2 long ram air intake on the s2000 and the sound is bloody amazing. There is nothing to touch it in the noise stakes for under 20k.
It's a real drivers car though and you have to be on your metal when you drive it hard. No nannying driver aids to save you if you get it wrong on an early revision 1 but that's why I love it so much.
Factor in the reliability of the Honda and it's a real no brainer as the boxsters are far more expensive to maintain and suffer from well documented reliability issues.
Stick an aem v2 long ram air intake on the s2000 and the sound is bloody amazing. There is nothing to touch it in the noise stakes for under 20k.
It's a real drivers car though and you have to be on your metal when you drive it hard. No nannying driver aids to save you if you get it wrong on an early revision 1 but that's why I love it so much.
I’ve owned one for 4 years. Most of the positives in this thread are true and so are most the negatives. It really is just down to if you find a high reving engine engaging or annoying and how you intend to use it. If you plan on doing loads of miles and using it as a daily it will undoubtedly get annoying. If you want to save it for sunny weekends there is little else which compares.
I can also vouch for the cheap running costs. Regular oil changes has been my only maintenance.
I can also vouch for the cheap running costs. Regular oil changes has been my only maintenance.
Although s2000 is a nice car and much better looking than most 2 seater sports cars, a boxster is far better in my opinion. The s2000 does 90mph in vtec in 3rd so where are you going to use vtec in 4th, 5th and 6th on the road and the steering feedback is too poor to enjoy on track. I found the engine in even a 2.5 boxster much better suited to road use and sounds even better. Almost every running cost on a boxster is less too, brakes, new hood, exhuast upgrades, etc all cost alot less on my boxster than s2000. The insurance on a boxster is about half that on a s2000 also. They do similar mpg even though boxster has larger capacity engine. (For me it's a real shame the boxster is the better car as really like the JDM car scene in general and massively prefere the looks and image of the s2000, but objectively the boxster is better in almost everyway.
Jonstar said:
Good cars but not great cars, poor steering feel , a poor driving position and an overly peaky engine see to that. Some delusional people in this thread...
To me it's great.Yes the seating position isn't as low as some. I'm 6ft and it isn't a problem. You can always fit lower seat rails. The steering wheel doesn't adjust for rake and tilt which is a big thing for some (no probs for me). The steering is on the light side and doesn't give the feel like that of hydraulic assist but I really feel it's nit picking to slate the car for this. The main thing with the S2000 is that the geometry has to be properly set. Once this is done the car is very predicable from the seat of the pants when broaching its limits. On a properly geo'd car you need to go berserk to get the snap back oversteer (in the dry).
The engine is peaky by its design but in normal driving it pulls fine. I get though some don't like to rev engines and prefer torque to just breeze past when overtaking (without any drama).
But if you want low running costs, lots of revs and fun they are definitely worth considering.
Jonstar said:
Good cars but not great cars, poor steering feel , a poor driving position and an overly peaky engine see to that. Some delusional people in this thread...
The steering feel isn’t the best, I’ll give you that, but poor driving position? You practically wear the car - every control wrapped about you and touchable a hands-breadth from the steering wheel and seating fine for people up to 6’3”. Engine being peaky makes you work for the performance - you’ll find none of this boring, modern, maximum torque from 1500-6000rpm here.mikey P 500 said:
The s2000 does 90mph in vtec in 3rd so where are you going to use vtec in 4th, 5th and 6th on the road
I have a car that’ll do over 100mph in 3rd, I’ve never wondered if that makes 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or even 8th pointless? I suppose all those superbikes that’ll crack 100mph in 1st might attract a similar argument? I don’t see how the inability to hit the limiter in every gear on the road should be a negative thing...It would seem that the S2000 is, and always has been, a marmite car. Lots of people don’t ‘get’ them - and that’s ok. Some of us do, and very little could ever replace one!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff