RE: Honda S2000: Spotted

[Red 4]

mrbarnett said:

Isn't the issue more that these were up against a higher capacity 6 cylinder competition with similar HP? From an engineering perspective, that makes the Honda a deeply impressive machine, but out on the open road the ~33% deficit in capacity meant a ~33% deficit in torque.

If the S2000 had somehow been priced to compete directly with the MX5 and MG TF, then there'd be no question of its torque output, but it was up against the Z4 3.0, TT V6, Crossfire 3.2, 350Z, and Boxster 2.7; all of which produced more peak torque and at lower rpm.

Edited by mrbarnett on Tuesday 16th April 13:24

Correct.

The S2000 was never a competitor to the MX5 or MGF. I'm not sure why those comparisons have been made.

The S2000 was circa £27k list in facelift guise in 2004.

[anonymous-user]

mrbarnett said:

Krikkit said:

I've never understood the bullst about the F20 lacking torque - the 2019 Mazda MX-5 2 litre is almost identical torque to this. The 944's 2.7 made less torque than this, despite having Porsche's nouse and no real emissions restrictions.

Find me an N/A 2.0 four that has significantly more.

Edited by Krikkit on Tuesday 16th April 11:50

Isn't the issue more that these were up against a higher capacity 6 cylinder competition with similar HP? From an engineering perspective, that makes the Honda a deeply impressive machine, but out on the open road the ~33% deficit in capacity meant a ~33% deficit in torque.

If the S2000 had somehow been priced to compete directly with the MX5 and MG TF, then there'd be no question of its torque output, but it was up against the Z4 3.0, TT V6, Crossfire 3.2, 350Z, and Boxster 2.7; all of which produced more peak torque and at lower rpm.

Edited by mrbarnett on Tuesday 16th April 13:24

I had a look at one years ago to replace my old Chimaera. I found the S2000 to be twitchy and a bit gutless low down the rev range. You really had to use all the revs to extract the performance so I'm not surprised they have a bit of a reputation for coming off the road. I imagine they are v good on a track however.

[Hoonfest]

I had one of these, 2003 model. I loved loved it. Only issues were it's lack of torque, it's okay if you keep it above 6K but can be annoying being caught short in 2nd gear sometimes waiting for it to pick up RPM while some other lower powered hot hatch is blowing you into the weeds. My other issue was I'm 6ft 2 and it was a little cramped on longer journeys. All that said a great looking car that has aged very well indeed.

[RocketRabbit]

LG9k said:

JohnG1 said:

My first car after passing my driving test was an S2000 GT. Nurburgring blue.

Lovely car, but very, very twitchy. Cold tyres and anything other than stroking the throttle and it could go wrong.

Wasn't just my inexperience, everyone I ever met who had an S2000 had an "off" , some worse than others.

But that engine and gearbox - heartbreaking work of staggering genius.

On to my second one now (the first one's engine expired on the Kemmel straight at 144,000 miles), but haven't had on off in either of them over 15 years of ownership.

The lack or torque argument is false, the car has shorter gearing than most others, so for any given road speed, you're always at higher rpms.

The car is quite happy in 5th gear at 30mph, or 6th at 40mph. By way of comparison, my Golf GTi DSG (230PS, 258lbft) uses 4th at 30mph and 5th at 40mpg. I realise tis is probably to save fuel etc and it could manage, but it's an interesting comparison, I think.

Oh, and the UK cars have 237 bhp, not 243 as per the article.

Here's me giving it a dab of oppo (at North Weald)

Edited by LG9k on Tuesday 16th April 13:01

And the reason the engine expired was down to a small manufacturing defect on an oil hole on the little end of the con rod.

[RocketRabbit]

mrbarnett said:

Krikkit said:

I've never understood the bullst about the F20 lacking torque - the 2019 Mazda MX-5 2 litre is almost identical torque to this. The 944's 2.7 made less torque than this, despite having Porsche's nouse and no real emissions restrictions.

Find me an N/A 2.0 four that has significantly more.

Edited by Krikkit on Tuesday 16th April 11:50

Isn't the issue more that these were up against a higher capacity 6 cylinder competition with similar HP? From an engineering perspective, that makes the Honda a deeply impressive machine, but out on the open road the ~33% deficit in capacity meant a ~33% deficit in torque.

If the S2000 had somehow been priced to compete directly with the MX5 and MG TF, then there'd be no question of its torque output, but it was up against the Z4 3.0, TT V6, Crossfire 3.2, 350Z, and Boxster 2.7; all of which produced more peak torque and at lower rpm.

Edited by mrbarnett on Tuesday 16th April 13:24

The thing is that it had a 33% higher rev limit and thus could run 33% lower gearing and achieve the same wheel torque.

Farbeit from me to let engineering trump pub ammo pseudo science bullst.

[RocketRabbit]

tim-jxv5n said:

I viewed this exact car last weekend. Ended up putting a deposit down on a standard 2005 car in the end for 2 reasons; cheaper tax bracket and modified examples nearly always have a harder life

Total nonsense. So you bought the cheaper tax bracket to save £250 a year. The car above had new compliance bushes and a decent set of dampers. Whereas you bought your car on wishful thinking and to save a couple of hundred pounds. I know when buying a car from you, you'll have skimped on maintenance.

[trails]

DoubleD said:

These are great looking cars, apart from the "futuristic" dash!

Dash is perfectly judged for the car; make it nice and easy to use all 9k rpm...also an optional display on contemporary manufacturers like Mclaren and Lotus

Had mine for almost 4 years; it's not the fastest thing in the world but but it's a joy to drive (other than the leccy power steering) and the gearbox is fab.

[LG9k]

RocketRabbit said:

mrbarnett said:

Isn't the issue more that these were up against a higher capacity 6 cylinder competition with similar HP? From an engineering perspective, that makes the Honda a deeply impressive machine, but out on the open road the ~33% deficit in capacity meant a ~33% deficit in torque.

If the S2000 had somehow been priced to compete directly with the MX5 and MG TF, then there'd be no question of its torque output, but it was up against the Z4 3.0, TT V6, Crossfire 3.2, 350Z, and Boxster 2.7; all of which produced more peak torque and at lower rpm.

The thing is that it had a 33% higher rev limit and thus could run 33% lower gearing and achieve the same wheel torque.

Farbeit from me to let engineering trump pub ammo pseudo science bullst.

Exactly my point earlier.

The Z4 and Boxster were a lot more money than the Honda, especially once you'd added "essential" options. The Boxster started at around £32k IIRC, so with an average £5k of options, it was £37k. Probably a better all-round car, mind you, but so it should have been for the money.

[Red 4]

RocketRabbit said:

And the reason the engine expired was down to a small manufacturing defect on an oil hole on the little end of the con rod.

... Don't mention the last off the line S2000s (08/09 cars).

Quite a few decided to lunch themselves destroying the engine.

Not exactly Honda's finest hour.

[LG9k]

DoubleD said:

These are great looking cars, apart from the "futuristic" dash!

Loosely based on that in the Mclaren Honda F1 cars.

[bakerstreet]

I nearly bought one of these about 6 years ago. Test drove one at a Honda dealership in London. At the point of the test drive, I was probably at my most overweight stage and as I shut the door it slammed straight into my wallet in my side pocket.

My point there wasn't my wallet being stuffed with cash (it wasn't), it was how cramped the cabin was and my bulk probably didn't help.

It was also a poor test drive really as it was Chiswick area and I didn't really get to try it out on a winding open road and then maybe it would have left a better impression, but I found it noisy, uncomfortable and bit jittery. Just didn't enjoy it, so I walked away.

Fast forward 3 years, and I bought a Civic Type R FN2. Amazing engine, but the ride was truly awful. Fun car though, but it was sold to accommodate new car purchase for wife (baby incoming)

[tim-jxv5n]

RocketRabbit said:

Total nonsense. So you bought the cheaper tax bracket to save £250 a year. The car above had new compliance bushes and a decent set of dampers. Whereas you bought your car on wishful thinking and to save a couple of hundred pounds. I know when buying a car from you, you'll have skimped on maintenance.

Haha, calm down son!!

I bought my car on viewing it, like I viewed this one. Trust me, this one had seen a hard life.

I'm not sure how likely it is that you'll ever be in a position to buy a car from me so no need to worry on that front!!

[Titan2]

I always remember first seeing the S2000 on the front of Evo magazine back in the late 90's and always loved the look of them since.The front reminds me of a shark.

I would love to try one someday.

I've read that the bolts in the suspension can seize and cause problems.
Is there any way to prevent this like using Mugen parts or does it just require on going attention?

[LG9k]

Titan2 said:

I always remember first seeing the S2000 on the front of Evo magazine back in the late 90's and always loved the look of them since.The front reminds me of a shark.

I would love to try one someday.

I've read that the bolts in the suspension can seize and cause problems.
Is there any way to prevent this like using Mugen parts or does it just require on going attention?

If you get the bolts greased and re-checked regularly, then the problem most likely won't occur.

If they are seized and you're unable to adjust the suspension to your requirements, then you're going to need new bushes and bolts, which can be costly and time-consuming.

Honda only sell you new arms, which are around £400 a pop (and there are up to 8 of them). although you're most likely to only have one or two that end up siezed (YMMV).

[Red 4]

Titan2 said:

I've read that the bolts in the suspension can seize and cause problems.
Is there any way to prevent this like using Mugen parts or does it just require on going attention?

The bolts were never greased at the factory ( which would have solved the problem ).

If they are seized it can involve cutting the suspension arms off and replacing them ( remembering to grease/ anti- seize the new parts ).

[s2000db]

They were great cars, had two, cost very little to run and depreciation was low.
Anyone on here have S200ODB ?

[havoc]

article said:

The power delivery of the S2000 could made it spikey if you got greedy on the throttle with some steering lock on, so it demanded respect, especially in slippery conditions. But when you did nail a corner, the experience was exceptionally satisfying. Anyway, later versions were dialled back so they exhibited a more trustworthy nature, plus, the engine's top-end character was also reduced so power came in more smoothly.

No, the power delivery was just fine (albeit the throttle-response was rather more immediate than most cars of its type). What made it spiky in the wet was the original S02 rubber, which was *very* dry-weather optimised. That and some very sporting suspension geometry which left very little understeer in the safety net.

...and it was this latter which was tweaked (along with spring/damper rates) over the course of the life of the car.

Engine character was largely unchanged in the UK - we did not get the "AP2" that some talk about (as that was the US-market 2.2 engine with the softer delivery)

Re: torque
- peak torque rpm is irrelevant as it's a VTEC engine - it'll have made >90% from c.2,000rpm up to >8,000rpm. And no Boxster or Z4 could compete with that curve.
- gearing was indeed lower, meaning as Rabbit above suggests that wheel-torque would have been at least in the same ballpark as the German competition. But that meant a buzzier engine when cruising, which doesn't help refinement.
- the lack of 'kick' is down to the linearity of the torque curve, not that the car was slow. Perception vs reality, sadly...same reason lots of people mistakenly think 4-pot diesels are quick. At cruising rpm the car would pick up pace every bit as quickly as the ubiquitous 320d (so unless you're the sort of chap that has to drag-race everyone it's not going to be a problem), and then when the diesel had to change up a gear the S2000 would be hitting its stride.



I'd still consider another as they're great fun when used the right way, but it would have to be a careful purchase - suspension geo (adjustment bolts as above - either regular 'servicing' or expensive replacement) is critical on these, and the engine likes a drink of oil.

[LG9k]

havoc said:

and the engine likes a drink of oil.

Not true of the post-2004 cars.

[trails]

havoc said:

No, the power delivery was just fine (albeit the throttle-response was rather more immediate than most cars of its type). What made it spiky in the wet was the original S02 rubber, which was *very* dry-weather optimised. That and some very sporting suspension geometry which left very little understeer in the safety net.

...and it was this latter which was tweaked (along with spring/damper rates) over the course of the life of the car.

17" wheels make a significant difference too; I have pre-facelift 16's for track\fun and the car is less stable and far easier to provoke.

[NorthernSky]

LG9k said:

DoubleD said:

These are great looking cars, apart from the "futuristic" dash!

Loosely based on that in the Mclaren Honda F1 cars.

The crescent digital dash also features in the Honda SP-2 moto.

I love how it looks in my s2000! Wonderfully futuristic yet retro at the same time!