What to go for Z4, Vx220 Boxster or S2000??

[KENZ]

All good cars. I seem to remember early Z4's were prone to build issues..Not with the engine..mainly trim dash etc.

With your budget in mind I would go for an S2000.

Edited by KENZ on Wednesday 5th August 12:21

[Daz4m]

bga said:

Daz4m said:

bga said:

havoc said:

3) I didn't take the piss. It's a rwd car with no TC.

This sums it up for me.
You have to be driving like a goon in wet conditions to get the car out of shape. The sort of driving that most would consider to be inappropriate for those conditions anyway.

Was the original S2000 running Bridgestone RE040's, they are pretty lethal in the wet?

Mine had RE040's on and as a 2001 model it was pre-suspension geometry revision too IIRC.
The only problem I had in the wet was one time when there was a lot of standing water on the motor way & the fronts were down to 2.5mm tread depth. New front tyres straight after that journey fixed that though.

The rest of the time the car was fine as long as basic laws of physics are kept in mind. My TVR was much easier to get out of shape in the wet but as long as I kept the conditions in mind, everything was OK.

Those tyres were below average on my CTR and RX8 in wet conditions. The Rx8 being a better balanced car than the S2k made to realtively easy to control. My point is that it is probable that the tyres that are responsible for most of the bad press (skitish behaviour) the car gets.

[havoc]

Daz4m said:

bga said:

havoc said:

3) I didn't take the piss. It's a rwd car with no TC.

This sums it up for me.
You have to be driving like a goon in wet conditions to get the car out of shape. The sort of driving that most would consider to be inappropriate for those conditions anyway.

Was the original S2000 running Bridgestone RE040's, they are pretty lethal in the wet?

It was the car-specific S02's*, not the RE040's (S2000's never had -040's - the 04+ cars run RE050's, and the replacement tyre for the S02 is the RE050A (Asymmetric), which is actually considered to be better (on s2ki) than the -050 on the '04 cars.

So ironically Honda changed the suspension in 2004 to deal with what (I agree with you) was at least 50% a tyre issue, then when said liability tyre is discontinued it gets replaced with a better tyre than the new OE one!


(BTW, my wet-driving was mainly on Toyo T1-Rs, which have softer sidewalls and therefore a little more progression albeit a little less precision. And I had an absolute blast when it was quiet - I almost enjoyed wet roundabouts more than dry ones...)

* The 'ordinary' S02's were actually a very good tyre - they were the alternative-fit for the DC2 ITR and made that car dance in wet-weather, so f'k knows what happened to the S2000-specific ones...narrower grooves, mainly IIRC.

[useyourdellusion]

schmalex said:

useyourdellusion said:

HereBeMonsters said:

I've been trying to decide exactly the same thing all summer, but complicated my decision by considering an older Elise, a newer MX-5 and a couple of higher-end coupes as well as the 4 mentioned by the OP.
In my opinion the Z4 was best to drive, but I couldn't be seen in one of them. The S2000 was a bit odd, handled more like a GT, but with an engine that belonged in a much lighter chassis. In the end I have decided on a Coxster, currently looking for an early 3.2 around the £10-12 mark.

What are these horror stories you've heard about the Porsche though? From my research it seemed to be the most economical to own for my budget and mileage (about 15,000 a year).

I've had a 2001 Boxster S since May this year. I kind of rushed into the purchase based on the exellent external appearance of it (unmarked Seal Grey with full Literonics light conversion).

So far it has cost me £800 getting it running as it should. That includes a new MAF sensor, Lambda sensor and full four wheel alignment. It's going in again at the end of August for a new clutch (heavy and a bit stodgy at the mo). This will be another £500/600.

All the work done at Porsche indies. These are classic weak spots on these. Serves me right for not doing my research and falling in love with the first one I saw!

Still, it's money well spent as I know it's all been done properly and I've felt the benefits first hand since the work has been done.


I'm not even going to mention I../R.. issues. A touch over-documented on internet forums imo. I just prefer to get in it and enjoy the thing!

Whilst the clutch is out, get them too look at / replace the RMS at the same time, as it is only a cheap job to do at that time, as opposed to having to take everything apart to do it on its own at a later date

Yeah, this is on the cards as a preventative measure. It makes total sense to replace it at this stage.

[Daniel1]

havoc said:

Daniel1 said:

Your admission of a lack of TC also further adds weight to the arguement of wet handling edgyness.

Once again you're showing your ignorance. I'd suggest the opposite is more likely to be true - that TC/DSC is put on a car to DISGUISE the shortcomings of a chassis. That Honda didn't feel the need for years suggests they had confidence in the chassis.

yet they revised it twice.

And to disguise a cars faults? You either implying that the chassis on the s2000 is near perfect or that cars with TC + DSC are flawed. In the first case i point you back to the vast and varied selection of printed information on the S2000's wet handling. Second i point out a simple transition by Subaru. Their newage STi's did not have traction control, the latest generation STi's do, which leaves your invariable conclusion that the chassis on the new car is worse then the old, which is simply not true.

Thirdly i say that by your reckoning cars of a much higher calibre then the S2000 should not require TC + DSC because the chassis is far superior. Yet all modern commercially based supercars do indeed have both. Ferrari, Audi, Lamborghini all have both TC + DSC. And they simply have them to provide a safety net or a margin of error for when driver, conditions and machine are not working in perfect harmony.

With regard to VBH and JC liking the S2000 i may have invoked some prejudice from you so i will restate that i do not dislike the S2000. It is far from being a bad car. Im simply saying that you say it isnt edgy in the wet, when the rest of world, including people in a far better place to say than yourself, say that it is. From where im sitting, my thoughts are pretty irrelevent, im just debating with you on behalf of everybody else.

oh, one other point. You say that we cannot trust what motoring journos say. Is that applied to just the s2000 because you happen to really like it or every car they have ever reviewed? i know a few odd mistakes slip through the net and often a car will receive a bad review. But constant comments about its handling from all areas of publication over the course of over 10 years? I dont think so and remained to be convinced that your single somewhat biased judgement of the car out weighs their total experience.

You may have an opinion, but i dont think you have an argument

NB edited for poor quoting

Edited by Daniel1 on Wednesday 5th August 18:26

Edited by Daniel1 on Wednesday 5th August 18:28

[Duane Pipe]

kambites said:

The VX220 is a very different car from the others. As a driving experience, none of the others car even get close to the Vauxhall but if you frequent motorways or even spend most of your time on A-roads I think the others are probably better cars.

The VX is a sports car through and through. The others all have, to some degree or other, GT credentials as well. Driving more than about 200 miles in one go in all but the latest of Elise based cars takes dedication.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 4th August 19:35

^^This man is talking sense.

Good thread this - I drive a VXT as a second car and for the reasons given by people above I absolutely love it.

However I reckon I would fast fall out of love if it was my daily driver. Driving home from work every day I'd prefer a few more luxuries - such as central locking, heater/air con.

But I can't ever imagine wanting to take a Z4 out at 6am on a Sunday morning. I suppose that's the point?

[Daniel1]

Duane Pipe said:

kambites said:

The VX220 is a very different car from the others. As a driving experience, none of the others car even get close to the Vauxhall but if you frequent motorways or even spend most of your time on A-roads I think the others are probably better cars.

The VX is a sports car through and through. The others all have, to some degree or other, GT credentials as well. Driving more than about 200 miles in one go in all but the latest of Elise based cars takes dedication.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 4th August 19:35

^^This man is talking sense.

Good thread this - I drive a VXT as a second car and for the reasons given by people above I absolutely love it.

However I reckon I would fast fall out of love if it was my daily driver. Driving home from work every day I'd prefer a few more luxuries - such as central locking, heater/air con.

But I can't ever imagine wanting to take a Z4 out at 6am on a Sunday morning. I suppose that's the point?

dont think im lurking but you must remember you have allready tried the extreme end of the spectrum. If your daily barge was, say, an s-class, then a Z4 would seem pretty lairy on that sunday morning.

[havoc]

Daniel1 said:

Thirdly i say that by your reckoning cars of a much higher calibre then the S2000 should not require TC + DSC because the chassis is far superior. Yet all modern commercially based supercars do indeed have both. Ferrari, Audi, Lamborghini all have both TC + DSC. And they simply have them to provide a safety net or a margin of error for when driver, conditions and machine are not working in perfect harmony.

You're absolutely right - at the performance end of the market, they are there as a safety net...with the big-power now being delivered, it's more necessary than ever. Look at the reviews saying that the SL65 can't deliver all of it's power and the TC light doesn't stop flashing...THAT is a car with more power than the chassis can handle...Merc took the easy way out there while chasing headline numbers, rather than developing the car properly so it was drivable without the TC.

My point was more that, at the affordable end of things, it IS being used even more often as a way of disguising insufficient chassis development.

Anyway, probably not that relevant overall - all 4 cars under discussion drive very well.

Daniel1 said:

Im simply saying that you say it isnt edgy in the wet, when the rest of world, including people in a far better place to say than yourself, say that it is. From where im sitting, my thoughts are pretty irrelevent, im just debating with you on behalf of everybody else.

The "rest of the world" don't say it. The bloke down the pub says it because he read an article about it, and then other people quote him, so 3rd hand.

And I go back to my earlier point - who is in a better position to judge? A journo who's driven it once or twice, or someone who's owned it and lived with it for 3 years?!?

The car CAN be 'edgy' with the wrong geometry (but so can a Boxster, it's just that the TC would disguise it), and it's quite possible (indeed likely) that at least some of the cars the journo's drove were set-up with said 'edgy' geometry. But mine, with amended geo (still within factory tolerances...just) wasn't. And neither are those of a lot of s2ki members who took the time to get their cars just right...

Daniel1 said:

oh, one other point. You say that we cannot trust what motoring journos say. Is that applied to just the s2000 because you happen to really like it or every car they have ever reviewed? i know a few odd mistakes slip through the net and often a car will receive a bad review. But constant comments about its handling from all areas of publication over the course of over 10 years? I dont think so and remained to be convinced that your single somewhat biased judgement of the car out weighs their total experience.

See my point above.

Oh...and re: motoring journalism...try out some modern 'proper' performance machinery (i.e. E46 M3 and upwards), and then tell me that ANY of those cars has a decent ride. Yet I've not read ANY reviews slating the ride of the E46 M3, or even of the (frankly rock-solid) 911 GT3 (the RS, yes, but not the GT3, with which IMHO you still need a friendly chiropractor on hand). These cars make even my ITR seem supple and comfortable*, yet it's not mentioned. (the same ITR which all the reviews say is too much, too hardcore for most people...yet the same comment is never applied to even the M3!!! Why?)

Why? Because they think "that's normal" for that type of car, and because they typically drive the cars on the launches in Spain/Italy/Germany/etc. where the roads are billiard-table smooth. So yes, I take a lot of car reviews with a pinch of salt now.

I'd suggest that about half of Evo magazine's 'eCOTY' winners are pretty-near undrivable (when 'on a charge') on a Welsh B-road by anyone without major talent and big balls. The NSX-R and all hardcore 911's are frankly TOO stiff with TOO little suspension travel to be comfortable when on a charge. The Nissan GT-R has had exactly the same comment levelled at it - it "steamrollers" the road into submission, apparently. Great engineering, but pleasant to be in?!?


Another (different) example is my wife's "5-star reviewed" MkV Golf GTi, which is quite honestly a rather mundane car below about 8/10ths (when you actually start to feel how good the chassis really is, but when you're travelling at illegal speeds). Allegedly the 'best' all-round hot-hatch for a few years, in terms of fun and involvement it's got nothing on her old 306GTi-6 at normal road speeds, which was a hoot all the time. A more grown-up car, granted...but is that what you want from a hot-hatch?!?

So don't believe everything you read in print...

(Sorry, big rant about journos and about car ride quality! )



* I actually discovered a few months ago that the paragon of smooth-riding sports cars, the Elise, is nothing of the sort in 111R guise - on those big rims and stiffer suspension it was actually crashier than the ITR and the S2000. Didn't read anything about that in the reviews, did we?!?


PS (general to all) - I think all modern performance machinery is heading towards stiffer-riding cars, because of the marketing-led desires for big bling rims and for ever-quicker Nordschliefe times...and I don't think it's a good direction. I consider myself to have 100RON blood yet I now realise I wouldn't go for a 911 GT3 or an NSX-R or an M3 CSL - I'd go for the 'soft' versions, and arguably have almost as much fun a lot more of the time...

[kambites]

Daniel1 said:

dont think im lurking but you must remember you have allready tried the extreme end of the spectrum. If your daily barge was, say, an s-class, then a Z4 would seem pretty lairy on that sunday morning.

My daily drive is an Elise... what should I get for the weekend?

[Pulse]

Duane Pipe said:

I can't ever imagine wanting to take a Z4 out at 6am on a Sunday morning. I suppose that's the point?

I do, regularly.

I agree though that it totally depends on what you want. The VX220 will be more focussed, but the Z4 and Boxster will be far easier to live with, whilst still offering an excellent sports car.

I personally couldn't live without my creature comforts, which is why I chose my Z4 Coupe over an Elise when I was looking.

[bga]

Daz4m said:

Those tyres were below average on my CTR and RX8 in wet conditions. The Rx8 being a better balanced car than the S2k made to realtively easy to control. My point is that it is probable that the tyres that are responsible for most of the bad press (skitish behaviour) the car gets.

Sorry Daz, I thought it was a question. Tyres could be a cause but to be honest, in comparison to MX-5 & TVR Chim, personally I didn't find it skittish, though we all have different opinions (like me preferring my Mk5 Golf GTI over the S2000 )

[bga]

havoc said:

It was the car-specific S02's*, not the RE040's (S2000's never had -040's - the 04+ cars run RE050's, and the replacement tyre for the S02 is the RE050A (Asymmetric), which is actually considered to be better (on s2ki) than the -050 on the '04 cars.

I thought it was the 40's I had on mine, but you are probably right & it's the 50's - all my reciepts went with the car. At the end of the day, even though the S2000 didn't really do it for me, I reckon those who think it is skittish in the wet etc are generally comparing the car to hot hatches etc. As with the TT, a mainstream manufacturer releases a sporty car & attracts buyers who would not usually buy the likes of a Porsche. These numpties get into trouble as they can't drive sympathetically & blame everything but themselves.

[Gompo]

Havoc,

Seeing as tyres are being discussed this is slightly on topic - what tyres are you running on your Integra? The ITR I recently purchased is running R888s, which are of course good in 'nice' weather, but could do with being changed soon.

What do you run and what do you recommend, seeing as the RE10s are now unavailable?

Cheers, Greg.

[Herman Toothrot]

kambite said:

Daniel1 said:

dont think im lurking but you must remember you have allready tried the extreme end of the spectrum. If your daily barge was, say, an s-class, then a Z4 would seem pretty lairy on that sunday morning.

My daily drive is an Elise... what should I get for the weekend?

Big power stripped out MX5! My VX is a tame pussy cat in comparison, hence the VX is daily driver, MX5 is track toy Toying with an engine build on the MX5 this winter so I can up the boost to have it running 300bhp s

[kambites]

I think even a hugely powerful MX5 wouldn't give me much more than shoving a supercharged K20 lump in the Elise - it's easy (if not cheap) to get an Elise to around 330bhp reliably and it's a lighter car. I was reckoning maybe an Ultima or a turbocharged 'busa powered seven type car as a weekend thing. Something proper fast - say 500bhp/tonne.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 08:37

[havoc]

Caboose - plenty of mods for both the S2000 and VX220. Changing a rack is a BIG job - probably have to fabricate some parts yourself (bespoke), so I don't recommend it. See ...lawyer's post a few pages back - IMHO with nitrons, cross-braces and the right geometry an S2000 would be a very playful tool...not MX-5, granted, but a lot more docile than it's rep...without the nitrons I got comfy playing with mine on roundabouts (wet or dry).


Gompo - still using RE010's at the moment - they ARE still doing batches, so you just need to get some at the right time. No single replacement found on the dc2 forum - some like Parada-7's, some Pilot-somethings, but IIRC all have softer sidewalls than the RE's, so the car 'loses' something. IMHO a set of 16"s with softer-sidewall tyres might be a good compromise...not sure if anyone's tried it or not...

[Plotloss]

kambites said:

I think even a hugely powerful MX5 wouldn't give me much more than shoving a supercharged K20 lump in the Elise - it's easy (if not cheap) to get an Elise to around 330bhp reliably and it's a lighter car. I was reckoning maybe an Ultima or a turbocharged 'busa powered seven type car as a weekend thing. Something proper fast.

Seen a 250bhp MX5 run around a few times and it wouldnt see which way a VXT with equivalent power went.

[heebeegeetee]

havoc said:

PS (general to all) - I think all modern performance machinery is heading towards stiffer-riding cars, because of the marketing-led desires for big bling rims and for ever-quicker Nordschliefe times...and I don't think it's a good direction. I consider myself to have 100RON blood yet I now realise I wouldn't go for a 911 GT3 or an NSX-R or an M3 CSL - I'd go for the 'soft' versions, and arguably have almost as much fun a lot more of the time...

I must say i agree with this. The mags do point out the hard rides of many cars but i think that either i'm very sensitive to this issue or the journos hold back in their criticisms of this trait.

I can't get over the size of wheels fitted to cars nowadays. The Ferrari F40 has 17" rims, but now you can buy small hatchbacks from new with wheels this size.

[kambites]

Plotloss said:

kambites said:

I think even a hugely powerful MX5 wouldn't give me much more than shoving a supercharged K20 lump in the Elise - it's easy (if not cheap) to get an Elise to around 330bhp reliably and it's a lighter car. I was reckoning maybe an Ultima or a turbocharged 'busa powered seven type car as a weekend thing. Something proper fast.

Seen a 250bhp MX5 run around a few times and it wouldnt see which way a VXT with equivalent power went.

Indeed but I could shove a 330bhp Honda engine in my Elise for the cost of buying a good 250bhp MX5 and then the MX5 wouldn't see which way I went (probably into a hedge).

Well actually on the road I suspect it comes entirely down to the driver - I don't think I'd be noticeably quicker in a 300bhp Elise than my 160bhp Elise because power is almost never the limit. However, I know I'm more comfortable driving fast in mid-engined cars than front engined ones.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 08:57

[kambites]

heebeegeetee said:

havoc said:

PS (general to all) - I think all modern performance machinery is heading towards stiffer-riding cars, because of the marketing-led desires for big bling rims and for ever-quicker Nordschliefe times...and I don't think it's a good direction. I consider myself to have 100RON blood yet I now realise I wouldn't go for a 911 GT3 or an NSX-R or an M3 CSL - I'd go for the 'soft' versions, and arguably have almost as much fun a lot more of the time...

I must say i agree with this. The mags do point out the hard rides of many cars but i think that either i'm very sensitive to this issue or the journos hold back in their criticisms of this trait.

I can't get over the size of wheels fitted to cars nowadays. The Ferrari F40 has 17" rims, but now you can buy small hatchbacks from new with wheels this size.

Big wheels needn't ruin ride quality if the suspension is designed for them - ultimately you always have more control over spring and damping rates in an spring than in a tyre side wall. Of course having a certain amount of deflection in the tyre does mean you have almost no completely unsprung mass; an effect which you can't replicate with suspension settings.

The big problem though, is the combination of huge wheels and stiff suspension.