What to go for Z4, Vx220 Boxster or S2000??
Discussion
Crusoe said:
Hot1 said:
Crusoe what made you sell your vx and s2k?
Change my car quite regularly because of the miles I rack up so usually about a year or so though I might keep this one a bit longer as it seems to have gone up in value even with the miles I have added, just luck buying at the right time. Those two were the only cars I have crashed. The vx suffered suspension failure after a hub nut rusted and sheared through giving 20deg of negative camber at the rear and sending the car spinning down the road in a straight line bouncing off the walls either side so not really my fault, great car but not endurance tested like main stream cars so has lots of fairly major things you need to stay on top of. Recalls for brakes that would go solid as the vacuum hoses perish, or wheels that brake off at the spokes because a batch was not heat treated etc. and many others that have DIY fixes you should do based on the very helpful specialists and forums. I would have another but it would be kept in a garage as a weekend toy and I would strip it down and rebuild most of it so I could trust it, replacing the bolts with the lotus version that were a recall for them but Vauxhall never wanted to know on the vx and there aren’t that many made so proving there are issues is hard work. I can speak form experience that the s2000 is not the best rear wheel drive for someone coming from hot hatches, driver training is probably a good thing but in the end a high speed blow out put an end to the Honda. After having driven it through the worst of a Scottish winter as my daily driver it was a tyre that finally caught me ot though it was the car that has given me the most brown trouser moments. I would have another though but probably a 2007 or later car with the final revisions and stability control as it might have helped save the blow out from spinning and would be a lot less stressful when the rear steps out doing 50 on the rain on a dual carriageway when other cars are racing past you.Hot1 said:
Burger 3rd thankx for the statistics on the three cars they are useful, I always read different 0-60mph times for the s2k some say 6.1 others 5.8 what is the true time??
Depends on how brutal you want to be with the transmission. It's a peaky engine, so 'quick' launches are always going to require a lot of revs.I'd ignore the 0-60 (which depend upon gearing, torque profile, weight distribution and how that shifts, rear-suspension (live-axle better than IRS) etc. etc.) and look at the 60-100 through the gears to get an idea of the real accelerative ability of a car. All of these cars (VX220 excepted) are c.8.5s, which IS quick - my ITR, by comparison, is ~10s dead for 60-100 (which is still about on-par with the best mainstream hot-hatches nowadays - the Focus RS, though, is low-8s).
...all of which shows that bhp/tonne is still a pretty good yardstick of accelerative performance, once the car is moving.
Only had experience of the Boxster S that you are considering. I use mine for alot of motorway miles, and it is a great motorway basher as well as being just brilliant on the b-roads. I have loved every minute of owning it, and still love driving it every day over one year after purchase. I never arrive after long journeys feeling tired or aching. Running costs will most likely be higher than the others you are considering. I am getting 28.3mpg over the last 15k miles or so, which I think is excellent. As a guide to running costs:
Pair of rear tyres = £300 - £400 depending on brand
Pair of discs and pads at inde, fitted = £450 - £550
Minor service inde = £250
Major service at inde = £500
Pair of rear tyres = £300 - £400 depending on brand
Pair of discs and pads at inde, fitted = £450 - £550
Minor service inde = £250
Major service at inde = £500
havoc said:
Hot1 said:
Burger 3rd thankx for the statistics on the three cars they are useful, I always read different 0-60mph times for the s2k some say 6.1 others 5.8 what is the true time??
Depends on how brutal you want to be with the transmission. It's a peaky engine, so 'quick' launches are always going to require a lot of revs.I'd ignore the 0-60 (which depend upon gearing, torque profile, weight distribution and how that shifts, rear-suspension (live-axle better than IRS) etc. etc.) and look at the 60-100 through the gears to get an idea of the real accelerative ability of a car. All of these cars (VX220 excepted) are c.8.5s, which IS quick - my ITR, by comparison, is ~10s dead for 60-100 (which is still about on-par with the best mainstream hot-hatches nowadays - the Focus RS, though, is low-8s).
...all of which shows that bhp/tonne is still a pretty good yardstick of accelerative performance, once the car is moving.
VX220 n/a
Year Introduced 2000
Kerb Weight 870kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 2196cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive RWD
Transmission 5 speed Manual
Engine Location Mid Mounted
BHP 147
Torque (lbs/ft) 150@4000rpm
BHP/Ton 169
0-60mph 5.6s
0-100mph ?
60-100mph ?
1/4 Mile 14.8s
Terminal Speed ?mph
Top Speed (mph) 135
Nürburgring 8min 45sec
Trawled the net but can find the few ?'ed bits.
Year Introduced 2000
Kerb Weight 870kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 2196cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive RWD
Transmission 5 speed Manual
Engine Location Mid Mounted
BHP 147
Torque (lbs/ft) 150@4000rpm
BHP/Ton 169
0-60mph 5.6s
0-100mph ?
60-100mph ?
1/4 Mile 14.8s
Terminal Speed ?mph
Top Speed (mph) 135
Nürburgring 8min 45sec
Trawled the net but can find the few ?'ed bits.
Quite a few blanks filled here http://www.einszweidrei.de/opel/speedster2003-1.ht...
Well, I love the torque of my Boxster S, and i love the fact that it will accelerate from low down all the way to 7,200 rpm. I know the S2000 revs to 9,000, but it it's spread of genuinely usable power throughout the range as wide as the Boxster's?
I also love the car's motorway prowess because it gives you a car that can be nice to drive when you're not in the mood for a hoon or when conditions won't allow. I loved the fact that i could load my car up with plenty of luggage, cruise down to the french alps in air-conned cruise-controlled comfort, having to stop for fuel only once, and then when i got to the alps i had a car that was highly satisfying to give a good caning too on roads that we can only dream of here in the UK. And that was before i'd even got to the hotel and emptied the luggage out.
Yes, i could have bought a car that didn't do all of these things, but why?
I also love the car's motorway prowess because it gives you a car that can be nice to drive when you're not in the mood for a hoon or when conditions won't allow. I loved the fact that i could load my car up with plenty of luggage, cruise down to the french alps in air-conned cruise-controlled comfort, having to stop for fuel only once, and then when i got to the alps i had a car that was highly satisfying to give a good caning too on roads that we can only dream of here in the UK. And that was before i'd even got to the hotel and emptied the luggage out.
Yes, i could have bought a car that didn't do all of these things, but why?
havoc said:
Daniel1 said:
Torque is important in the real world. At 30 mph the Z4 could put his foot down and be long gone before the s2000 has managed to munch his synchro into 2nd into his vtec'yoh zone
it also makes the car so much easier to drive quickly (but not fast) without stressing people out with the invariable increase in engine speed and noise to keep up.
:yawn:it also makes the car so much easier to drive quickly (but not fast) without stressing people out with the invariable increase in engine speed and noise to keep up.
There wouldn't be much difference, tbh.
And a turbo-4 of similar power (e.g. Focus ST) would in turn be a little quicker than the Z4 in short-term acceleration. But no more involving, and with a softer throttle-response.
In give-and-take driving, on a M-way or A-road, then I concur wholeheartedly that torque is king - it makes life so much easier. But I'd suggest that you don't buy a sports-car because of it's M-way prowess...and to my mind a high-revving n/a engine (I include the BM I-6 in that category, of course) is exactly what you want.
...so the BMW 3.0 I agree is probably the engine of choice in this particular bunch, but to say it holds a real advantage over the S2000 is really overstating the case...
BUT it depends completely on your driving style. In the ideal world a high revving torquey engine is what you need. Which is funny because thats what all the latest supercars are having. The VAG V8 and V10 are still high revving (7,800 rpm and 8,200(?)rpm) but still offer a large widespread slab of torque. I only pick those two examples because i happen to remember them. Whether that be engineered into them or just a byproduct of large disaplacement, i dont know
From a completely different angle i think the s2000 is just a little too japanese. Its styling is now looking aged, the interior with the digital dash and driver focused controls lacks inspiration. Its handling is also 'edgy' in the wet, which i know has had continual improvements and revisions to make it less so but it is still an edgy car. Considering it rains in this country most of the time it would be nice not having the car try and kill you when youre a little bit tired and what to get home.
IM not attempting to destroy the s2000, im not some honda hater, and they had reliability on there side, but like i wouldnt recommend an elise or exige as an everyday car, i cant recommend the s2000 in this distinguished company. The Z4 and Boxster S are simply better.
Daniel1 said:
But the S2000 is at a disadvantage, since most driving is on m-way, a-road, b-road and stuck behind tractors and totting to the shops.
And on how many of those do you use even 150bhp? (S2000 output at 6,000rpm) Let alone 230bhp?There ARE occasions where you would like more torque, but not many. On the M-way the car is quicker pre-VTEC than the diesel repmobiles, so it's not the issue the road-testers like to make out...
Daniel1 said:
Every review of the s2000 that i remember (which is convenient i know) said it was tiring to drive.
Compared to a Boxster, it probably is:-- shorter gearing
- less soundproofing
- more direct steering
- no traction control
Compared to a TVR (even a Chim/Griff), it's an absolute doddle. Ditto the VX. Depends on your reference point. I wouldn't say it's much worse than the Z4...
Daniel1 said:
In the ideal world a high revving torquey engine is what you need. Which is funny because thats what all the latest supercars are having. The VAG V8 and V10 are still high revving (7,800 rpm and 8,200(?)rpm) but still offer a large widespread slab of torque. I only pick those two examples because i happen to remember them. Whether that be engineered into them or just a byproduct of large disaplacement, i dont know
Displacement. The F20C has a lot of torque for a n/a 2.0 engine. And wheel-torque is improved still further by the shorter gearing. People go on about torque because the rate of change of torque provides that 'kick in the back' which people FEEL as acceleration. It's NOT the same thing...Daniel1 said:
Its handling is also 'edgy' in the wet, which i know has had continual improvements and revisions to make it less so but it is still an edgy car. Considering it rains in this country most of the time it would be nice not having the car try and kill you when youre a little bit tired and what to get home.
Spoken by someone that's never diven one!!!In 3 years of ownership, driven in ALL weathers, I NEVER span mine. I had about 3 or 4 tank-slappers, and that's it. On Toyo's the car was never anything more than sure-footed, even in standing water, unless you were ham-fisted/-footed with the controls. Also, it's designed as an agile sports car - it's never going to be a Ford Focus, nor would you want it to be...
Daniel1 said:
The Z4 and Boxster S are simply better.
Boxster-S - yes, it is. But in comparable spec it also costs >£10,000 more, so it's a different league of car. Even the stock £2.7 car was IIRC £5k+ more than the S2000 before options, and that's a slower car (my ITR can keep up with one of them in a straight-line).Z4 - I'm not so sure. Better badge, better-styled interior, more flexible engine, worse ride, worse looks, less-immediate handling, and crucially NO LSD! And the 3.0 was still £££ more than the S2000...
That a £27k S2000 bears comparison with a £3x,000 Z4 and a £4x,000 Boxster-S has got to say something...
(NB, on the 2nd hand market, if you're happy taking an older car, then all sorts of cars could be considered. But the age/mileage/condition vs capability argument is an old one that's been done to death...)
havoc said:
...so the BMW 3.0 I agree is probably the engine of choice in this particular bunch, but to say it holds a real advantage over the S2000 is really overstating the case...
I don't think the M54 B30 doesn't properly wake up until 4000rpm really, which is the same as the S2000 engine not waking up till 6000rpm (ie 4/6th vs 6/9ths is the same)It really does come down to the style of the delivery you like. The S2000 will have bigger numbers on the gauge, a buzzier noise and cockpit, and probably worse economy and more stares from those around you, doing a run through to 6000rpm (so not to everyones taste), while the 3.0 I6 will be doing it to 4000rpm, a bit less frantic.
Then you have the diesel brigade who will rev out to 2500rpm and not get any fun or thrill from it
Just depends what you want really I suppose... a blend was what I wanted, hence the 3.0. The 2.5 Si model with similar power was too revvy and top-endy for my liking, with a shorter final drive that made most work feel a fair bit more buzzy and having to really use all 7000rpm to get the go, and use 5000rpm+ to feel like 200bhp+ was going to the wheels. May as well have gone for an S2000 in that case because it'd be better at that kinda thing.
Dave
kambites said:
I would argue that the S2000 is even better value second hand because it's almost certain to prove the most reliable of the three, hence you can get away with an older and/or higher mileage car.
I agree, of the cars we're talking about the S2000 is the only bullet proof one here. It's a good car, (great engineering) as all of them in this discussion are. You have to choose what suits personal preferences best.
Before I started this thread I was not that in favour of the s2000 compared to the vx220 but the more I have read the more I am favouring the s2000 over the vx220. I do love the z4 3.0l but weather I will find one in my budget with less than 60k miles may take a while, and the big down side is you see soo many! As for the s2000 you dont see so many I could get a nice one for less than my budget, but thec insurance is a killer! But will it work out cheaper to run in long run due to being more reliable and prosume parts are cheaper than bmw parts.
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.
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
Drive 'em, see what they feel like.
But NOT a 10-minute back-street dealer special...you'll learn b'gger-all from one of them. I'd test-drive newer ones at main dealers if possible (pretend your budget is £16-18k or something), where you should get a decent time in the car.
If after that you still really like the BM, then get the BM - IMHO there's sufficiently little (performance or costs) between that and the Honda to make either a must-buy over the other...
But NOT a 10-minute back-street dealer special...you'll learn b'gger-all from one of them. I'd test-drive newer ones at main dealers if possible (pretend your budget is £16-18k or something), where you should get a decent time in the car.
If after that you still really like the BM, then get the BM - IMHO there's sufficiently little (performance or costs) between that and the Honda to make either a must-buy over the other...
havoc said:
IMHO there's sufficiently little (performance or costs) between that and the Honda to make either a must-buy over the other...
Very true. Any track test has them within a tenth or so (Z4, S2K, Boxster). They may do things in different ways, which suit different people, but ultimately the various engineers knew exactly what the their engine characteristics were, and got the best out of the bhp/tonne that they had.Pick which ever one you like, based on heart over head, and spend the next few years arguing about how your choice was the best
havoc said:
Spoken by someone that's never diven one!!!In 3 years of ownership, driven in ALL weathers, I NEVER span mine. I had about 3 or 4 tank-slappers, and that's it. On Toyo's the car was never anything more than sure-footed, even in standing water, unless you were ham-fisted/-footed with the controls. Also, it's designed as an agile sports car - it's never going to be a Ford Focus, nor would you want it to be...
BUT are you seriously saying that despite all the acredited experts, as such, in original reviews and buyers guides have stated the car is edgy in the wet, hondas own revisions have been implemented to reduce this edginess and you yourself claim to have only had 3 or 4 tank slappers? To the say the car isnt a ford focus but rather 'an agile sports car' is like saying my roof isnt like a normal roof, its an 'elemental' one. It still leaks no matter what you call it. Its just markting tosh.
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).
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).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff