RE: HonestGuv: Honda S2000
Discussion
Sold my RX7 for a S2000 a while ago. Sold again ~6 months later after suffering one of the most cursed cars i've owned. Engine let go (despite fsh and well looked after, oil always topped up etc) and needed a rebuild after ~90k iirc... then suffered the worst garage experience i've ever had (Court case is next month)....
Now in a R32 Skyline GTR and couldnt be happier
- Although will need to buy a runabout soon as whole point of the S2000 was a car I could use for the daily commute...
Most common things i found when shopping about for the S2000 - roofs/rear windows being damaged, rust on end of sills (mine had this and needed sorting cost £500 at a bodyshop)
Now in a R32 Skyline GTR and couldnt be happier
- Although will need to buy a runabout soon as whole point of the S2000 was a car I could use for the daily commute...Most common things i found when shopping about for the S2000 - roofs/rear windows being damaged, rust on end of sills (mine had this and needed sorting cost £500 at a bodyshop)
GauZe said:
0-60 in 5? Surely it's more like 6...
Magazines timed it anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5. The best conclusion I've come to is due to the lack of low-rev torque, you cannot do a clutch friendly launch and then floor the throttle. You have to dump the clutch at high revs which makes the launch very dependent on tyres, tarmac and temperature.alock said:
Magazines timed it anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5. The best conclusion I've come to is due to the lack of low-rev torque, you cannot do a clutch friendly launch and then floor the throttle. You have to dump the clutch at high revs which makes the launch very dependent on tyres, tarmac and temperature.
And driver, they aren't easy things to get off the line perfectly. I still think 5 seconds sounds optimistic, though. That would be the same as my Elise which has much the same power to weight ratio but significantly better traction. What do Honda quote for it?
fido said:
"Anyone on the taller side might find the driving position a touch high..." - it's a massive downside if you pardon the pun [Moses].
Actually, does anyone on here over 6ft3 have an S2000? It's the only reason i didn't buy one .. discrimination against tall people!
I'm 6' 6" and really want an S2000...hmmmm?!?!?!Actually, does anyone on here over 6ft3 have an S2000? It's the only reason i didn't buy one .. discrimination against tall people!
I love my s2k. I've got the 04 facelift version, which I prefer for various reasons, but one nice thing is that the revised engine doesn't use any oil.
It's a bit over-silenced as standard, which makes it sound a little harsh. Much better with a sports exhaust. Hugely chuckable, perfectly balanced. More torque would be nice (supercharger) and insurance is a bit dear. Mine did get a new mohair roof a couple of years ago as well. I think I get a tiny bit of clutch buzz as well.
Definatly doesn't have a cam-belt!
How planted/lary it is greatly depends on whether it's had a good four wheel alignment. Very geometry sensetive. Especially if it's lowered (make sure it has steering rack spacers and on pre-04, adjustable toe arms if it is).
It's a bit over-silenced as standard, which makes it sound a little harsh. Much better with a sports exhaust. Hugely chuckable, perfectly balanced. More torque would be nice (supercharger) and insurance is a bit dear. Mine did get a new mohair roof a couple of years ago as well. I think I get a tiny bit of clutch buzz as well.
Definatly doesn't have a cam-belt!
How planted/lary it is greatly depends on whether it's had a good four wheel alignment. Very geometry sensetive. Especially if it's lowered (make sure it has steering rack spacers and on pre-04, adjustable toe arms if it is).
Edited by MIP1983 on Wednesday 9th February 14:03
I had a MY03 for a few years - loved it - I used to rag the proverbial out of it and it just came back for more. Reliable, well built, cheap to service, fast enough to surprise cars 5 times the price.
I can understand it's reputation for being a bit lairy but it was set up on the edge to start with - it didn't understeer and if you drove it like a knob, it would bite back. It didn't suffer fools. Show's more about the current state of performance cars and their drivers - I went to a Porsche Cayman S after the Honda and the first thing I did was get the set up changed to get rid of the in built numpty understeer.
Great car, superb engine glad it was produced and feel privileged to have owned one for a while - I daresay it but a future classic.
I can understand it's reputation for being a bit lairy but it was set up on the edge to start with - it didn't understeer and if you drove it like a knob, it would bite back. It didn't suffer fools. Show's more about the current state of performance cars and their drivers - I went to a Porsche Cayman S after the Honda and the first thing I did was get the set up changed to get rid of the in built numpty understeer.
Great car, superb engine glad it was produced and feel privileged to have owned one for a while - I daresay it but a future classic.
article said:
Downsides? Well, anything revving to nine grand is going to like a drink, oil as well as (high-octane) fuel.
The high oil consumption was fixed in later versions. I've never had to top-up my oil in nearly 30,000 miles. Between 9000 mile services it goes from the full mark to the half-way mark.A long journey cruising at 70 with the hood up, I get 37mpg. Daily 20 mile commute I get high 20's. Commute home in the summer with the hood down I try to average below 20mpg and have failed.
kambites said:
And driver, they aren't easy things to get off the line perfectly.
I still think 5 seconds sounds optimistic, though. That would be the same as my Elise which has much the same power to weight ratio but significantly better traction. What do Honda quote for it?
Honda quoted 6.2. I don't know how Honda measured it though.I still think 5 seconds sounds optimistic, though. That would be the same as my Elise which has much the same power to weight ratio but significantly better traction. What do Honda quote for it?
A variety of tests logged here:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-...
alock said:
Honda quoted 6.2. I don't know how Honda measured it though.
A variety of tests logged here:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-...
None of them are particularly close to five seconds. 5.6-5.7 seems to be a good figure based on those results. A variety of tests logged here:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-...
kambites said:
alock said:
Honda quoted 6.2. I don't know how Honda measured it though.
A variety of tests logged here:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-...
None of them are particularly close to five seconds. 5.6-5.7 seems to be a good figure based on those results. A variety of tests logged here:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-...
the 6.2 secs figure is 0-62, so to 60 your talking around 6 secs ish..
http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/honda-s200...
http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/honda-s200...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff