PDA

View Full Version : Why a S2000?



aimre
30-10-2005, 02:12 AM
Hey all,
friend and i were having a discussion tonight.
we were wondering where does the $70k go when u buy a S2000.

Why wouldnt someone buy a HSV with almost 300kw and 530nm tourqe for $61k.

From what the official website tells us, the HSV looks better on paper.
So, what actually makes the S2000 worth the $70,000?

*NOTE: Before Flaming, were not saying ones better than the other..... were just looking to be more....informed.

thanks:wave::wave:

STTICH
30-10-2005, 02:16 AM
mayb s2k is a better built and well balanced vechicle? or it may b the money thrown into the development and engineering?

just a thought :)

J-MuN
30-10-2005, 02:32 AM
I'd rather a S2000 over any HSV. Better petrol consumption, more reliable IMO, more classy and dang hot :eek:. Yeah, the HSV has more power but you don't have to be getting more power for money. There'll always be a car which is going to be faster than you anyway. But definitely agree with mr STTICH. :thumbsup:

**Ghost**
30-10-2005, 02:38 AM
the s2000 is underpowered as a sports car for that price i agree iwth ur point. 350z, similar roadster coupe rips it apart if u wanna look at price only.

but ur really paying for a convertible, pure sports car (vs hotted up sedan)...

HSVs are "cheaper" also due to mass production. THink about it. Honda has to make each part of the s2000 FOR The s2000... half the HSV is prolly outta the commonwhore parts bin, mass production = savings in cost so u cant really compare

Slaz
30-10-2005, 08:55 AM
Ghost has said it in one, mass production and nearly all parts on a HSV not being as good a quality.

Also Honda is aware of the market the S2000 is catered for, honda will more then likley never produce such a car as the S2000 again as they have not profited as much from it as they had hoped as even Honda is swinging away from producing the cars we love to cars that are more profitable for them thats why nearly every new Honda no longer has double wishbone front and rear along with a thousand other changes.

The S2000 has one of the most efficent and Pwr per Ltr engines ever created, placed just forward of centre for great balance with Double wishbone all round.

I could go on forever about it and another thing to consider, look at the 2nd hand price of S2k's compared with any HSV and you'll see another massive difference between the 2.

At the end of the day its what your into, HSV's are still pre historic in many ways although a nice car, where S2K's can be made into one of the greatest all round cars with little work.

Slaz.

dragons2k
30-10-2005, 10:44 AM
cant really compare s2000 with HSV, different class and build quality.. nuff said :)

.::F[L]Y::.
30-10-2005, 11:04 AM
why an S2K? simply comes down to the type of person you are, some people prefer a sexy convertible and the sense of freedom it offers over a fuel guzzling HSV. Even for second hand S2K which is still priced within the 35-40k range for the 99-00 models, with that amount of money you can buy other great sports cars like the S15 for example. When i was looking around to purchase an S2000 i had considered buying a S15 and the reasons why i chose S2K over s15 is that a) not many s2000's around b)convertible c)possibly more reliable

just all comes down to personal preference and what u like :D

matt
30-10-2005, 11:48 AM
on paper hsv's would always look better but having owned a commodore for the past two and a half years and now owing a dc5r i can tell you there is a vast difference in build quality and general engineering.
suspension on a hsv is exactly the same design as on an executive bar stiffer spring and damper rates sway bars etc, engines are noisy and not exactly what youd call fuel efficient, and the number of gen3 v8 that blew them selves up is quite astonishing.
yeah the hsv will probably be faster in a straight line but as soon as you have to turn the steering wheel the s2000 would cane the hsv.
personally i would NEVER buy a commodore again after owning the honda.

s2king
30-10-2005, 11:54 AM
Hey all,
friend and i were having a discussion tonight.
we were wondering where does the $70k go when u buy a S2000.

Why wouldnt someone buy a HSV with almost 300kw and 530nm tourqe for $61k.

From what the official website tells us, the HSV looks better on paper.
So, what actually makes the S2000 worth the $70,000?

*NOTE: Before Flaming, were not saying ones better than the other..... were just looking to be more....informed.

thanks:wave::wave:

Your comparing completely different cars here in every area, except that they are both internal combustion cars and 4 wheels:)
Back to your question, reason the s2000 is that price is because its the best convertible in its class and even better than many other cars above its class.
-Fastest convertible roof
-Most powerfull 2L in the world
-And prety sure the fastest 2L N/A

When comparing 2 cars like that, you really cant, because they are just so different. And really just depends on what you want.

stephen8512
30-10-2005, 11:59 AM
its like sayin why would u pay $12,000 for an AE86 which is 20 somethin year old car when u can get a relatively decent 180SX or somethin thats faster, etc
comparin 2 diff cars but as above example, all comes down to personal preference, taste, and what u want out of ur car

djgarv
30-10-2005, 12:28 PM
yes it's like askin why anyone would pat 70/80K for a 3-series when you can get an STi/Evo. 70K for the wind in your hair...

tRipitaka
30-10-2005, 12:31 PM
yes it's like askin why anyone would pat 70/80K for a 3-series when you can get an STi/Evo. 70K for the wind in your hair...
or asking.. why does someone pay a few hundred thousand for a ferrari.. when they can spend less than half of that and get an eg hybrid boosted off its balls which'll make more power..

SiR JDM
30-10-2005, 01:03 PM
Ghost has said it in one, mass production and nearly all parts on a HSV not being as good a quality.

Also Honda is aware of the market the S2000 is catered for, honda will more then likley never produce such a car as the S2000 again as they have not profited as much from it as they had hoped as even Honda is swinging away from producing the cars we love to cars that are more profitable for them thats why nearly every new Honda no longer has double wishbone front and rear along with a thousand other changes.

The S2000 has one of the most efficent and Pwr per Ltr engines ever created, placed just forward of centre for great balance with Double wishbone all round.


I agree with Mr Slaz here ....

also like to add that Honda made the s2000 as a bday present for itself. Hond's quality and technology compared to Holdens, from my experience is quite supperior.

Ive owned 3 10yr+ old Hondas and my parents trade in their commodore every couple of years for the newest model. Ive done hybrid swaps, suspension installs etc etc and honestly they're cars seem to have alot more problems than mine ever have. I love the build quality of Honda's and the technology they incorperate into the whole design process, especially compared to mass producing over priced cars like Holdens.

Ive driven a few s2000's and they are such great cars. I dont think i could find a flaw in the design apart from theres no passanger side glovebox :p But what it all comes down to is what is right for you... some people need the raw power of a V8 HSV (and the 100km per tank fuel milage :p ) where as others, like myself, are very content with an s2000 being a luxury, prestiege, classy convertable that can still run sub 14 seconds on quater mile (if speed is your only concern) with little modification.

mugeneration
30-10-2005, 02:04 PM
Its a convertable! lol yeah I wouldnt buy an s2k brand new, im lookin to get a 2nd hand one as my next car. Like fly said, 2nd hand are only around 40k and theyre still great. The s2k doesnt consume as much fuel as a HSV and has much better handling. The HSV is just brute v8 power is all, nothing else special about it, wheras the s2k is a beuatiful car all round (plus not many ppl have them, so ull get noticed if you do it up)

djgarv
30-10-2005, 03:33 PM
like paying $120mill for shaq....or $120mill for lebron...depends what your team needs!

hondaboy
30-10-2005, 04:14 PM
shit like its tight chassis, 50:50 weight distribution, awesome handling characteristics, the short ratio gearbox, short throw shift etc make the s2k a true driver's car ie the driver is a very much "at one" with the car.
it might not have massive amounts of power/torque on tap but the driving experience is way ahead of many cars priced below (and above)

aaronng
30-10-2005, 04:26 PM
You have to see how both cars were developed to understand the cost.

S2000: Started selling in 1999. All new chassis with emphasis to stiffness. If I remember correctly, it was one of the stiffest convertibles of its time. The retractable softtop was also the fastest compared to the SLK, BMW M roadster and Boxster. It was also one of the fastest, except for the M roadster beating it. Back in 1999, what were the alternatives? The best was the S15 200sx (which was similar in 400m times but much slower in autocross and worse in handling stock for stock). Even a suspension modded S15 was slower on the wet auto cross than the stock 1999 S2000 (source is Best Motoring s2000 review). And the engine..... 6 years ago, no one heard of an engine pushing 120hp/litre. Even the mighty E36 M3 convertible made 316hp out of 3.2L for 98.75hp/litre and a price of $147,500. It was developed from scratch to be the best open top, small capacity, high revving roadster of its time. Its competition in 1999 were the SLK230 (194.5hp, $96,274) and Z3 2.0L (147.5hp, $74,380). That's why it was priced at the 70k mark, to match the BMW Z3 while providing more power with good handling. Of course the Z3 2.0L was no match, so Best Motoring raced it against the M roadster...

HSV:
The base chassis comes from the Commodore. Since it is a sedan, it is inherently stiffer than a convertible without the need for a lot of stiffening. Of course, since it has lots more power compared to a stock SS, it still gets stiffened. But the cost of chassis development is absorbed by the Commodore because it sells in very large numbers. The money going into the chassis is very small compared to developing a convertible from scratch.
The engine on the other hand gets the money put into it, hence the nice increase in power and torque numbers. It used to be cheaper by tuning, but now HSV likes the 6.0L V8s, so that takes up a bit more money.
Of course, the interior gets spiffed up and all the nice ornamental touches are put in such as the bodykit and exhaust tuned for power and sound.

In the end, the S2000 cost more to develop because it was done from scratch and the numbers sold are very low that the price has to be higher to recover the cost. The HSV on the other hand has a "free" base chassis (development-wise) which is covered by the great sales of the commodore. The extra $20k that the HSV costs goes a long way and so you get a car that is a beast compared to the SS.

I won't deny that the HSV is a good car (at least before the petrol price hike), and the S2000 itself is a different type of car. The amount of money you pay for both cars are because of the vastly different developmental costs going into them.

Edit: Because of my poor communication skills... the phrase "And the engine..... 6 years ago, no one heard of an engine pushing 120hp/litre." refers to N/A... sorry for the confusion :)

Miss Chanel
30-10-2005, 04:58 PM
If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_shifty.gif

steve
30-10-2005, 05:00 PM
Completly agree aaronng,

It's up to the individual to decide what's better value or not...
Some ppl prefer a porsche cayenne turbo, where as i would take a mod'd r34 gtr
Some would take a bently over a ferrari:confused: ,
point is every1 is different which is good, otherwise we wouldn't have such a large variety of sports cars in australia


General discussion on topics like these is a waste of space anyway imo (which i've jus contributed...:rolleyes: )

.::F[L]Y::.
30-10-2005, 05:05 PM
If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_shifty.gif

Thats sorta tru. S2K is designed as a high revving engine which at times can be a bitch to drive around town. In my old EM1 i shifted gears at 2-2.5k rpm in the S i shift gears around 3-4k rpm. ALso one good thing about the S2K since its release in 1999 it still hasnt changed much as oppose to the holdens or fords. A timeless shape and design.

krbz
30-10-2005, 05:10 PM
If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_shifty.gif

yeh u'd have to rev about 4-5k rpm to change gears, but its still a very fuel economical car compared to a hsv....

aaronng
30-10-2005, 06:25 PM
If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_shifty.gif
For normal driving and cruising, I'd pick HSV. But when I am in the need to rev some boobies off, then I'll choose the S2K. Given an ideal world, I'd have my usual ride (Euro) as a daily driver and the S2k for the weekends when I am feeling cruel towards the engine. hehe. :)
I don't think I'd buy a HSV in real life though. Because of fuel concerns.

Jus-10
30-10-2005, 07:23 PM
As a bit of triva, the Ferrari 208 GTB Turbo was pushing out 110bhp/litre from a 2.0 V8....and that was in 1980!

In 1984 the GTO produced 140bhp/litre.....

The awesome F40 was pushing 163bhp/litre in 1987....but that is one of the most fantastic cars ever built

So Ferrari have been producing some awesome figures since the beginning of the 80s...but we all know fez is in a different league...

Other more "mainstream" manufacurers can't match the levels of performance that that the awesome F20C creates....the s2k is a special car built for a niche market.

HSVs, whilst good cars and slowly coming up to speed, offer something different again and appeal to more mainstream wannabe V8 supercar racers.

aaronng
31-10-2005, 02:05 AM
But but but... all those are turbos..... I was thinking N/A

NeoNode
31-10-2005, 02:41 AM
Look at the BMW lineup of engines perhaps?

gelo
31-10-2005, 10:38 AM
watching gan san kick ass with the s2000 always makes me wanna buy one in the future

aaronng
31-10-2005, 12:38 PM
I remember in the first review of the S2000, Gan san said that from all the S2000s, the one he test must have been the worst. It also lost to a DC2R! The newer Best Motorings with the Type V instead is fast, even able to keep up with the M3 coupe (but not overtake). S2000 was faster in the corners but heaps slower in the straight (Gan-san driving)

8100rpm
31-10-2005, 02:04 PM
s2000 is farking hot !i would buy one if my bank account have the funds, who need that much power any way, i bet s2k can pick up more than hsv, and u know u getting a reliable fun car and its a convertible

industrie
31-10-2005, 07:13 PM
the car is a fun car thats about it..weekend car...not practical in the sense for road trips or stuff like that...its still a great car just depends on what you want to use it for..

Speeder
31-10-2005, 07:21 PM
i don't think the thread starter was comparing the HSV vs S2000, I think he was just talking about the initial power output differences for a similar priced cars.

mugeneration
31-10-2005, 08:31 PM
I remember in the first review of the S2000, Gan san said that from all the S2000s, the one he test must have been the worst. It also lost to a DC2R! The newer Best Motorings with the Type V instead is fast, even able to keep up with the M3 coupe (but not overtake). S2000 was faster in the corners but heaps slower in the straight (Gan-san driving)

Whats the difference between normal s2000 and the type V? And whats more, can u get the type Vs in australia? Ive often wondered this but have felt it too much of a noob question :o lol

NeoNode
31-10-2005, 08:50 PM
The Type V model of the S2000 denoted for its VGS (variable gear ratio steering).


The high steering gear ratio realizes sharp movement. However it was hard to maintain the stability when changing lanes. The VGS, based on the rack and pinion type steering, improve both stability and sporty handling by electrically controlling the gear ratio responding to speed and driving conditions. The body weight of the VGS equipped models is 20kg heavier.

aaronng
31-10-2005, 09:07 PM
^^ yup, and it also got revised damper, stabiliser bars and LSD to work with the VGS.

mugeneration
31-10-2005, 09:30 PM
So are these type V's available for purchase in australia? Or are they an import job?

aaronng
31-10-2005, 09:43 PM
I think they were Japan only.

mugeneration
31-10-2005, 09:45 PM
So if theyre just the same thing really with just extra stuff, would it be possible to just buy the individual parts and importing them rather than importing the whole car? Or are aftermarket stuff better anyway?

s2king
31-10-2005, 10:14 PM
I think they were Japan only.

Yes only in JAP you can get them, and they only come in special colours. Purpleish, paleish yellow and sort of a championship white. And plus they get a cool square steering wheel :)

spetz
01-11-2005, 03:07 AM
I haven't read through all the posts...

But in reply to the first post,
It's a aussie commodore... with a pushrod V8? Really no comparison...

But, I think the REAL question should be, why would anyone pay 70 grand for an S2000 when you can buy an evo 9 for high 50s???
Besides the fact that S2000 is a roadster and to some people that is a great appeal in itself...

For me, I would take the evo any day... actually I would take the evo for any car up to $150,000 (maybe an M3...)

Although... I have a weak spot for evo's... my knees feel weak when I see one...


"We didn't just build a car... we started a religion... Lancer Evolution"

aozora
01-11-2005, 04:08 AM
Talk about narrow minded... Even though a car uses "old technology", it still puts out more power and torque. Isn't that the main thing? And being old, the "technology" would be better researched/experimented with. It's not like they're unreliable because of it (generally obviously)? I don't know why Jap car forums love to use that "arguement".
Looking at the potential of V8s, they're nothing to be laughed at. And while still being N/A it is also responsive without going Turbo (Turbo'ed LS1s are scary... even N/A LS1s). Then everybody seems to be concerned about fuel consumption... when you start modding any car for more power, naturally your fuel consumption will go up in most cases (depending on what you do/what type of car N/A/Turbo etc) so unless you intend to keep the engine stock... or are just a tight ass/outright poor when it comes to petrol... :p If you're earning that much to afford either car, I'm sure money shouldn't be a problem.
And how come nobody hasn't mentioned torque figures? They're just as important... funny that...
Interior/Comfort too?
Engine potential of such a High comp N/A?

But totally different markets, I don't know why you would compare a Powerful 4 door Sedan to an Agile 2 door convertable. Especially on a Honda forum... it'd be fairer to compare it to a Toyota MR-S, Mazda MX-5 etc.

Definately don't get me wrong though. I love the AP1 chassis... I've yet to properly drive one but from what I hear and see, the cornering and corner entry/braking abilities of these cars are absolutely perfect for what I would want :) The looks and engine note are just a bonus ;)
It's just a pity the main market of this car (most sports cars actually...) is for cruisers/show offs... much like the other similar two examples I mentioned. I've yet to see a nicely modded S2000 example which didn't involve a kit and wing (Air intake/Exhaust doesn't count :p). And since earlier examples are getting cheaper, they're becoming more common... thus more within reach of a younger market (Chap laps with chromies anyone?). Shame to see all the testing at the Nurburgring go to waste like that :( In the end, if it makes people happy...

Miss Chanel
01-11-2005, 07:11 AM
I haven't read through all the posts...

But in reply to the first post,
It's a aussie commodore... with a pushrod V8? Really no comparison...

But, I think the REAL question should be, why would anyone pay 70 grand for an S2000 when you can buy an evo 9 for high 50s???
Besides the fact that S2000 is a roadster and to some people that is a great appeal in itself...

For me, I would take the evo any day... actually I would take the evo for any car up to $150,000 (maybe an M3...)

Although... I have a weak spot for evo's... my knees feel weak when I see one...


"We didn't just build a car... we started a religion... Lancer Evolution"

I completely agree with u. Even though the s2k looks hot, i couldnt justify spending that much. If i were to get a convertable i would wait till the mx5 turbo comes out..

And yep.. with that money i would def get an evo 9 or a gtr 34.

AP1 F20c
01-11-2005, 08:53 AM
they only come in special colours.

The JDM Type V is available in all line-up colors. Apart from the rear emblem on the bootlid, the key distinctive identification is the steering wheel.

http://www.honda.co.jp/S2000/concept/type-v/images/int.jpg

To appreciate and understand what an AP1/2, you need a whole lot more than straight comparisons of power or pricing. It's not different complaining about what the NA1/2 can do without the same appreciation and understanding. These are niche market cars, not cult cars.

aaronng
01-11-2005, 08:54 AM
I haven't read through all the posts...

But in reply to the first post,
It's a aussie commodore... with a pushrod V8? Really no comparison...

But, I think the REAL question should be, why would anyone pay 70 grand for an S2000 when you can buy an evo 9 for high 50s???
Besides the fact that S2000 is a roadster and to some people that is a great appeal in itself...

For me, I would take the evo any day... actually I would take the evo for any car up to $150,000 (maybe an M3...)

Although... I have a weak spot for evo's... my knees feel weak when I see one...


"We didn't just build a car... we started a religion... Lancer Evolution"
The engines in the HSV is almost the same as the one used in the previous generation Corvettes. Why is it no comparison? The only thing that the pushrod would lose out to a DOHC valvetrain would be the upper RPM limit. And we're talking about 8000rpm here. If you're talking about a 7000rpm redline, pushrods can achieve that with no problem. The LS7 engine has a 7000rpm redline. And pushrod engine have small heads that the packaging is much smaller than an equivalent capacity DOHC V8. To build a DOHC V8, you would need 4 camshafts and you would have twice the valvetrain inertia of an inline 4. A pushrod V8 only uses 1 camshaft to actuate all the valves.

In fact, pushrod's are just a way of actuating the valves. If you take the head out of the picture, then the block is similar to a DOHC engine.

EVOs are ok. You still get less than stellar performance under 3000rpm and then a frenzy above that. It's fun, but imagine trying to get off at the lights at 2000rpm! You wouldn't get too far before the camry in front of you cuts into your lane. If you launch at higher revs, then you would lose the camry, but then again, cops could mistake you for doing a traffic light drag. :(

Handling-wise, EVOs are nice though.

type one
01-11-2005, 08:59 AM
the two cars are cult cars amongst different enthusiasts.

honestly i'd take both - they are two worlds apart but both would be so much fun at different rpms :)

Seeing the comparison has been made however, to answer the original post, i wouldn't buy either brand new cos both need to shed some badge value - BOTH have a lot of money spent in R&D and BOTH out of the showroom would be great road and TRACK cars - let's not generalise here being on a Honda forum that the HSV wouldn't give the S2000 a run for its money, cos it would.

maybe we wait till HSV builds a drop top and then compare?

2NTICN
01-11-2005, 09:05 AM
No Vtec In A Hsv :wave:

aaronng
01-11-2005, 09:44 AM
Was a Holden V8 droptop ever made?

runwaycrackwhore
01-11-2005, 09:59 AM
yeah pushrods are old, but hell most big hp cars are still running pushrods to this day, go to the runs, you'll see what we mean.

lets not forget why vtec was invented in the first place, with efficiency in mind, it's really a comprimise for big power, in other words, it's good for what it is, and before someone goes and tells me this n/a record or this honda record, lets just thing how much money has gone into it?

if it was a daily driver i would seriously take the hsv, nice fat tourque where u need, it, not at 9k! sure a free revving engine to 9k is very fun indeed, but how often are you gonna use it.

around the tight stuff, sure the 2k comes into its own, but anything else the hsv handles just as good! dont be fooled by its weight and size, they can be made to handle trust me- just look at the imporved production class and the old procar races. this is where the hsv and 2k were on the same playing field.

i have driven both,l the s2k is a nice car, good handling, tight and steering is good around the tight stuff. but i personally like the hsv- its more of a challenge to drive and less of a boring drive. u really have to grab it by the balls so to speak. same thing with the evo sti gtr thing, the sti and evos are shit easy to drive, easy in out hard. whereas the gtr u need to grab it by the balls.

this is a honda forum, of course the sk is gonna get a good wrap but it all comes down to what you want it for, please ignore the misconceptions that the hsv cant handle cause it can. for my driving style, i can get quicker times with the hsv because my turn in induces a lot of understeer, so i do require a bit of rear steer out of corners, im not saying the s2000 doesnt provide this but u need to be more oin the limit to break traction.

runwaycrackwhore
01-11-2005, 10:02 AM
Was a Holden V8 droptop ever made?

why does it matter anyway? soft tops are for soft cocks :D

sorry had to say that :wave: , but i do like my s2k's, mate got one when the first came out, boy were they hot, there a more even playing field not that the 350z and co are out.

i think u should let the driving do the decision making for you, we can sit here all day and go on about the pros and cons of each car, but in the end all the politics goes out the door when you drive both cars at full song, one thing to remember in the hsv is, u give it some stick on the loud pedal, and u will not realise how fast it is until you look at the speedo!

type one
01-11-2005, 10:58 AM
i'd buy a hardtop for the S2k - looks better HAHAHAHA

s2king
01-11-2005, 11:13 AM
Talk about narrow minded... Even though a car uses "old technology", it still puts out more power and torque. Isn't that the main thing? And being old, the "technology" would be better researched/experimented with. It's not like they're unreliable because of it (generally obviously)? I don't know why Jap car forums love to use that "arguement".
Looking at the potential of V8s, they're nothing to be laughed at. And while still being N/A it is also responsive without going Turbo (Turbo'ed LS1s are scary... even N/A LS1s). Then everybody seems to be concerned about fuel consumption... when you start modding any car for more power, naturally your fuel consumption will go up in most cases (depending on what you do/what type of car N/A/Turbo etc) so unless you intend to keep the engine stock... or are just a tight ass/outright poor when it comes to petrol... :p If you're earning that much to afford either car, I'm sure money shouldn't be a problem.
And how come nobody hasn't mentioned torque figures? They're just as important... funny that...
Interior/Comfort too?
Engine potential of such a High comp N/A?

But totally different markets, I don't know why you would compare a Powerful 4 door Sedan to an Agile 2 door convertable. Especially on a Honda forum... it'd be fairer to compare it to a Toyota MR-S, Mazda MX-5 etc.

Definately don't get me wrong though. I love the AP1 chassis... I've yet to properly drive one but from what I hear and see, the cornering and corner entry/braking abilities of these cars are absolutely perfect for what I would want :) The looks and engine note are just a bonus ;)
It's just a pity the main market of this car (most sports cars actually...) is for cruisers/show offs... much like the other similar two examples I mentioned. I've yet to see a nicely modded S2000 example which didn't involve a kit and wing (Air intake/Exhaust doesn't count :p). And since earlier examples are getting cheaper, they're becoming more common... thus more within reach of a younger market (Chap laps with chromies anyone?). Shame to see all the testing at the Nurburgring go to waste like that :( In the end, if it makes people happy...

Very long post, but il try and simplify the main problem here.

2.0L N/A = 176kw thats 90kw per litre!!!

HSV (5.7L) = 260kw (aprox)
The HSV would need to produce about 520kw from its 5.7L engine to have something to compare it to the S2000.

But the bottom line is this, both cars are almost identical in STRAIGHT line speed. (Im comparing the s2k with the HSV club sport R8.)

So actualy I dont know why people like those high powered HSV's when the times they put down are in fact very much the same as an S2000, but they have much more POWER and much more FUEL consumption and much more CRAP under the bonnet:)
So thats if you compare the 2 completely different cars. But its silly to do that.

NeoNode
01-11-2005, 11:38 AM
All about low down torque la, the HSV definately has the advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly, without needing much revs what so ever.

Oh and the new HSV's are using the new LS2 GenIV V8 6.0L in capacity and pumping out 297kW & 530Nm.

I think i'll sway for the HSV everytime If I just needed something to cruise around in.

racinghonda
01-11-2005, 11:44 AM
For me, HSV = hotted up family car. S2000 = purpose built sports car. Sure you can make the 1700kg family car handle and grip but the 1700kg is still there. It would never feel as nimble as the S2000, its polar moment of inertia will never be in the same class as the S2K (which has the engine stuffed right back in the engine bay, behind the front axle line), it could never brake as deep into a corner as the S2k. It just doesn't do it for me.

runwaycrackwhore
01-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Very long post, but il try and simplify the main problem here.

2.0L N/A = 176kw thats 90kw per litre!!!

HSV (5.7L) = 260kw (aprox)
The HSV would need to produce about 520kw from its 5.7L engine to have something to compare it to the S2000.

But the bottom line is this, both cars are almost identical in STRAIGHT line speed. (Im comparing the s2k with the HSV club sport R8.)

So actualy I dont know why people like those high powered HSV's when the times they put down are in fact very much the same as an S2000, but they have much more POWER and much more FUEL consumption and much more CRAP under the bonnet:)
So thats if you compare the 2 completely different cars. But its silly to do that.

honda have achieved alot producing a engine such as this, but having said that you can't really achieve anything by doing the number crunching you have done, sure 90kw per liter is good, thats in the supercar league, but seriously, its alot easier to get good power per liter in a small engine, after that the engine size needs to be biger or blown to get something reliable, drivable etc. having said that do you think the sk2 is drivable? compare it to a 2stroke vs 4 stroke, the 2 strokes are fun, but they arent drivable for shit.

if u look at a graph, for the power of engines developed in a street car, power vs displacement, i think you will find the graph to peak pretty high in the under 2liter mark, after that it sorta flattens and climbs gradually between displacement vs power.

the hsv is the underdog in this argument, because it has cheated with extra cylinders and displacement, but if you compare the 2 from a standing start, they are even, but after that, rolling start the hsv would be the winner in all aspects, keeping in mind that in a circuit race there is only 1 standing start :)

Miss Chanel
01-11-2005, 12:13 PM
Sure theres alot of r&d gone into the development of the s2000, but team boss skaife would have some input on the hsv as well http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_dance.gif

I think in the end, he just has to test drive both to see which one's best for his driving style/conditions.

Btw... crackwhore, like my rex? :p

runwaycrackwhore
01-11-2005, 12:22 PM
Sure theres alot of r&d gone into the development of the s2000, but team boss skaife would have some input on the hsv as well http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/Maglet1986/eusa_dance.gif

I think in the end, he just has to test drive both to see which one's best for his driving style/conditions.

Btw... crackwhore, like my rex? :p

love it :love: :D cause its mine! ;)

i agree with the skaife comments, the experience gained from v8 supercar seires has seen the development of many great supercars- djr, hrt 427, tickfords, gtsr, etc,..,,,i just wish they would follow through with them!!!

and like she said, drive it, u will find both very pleasing to drive, the s2k does feel more "free" bodyroll is less severe and doesnt feel like a boat, but there nothing like cruising 100 and dropping a couple of gears on the freeway with the hsv. still, my relativley stock rex can keep up with the in 3rd. throw an evo into the equation!~!!!!

NeoNode
01-11-2005, 01:42 PM
Oh yeah lets not forget the US market recieved the F22C to boost low end torque :p

Pogi
01-11-2005, 02:28 PM
i wanna see more johnny trans on the road

complete with black wife beaters :p

aka_NSX
01-11-2005, 02:47 PM
you just can not compare between Honda N Holden :cool: , definitely Honda got a better technology, Honda can make any horse power if they need to..... then again who can drive the car after that ??? because Honda always think that everyone at all age can drive and enjoy the car not only power

Speeder
01-11-2005, 03:18 PM
and like she said, drive it, u will find both very pleasing to drive, the s2k does feel more "free" bodyroll is less severe and doesnt feel like a boat, but there nothing like cruising 100 and dropping a couple of gears on the freeway with the hsv. still, my relativley stock rex can keep up with the in 3rd. throw an evo into the equation!~!!!!

Drop a couple of gears in the HSV at 100? HA! No need, just drop one, the torque is available as long as you have the right peddle buried in the carpet.

wtf u gavin?!? sup

hondaboy
01-11-2005, 03:39 PM
S2000 Is Stpobk Pice Of Shit

Miss Chanel
01-11-2005, 03:47 PM
Drop a couple of gears in the HSV at 100? HA! No need, just drop one, the torque is available as long as you have the right peddle buried in the carpet.

wtf u gavin?!? sup
Hi yuki :wave: yeh, that was gav :rolleyes:

aaronng
01-11-2005, 04:24 PM
The way to overcome the lack or low rpm torque is simple. Add more cylinders and bump the capacity. To look for F20C-equivalent engines with larger capacities would be the E46 M3's 3.2L. It has double Vanos that does cam timing and lift, makes high RPM power as well as still staying drivable. And another example is the Ferrari F430. :) The catch is that you need to multiply the cost of the engine. That's why you don't see many high hp/litre cars down in the lower price range.

s2king
01-11-2005, 04:29 PM
All about low down torque la, the HSV definately has the advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly, without needing much revs what so ever.

Oh and the new HSV's are using the new LS2 GenIV V8 6.0L in capacity and pumping out 297kW & 530Nm.

I think i'll sway for the HSV everytime If I just needed something to cruise around in.

Yeah no arguments there with torque, I mean your always gona get better torque with a V8 then a S2K N/A, well at least these days anyway. But what do you mean advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly?
I mean you can effortlessly drive around suburban areas with the S2000 also, stay under 6000rpm and drive around anywhere fine, and if you wish to go hard, well simply go over 6000rpm and keep pushing it. I dont see how hard it is. With the S2000 normall everyday driving you will get much much better fuel economy than with your high powered HSV.
I dont understand when you just say "HSV definately has the advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly, without needing much revs what so ever".
All I can say to that is, maybe its easier to drive because 1. Completely different cars 2. HSV made for comfort 3. Its not a convertible, so better sound absorbtion 4. The VTEC engines easpesialy the S2K's are very harsh and loud. Maybe your just getting a plesibo effect :) haha

Speeder
01-11-2005, 05:54 PM
Hi yuki :wave: yeh, that was gav :rolleyes:

Hey maggie :wave:

So it was you with the new Jazz ;) looks good.

NeoNode
01-11-2005, 06:27 PM
I dont understand when you just say "HSV definately has the advantage of driving around suburban areas effortlessly, without needing much revs what so ever".

One look at the power curve for both cars is all that's needed to know which one can be driven lazily without having to constantly be hunting for correct gear. All that torque in the HSV will have no probs to be in the wrong gear and still pull effortlessly for example up a hill. The S2000 reminds me of turbo lag on the STi, it's gutless until that turbo kicks in.

And cruising on the highway at 110km/h, what revs is the S2000 doing? With it's short gearing, IMO it's not very practical at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not biased to either of the cars, but at the end of the day the HSV will most likely be easier to drive in everyday conditions. Disregarding what potentials that may be apparent when pushed to the limits, if you drive according to the book that is.

But given that I wouldn't buy a HSV. Hope that clears it up what I meant.
As the saying goes, "Torque gets you moving, Kilowatts keeps you there"

But it doesn't matter, there's always a reason why someone would buy a Mini, Mazda MX5, Lotus Elise etc, even if they are better buys out there for less money.

s2king
01-11-2005, 08:37 PM
One look at the power curve for both cars is all that's needed to know which one can be driven lazily without having to constantly be hunting for correct gear. All that torque in the HSV will have no probs to be in the wrong gear and still pull effortlessly for example up a hill. The S2000 reminds me of turbo lag on the STi, it's gutless until that turbo kicks in.

And cruising on the highway at 110km/h, what revs is the S2000 doing? With it's short gearing, IMO it's not very practical at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not biased to either of the cars, but at the end of the day the HSV will most likely be easier to drive in everyday conditions. Disregarding what potentials that may be apparent when pushed to the limits, if you drive according to the book that is.

But given that I wouldn't buy a HSV. Hope that clears it up what I meant.
As the saying goes, "Torque gets you moving, Kilowatts keeps you there"

But it doesn't matter, there's always a reason why someone would buy a Mini, Mazda MX5, Lotus Elise etc, even if they are better buys out there for less money.

When you say "its not practical at all" is subject to opinion. And its just your opinion, everyone has different driving styles and what they like out of a car.
For me personaly, I dont find the S2000 hard to drive, I find it practical because I didnt buy the car to carry 4 other passangers, I didnt buy the car so I can have great torque, and as for your comment about the highway, I certainly didnt buy the S2000 to be driving constantly on a highway. Like I said it comes down to personal choice, because they are so different.
The "flaws" that might be in any car, might not be a flaw for somebody else.

NeoNode
01-11-2005, 08:53 PM
IMO it's not very practical at all.
Do notice the "IMO" which stands for "In My Opinion"
I definately knew my opinion is highly subjective that's why I placed the "IMO" in the first place.

Cheers.

aaronng
01-11-2005, 08:55 PM
Actually, in daily everyday driving below the speed limit, the throttle opening that you use is very small and coupled by the low revs under 4000rpm means you are using a very small amount of power, probably about 50hp if you are not gunning it. Both cars will be able to do it. You only use more power when you are overtaking. To do so you can either increase the torque (by opening the throttle) or by increasing the revs. The HSV does it by increasing the torque, while the S2000 increase the revs.

At 100km/h, the S2000 should be at 3500rpm if I remember correctly.

To me, short gearing doesn't mean that it is impractical. The only disadvantage is that you'd be at a higher RPM and could cause your passenger to have a droning ride. The good thing is that you only have 1 passenger complaining instead of 3! Rather, a small drop in RPM when upshifting is more impractical for driving around the city. Lots of shifting will be involved then. The S2000's RPM drop when shifting is not bad.

aozora
02-11-2005, 03:32 AM
Very long post, but il try and simplify the main problem here.

2.0L N/A = 176kw thats 90kw per litre!!!

HSV (5.7L) = 260kw (aprox)
The HSV would need to produce about 520kw from its 5.7L engine to have something to compare it to the S2000.

But the bottom line is this, both cars are almost identical in STRAIGHT line speed. (Im comparing the s2k with the HSV club sport R8.)

So actualy I dont know why people like those high powered HSV's when the times they put down are in fact very much the same as an S2000, but they have much more POWER and much more FUEL consumption and much more CRAP under the bonnet:)
So thats if you compare the 2 completely different cars. But its silly to do that.

For some reason after reading your other posts and obviously your nick... you're going to defend the S2k to the death. Hard to be not biased huh? :p

Anyway, I wasn't talking about efficiency which you seem to love to bring up. Yes we know per litre it's very impressive but that's not what I'm talking about. Let ME compare them...

We'll use your example..... HSV Clubsport R8 LS2
6.0L V8 (Not 5.7L...)
297kw @ 6000rpm (Not 260kw approx)
530nm @ 4400rpm
Redline 6500rpm

Weight?
Fuel economy?

vs

Honda S2000 F20C
2L 4 cyl
176kw @ 8300rpm
208nm @ 7500rpm
Redline of 9000rpm

Weight of 1255kg
10 Litres per 100km

Now it's obvious, you have to rev the shit out of the S2000 to get it to go anywhere. In MY opinion, that's not very common for an everyday car. Most have or aim for a flat power/torque curve. For your AVERAGE driver, I don't see them rev-matching or down gearing often just to drive around the city... do you? For the R8, it's called pedal to the metal... and you're gone. We all know you're a pro driver and the S2000 is heaven sent, but I think most other people here mean your average joe/yuppie who will be choosing between them (if they were the options although very different...).

Now straight line speed equal?

R8 from the HSV website www.hsv.com.au
1/4 mile in 13.3 secs (Auto is for babies)
0-100km/hr in 5.1 secs

S2000?
From here...
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7
0-100km/hr in 6.2 secs.
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/timeslips.php?do=quarter&perpage=25&page=2
0-400m... assuming hondaboy is a good driver, 14.691
Hell let's throw in a modded example... Supercharged.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0108scc_comptech/
0-400m... 13.8 secs

.5 seconds is still a fair difference between the two, considering one is modded. So... I've shown my proof, where's yours? Identical in a straight line? I don't think so.

Fuel consumption? Ask RX-7 owners about fuel consumption and see if they care? If they have fun and are friggin fast, I'm sure you wouldn't care either. But without figures on the HSV R8, I can't clearly compare. Although you're probably right, but how "right" I can't say...

Crap under the bonnet? Like plastic? Ever looked in your S2000's engine bay recently? If I remember the air intake design involves alot of crap... ABS heat shielding and other bits and pieces. But that's just a glance... have you worked on both cars and pulled them both apart?

You don't know why people like them when they're almost equal?? Didn't you say that TO YOU, it's fine driving around in the city but different to other people? So why do people have to like the S2000 like you instead of the HSV? Double standards don't you think?

You didn't simplify squat of my "main problem" and your points really aren't credible as I've just shown... so what are you getting at... really? Try to be a bit more open minded when comparing... instead of making stuff up.

Basically two different markets... although both are "sports cars" in their own regards, there's still no point in comparing. Apples to Oranges. That is to say... imo :)

...and aka_NSX... say again?

PS: Ahah sorry for the long post but I actually wanted to read up more proper figures on both cars anyway so...!

dragons2k
02-11-2005, 06:55 AM
man comparing cars is like comparing religions, why bother... go with the one that u like! i drive S2000 everyday to work etc, save me petrol and ohh that VTEC sound... :P why bother compare Family Sedan VS Sports Convertable pull out all the facts and stats who cares... test drive it and go with the one that you feel right! personal opinion i wouldnt buy the HSV coz they are everywhere and looks like commodore :P

aka_NSX
02-11-2005, 08:37 AM
test drive it and go with the one that you feel right! personal opinion i wouldnt buy the HSV coz they are everywhere and looks like commodore :P

agree w/ dragons2k just get the one u feel right . . .
IMO forget the HSV, its just a commodore w/ V8 + kit

aaronng
02-11-2005, 11:02 AM
One more thing to add. If you are comparing the peak power that the car makes, then the fuel consumption figures that you all are quoting goes out the window. No way do you get 10L/100km when you are extracting 176kW. Heck, even if you were constantly extracting 1/2 of that power (88kW), you'd still exceed 10L/100km.

aozora
02-11-2005, 01:34 PM
One more thing to add. If you are comparing the peak power that the car makes, then the fuel consumption figures that you all are quoting goes out the window. No way do you get 10L/100km when you are extracting 176kW. Heck, even if you were constantly extracting 1/2 of that power (88kW), you'd still exceed 10L/100km.

Hehe, that 10L/100km figure was off the Honda website... but yer if you're redlining every gear, laters to that.

And yer, I say it's all up to personal choice cause they're too different for "like-minded" enthusiasts (Convertables, Lightweight RWD etc or High powered Family "Sports" sedans etc). But somebody decided to compare them originally... then compare them again with bs... so.... :)

CONAN
02-11-2005, 01:38 PM
The heading should be changed to

' Why NOT a s2000? '

LOL

.::F[L]Y::.
02-11-2005, 02:53 PM
1/4 times for stock s2000 can vary according to conditions. But the general concensus for stock s2ks down the 1/4 seem to be low to mid 14s. Though in a best motoring vid i saw the car did a 14 flat (probably jap spec). S2000 isnt designed as a drag car as the diff is quite weak, and isnt the easiest of cars to get off the line, but around the track is a different story :)

TECBOY
02-11-2005, 07:33 PM
wats the point buying a car coz "its good on a track".....
its to b driven 99 percent on the road
b realistic here people for gods sake....
i pity u all and ur biast ways

R123
02-11-2005, 08:41 PM
i guess there are some cars are bought according to the heart, some cars are according to the head. S2000 is surely one of them. Is sexy, is fast, is a roadster, and that means is a TWO seaters only. how abt u got more than one gf? hehehehe
For those s2000 owners, i am sure there some racing bits in ur blood. carry ON..!!

HSV? Wot HSV? heheheheh

8100rpm
02-11-2005, 08:43 PM
the s2000 is expansive to buy but it will save u lot of petrol compare to the big hsv around town, and if changing the right gear is too hard 4 u, why not get an auto?

NeoNode
02-11-2005, 08:46 PM
the s2000 is expansive to buy but it will save u lot of petrol compare to the big hsv around town, and if changing the right gear is too hard 4 u, why not get an auto?

Automatic S2000? LOL!!!

.::F[L]Y::.
02-11-2005, 08:49 PM
i reckon comparing an nissan s15 to s2000 would be better than a hsv haha but this thread isnt about that....il start one up later on. Cause i have been thinking of swapping over to the dark side....

aaronng
02-11-2005, 11:00 PM
Automatic S2000? LOL!!!
You can if your chick is shifting your knob for you :D

aozora
03-11-2005, 12:38 AM
Y::.']i reckon comparing an nissan s15 to s2000 would be better than a hsv haha but this thread isnt about that....il start one up later on. Cause i have been thinking of swapping over to the dark side....

Comeeeee haha :p

Damn so many people whinging about petrol...

Pogi
03-11-2005, 08:24 AM
the older s2000s are not too badly priced

they can be had for just under 40k or around 40-45k which is great

hmmmz..im pondering whether i shouldve got one of these 2nd hand instead of a new crv

evilsub
03-11-2005, 09:01 AM
fly, ill swap u my s15 for your s2k =)

8100rpm
03-11-2005, 10:21 AM
Automatic S2000? LOL!!!

no what i meant was why not get an auto car

Miss Chanel
03-11-2005, 10:53 AM
Why would anyone want a s2000.. when they can buy a wrx for half the price.. *nudge nudge wink wink*

faijai
03-11-2005, 11:05 AM
the s2k and the hsv is like completely different cars!!
when it comes down to it, ur personal prefernece is the decidint factor. 2 door sexy convertable or a 4 door beatsy v8?

for me the commos r too big and im too tiny for one. i'ld rather evo/wrx as a 4 door.

8100rpm
03-11-2005, 11:24 AM
the s2k and the hsv is like completely different cars!!
when it comes down to it, ur personal prefernece is the decidint factor. 2 door sexy convertable or a 4 door beatsy v8?

for me the commos r too big and im too tiny for one. i'ld rather evo/wrx as a 4 door.

haha thats what i think too if i were driving a big commo it wont look right cause i am so skinny and have a small head

Pogi
03-11-2005, 12:51 PM
Automatic S2000? LOL!!!
i wouldnt mind an auto s2000...only cos im lazy :p

EK9
03-11-2005, 09:40 PM
i've only skimmed thru all the pages, but hasn't anyone factored in the fact that the s2k arrives on our shores via a boat after leaving another country? gets whacked with all the fees and taxes imaginable?

anyway, at the end of the day it's whatever tickles ya fancy... i'd take one of the hottest and reasonably affordable convertibles on the market over a 5L V8 supercharged petrol guzzler beast anyday.

Chris_F
03-11-2005, 10:21 PM
IMO this is a really bad comparison...

dragons2k
03-11-2005, 11:00 PM
btw i dont think theres an automatic S2k :P

FB008
04-11-2005, 12:01 AM
s2000 ftw :thumbsup:

there is no auto s2k, that would be wrong!!!

vti-2
04-11-2005, 11:47 AM
IMO this is a really bad comparison...

:thumbsup:

.::F[L]Y::.
04-11-2005, 12:28 PM
actually there are automatic s2000s...

sivic
04-11-2005, 03:45 PM
not in this country. i'm sure they would have them in the US though :rolleyes:
but yeah, this is a silly comparison. as soon as you drive an S2000 and a HSV you'll know why the S2000 is better. unless you only care about going fast in a straight line.
also, i guess if you were blind the decision may be a little harder

dragons2k
05-11-2005, 10:07 AM
hehe thats true sivic :) plus you cant really compare other cars rather then honda in honda forum, obviously ppl will lean towards Honda more :) but in this case i still prefer the S2k over HSV hehehe :P

VTi-R Civic
15-11-2005, 12:18 PM
Hey all,
friend and i were having a discussion tonight.
we were wondering where does the $70k go when u buy a S2000.

Why wouldnt someone buy a HSV with almost 300kw and 530nm tourqe for $61k.

From what the official website tells us, the HSV looks better on paper.
So, what actually makes the S2000 worth the $70,000?

*NOTE: Before Flaming, were not saying ones better than the other..... were just looking to be more....informed.

thanks:wave::wave:

In terms of the car compariosn you were comparing apples to oranges.

I don't see how anyone actually looking to buy a car would seriously have those two cars on the same purchase list.

Why buy a Falcon Turbo over an MX5?

To answer your question, you pay for engineering, increased complexity and the increased costs that go with that, different materials, development, import duty, taxes, etc, etc.

toE
15-11-2005, 01:09 PM
Y::.']actually there are automatic s2000s...

Really?

Andys
15-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Why an S2K? Put simply, the fun factor. When you get in and start pushing it around, its loads of fun!

When getting in an HSV all I can think is 'drop a big-ass oversized engine in a big heavy chassis, big deal'. For me the elements excessiveness detracts from the experience and it creates unbalance, whereas in the S2k it feels like a well rounded fun package.

The fact that its a convertible is the only thing stopping me personally ever getting one (an S2K, that is)

s2king
15-11-2005, 06:11 PM
Why an S2K? Put simply, the fun factor. When you get in and start pushing it around, its loads of fun!

When getting in an HSV all I can think is 'drop a big-ass oversized engine in a big heavy chassis, big deal'. For me the elements excessiveness detracts from the experience and it creates unbalance, whereas in the S2k it feels like a well rounded fun package.

The fact that its a convertible is the only thing stopping me personally ever getting one (an S2K, that is)

Are you sure thats all thats stoping you from getting an S2000???? Well there are hardtops available, so the fact that its a convertible shouldnt stop you.

hondaboy
15-11-2005, 07:25 PM
sometimes i wish the s2k was hardtop stock

Andys
16-11-2005, 07:02 AM
Are you sure thats all thats stoping you from getting an S2000???? Well there are hardtops available, so the fact that its a convertible shouldnt stop you.

Its just not the same thing. I hate the look of the S2k from the rear. To me It still looks like a wanky convertible from behind and from the sides. love the front though!

NSX or bust!!

blusir2
19-11-2005, 12:59 AM
Its just not the same thing. I hate the look of the S2k from the rear. To me It still looks like a wanky convertible from behind and from the sides. love the front though!

NSX or bust!!

ah man i cant believe im hearing this... i came from a civic EG6 driver to my S2K now.. have worked on many many civics and DC2 type-r's in my years...

I looove the B series engines and know them inside out.. but.. the S2K is in a different class.. its got a monocoque body, 50-50 balance.. worlds most powerful N/A 2.0 litre engine and.. yes.. it is a convertible..

after owning my EG6 and having worked on it a lot i know the difference between the lowest model honda at the time to the higher one.. but u have to give it to honda.. even though the civic was the cheapest model at the time it still has double wishbone suspension... nothin in its class out handles it.. especially if u got a set of TODA fightex Dual adjusts in it.. hahaha.. my EG6 handled like it was on rails.. but very rattly and cheap...

the S2K is just a very well built car in my mind... aluminium bonnet, aluminium encased bushings.. the money went to a lot of engineering and fine details..

but everyone has different opinions.. so its a personal choice too... dun forget .... its a 2 seater as well and i am starting to find that quite inconvenient now...

Andys
19-11-2005, 06:32 PM
I respect your opinion. The S2K chassis and engine are definitely that good.

I just get the feeling most of the S2K buyers couldn't care less.. on the way home the other day I passed a few S2Ks, all driven by women, about 10km/h under the speedlimit. *I* appreciate it when I see one, because I know about the fine engineering detail, its an awesome car. But to 99% of people its just a showy/flashy "fun in the sun" sports car, by its nature.

Given the sheer inconvenience of the convertible, and that is an FR layout, that is what spawned my comment "NSX or bust" -- if I'm going to own a 2 seater sportscar, it may as well be the grandaddy VTEC, a true mid-ship layout and no missing roof :D

Owning a DC2R at present I can barely afford an S2k, but if honda put that much engineering effort into a hard-top/sports coupe, I'd really want to own one!

- Andrew

BigWillieStyles
15-01-2006, 01:08 AM
I kinda feel that the S2000 is alittle overpriced here in australia, comparing it to the new MX5 roadster which is priced at $45,000, which kinda offers a similar style of convertible roadster.

roar
10-04-2006, 09:48 PM
one thing ppl are forgetting is running costs (not petrol...just basic servicing charges) and responsiveness to modding (for ppl on this forum, its rare to leave cars stock)

looking from that perspective, it does point to the big aussie barge...

but passionately speaking, s2k for sure...but so so impractical...i would never get an s2k as my only car...but i'd love to have one as a weekend car

ROLLED
10-04-2006, 10:47 PM
how can you compare a S2k to a MX-5? i'd get the s2k just based on looks..."kinda similar"??? your joking surely...

lokchoy
11-04-2006, 12:16 AM
the extra 10,000 dollars difference in the hsv and s2k went to labouring to remove the rear seats from the s2k

ROLLED
11-04-2006, 01:18 AM
$10,000 difference went into a decent chassis, a better engine, a better badge (LOL), a sexier car, a better ride and something respectable...sif u'd get a HSV...

Fr3aKi3
11-04-2006, 09:28 AM
It also went into a weight difference of 400+kg!!!

s2king
11-04-2006, 02:49 PM
Is anyone going to close this thread? Coz its pointless. Everyone is always going to have a difference of opinion.

.::F[L]Y::.
11-04-2006, 05:33 PM
i agree with you S2king...

i dont really see the point of these threads, just ends up being a shit fight. Everyone buys a car for various reasons and everyone has different tastes.

ECU-MAN
11-04-2006, 08:19 PM
it gone off topic

so
there it is :)