what I love about my car.

Hi guys

I had a debate with a mate of mine who drives an 04 renault megane sport 225 (fat bum)
he said that an S2000 being 75k new, for the money you don't get alot of car for your money

I debated saying the S2000 isn't about what it has but what it doesn't have.
The S2 is a pure drivers car which hasn't the need for gizmos/ gadgets, heated seats, wank wank etc.

if i wanted a computer id buy a mac book pro, if I wanted a car id buy an S2000
I love that its only designed for the driver.
All controls are at the drivers fingertips, the stereo is hidden away as its not important.
its you, the wheel, the gear knob and a raging tacho lighting up infront of your eyes.

my grandma could get in his megane and do a good lap time, as there are that many computers to keep the car on the track, the S2000 on the other hand requires a real driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garett

Hi guys

I had a debate with a mate of mine who drives an 04 renault megane sport 225 (fat bum)
he said that an S2000 being 75k new, for the money you don't get alot of car for your money

I debated saying the S2000 isn't about what it has but what it doesn't have.
The S2 is a pure drivers car which hasn't the need for gizmos/ gadgets, heated seats, wank wank etc.

if i wanted a computer id buy a mac book pro, if I wanted a car id buy an S2000
I love that its only designed for the driver.
All controls are at the drivers fingertips, the stereo is hidden away as its not important.
its you, the wheel, the gear knob and a raging tacho lighting up infront of your eyes.

my grandma could get in his megane and do a good lap time, as there are that many computers to keep the car on the track, the S2000 on the other hand requires a real driver.

---

Real driver with a really big wallet. + a continuous income to keep up with the up keep costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALPS

Real driver with a really big wallet. + a continuous income to keep up with the up keep costs.

---

from your posts it sounds like it. you must really love it!

I see the S2000 as a case of balance rather than excess. It has everything it needs to be a performance sports car without any extra bells and whistles to dilute it's purpose. In my mind anyone who would favour a front wheel drive car over a rear wheel drive car because it has more cup holders ain't got their head on straight.

And in most people's case it doesn't cost that much as long as you maintain it properly and bought a good one in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garett

Hi guys

I had a debate with a mate of mine who drives an 04 renault megane sport 225 (fat bum)
he said that an S2000 being 75k new, for the money you don't get alot of car for your money

I debated saying the S2000 isn't about what it has but what it doesn't have.
The S2 is a pure drivers car which hasn't the need for gizmos/ gadgets, heated seats, wank wank etc.

if i wanted a computer id buy a mac book pro, if I wanted a car id buy an S2000
I love that its only designed for the driver.
All controls are at the drivers fingertips, the stereo is hidden away as its not important.
its you, the wheel, the gear knob and a raging tacho lighting up infront of your eyes.

my grandma could get in his megane and do a good lap time, as there are that many computers to keep the car on the track, the S2000 on the other hand requires a real driver.

---

:thumbsup:

For a road car, the S2000 is fairly pure and raw as a drivers car. In its original form, apart from ABS, there were no electronics to keep you on the road. The other thing to remember, is that when the S2000 was released, one could argue that its competition was over-priced (i.e. Z3, Boxster, SLK320). IMO, Honda don't do a great job of evolving their performance cars, and compounded by stiff competition in 2003 from completely new cars like the 350Z, RX8, EVO, and an evolved/improved Z3 (read Z4) and Boxster, the unchanged S2000 was no longer as attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9large

compounded by stiff competition in 2003 from completely new cars like the 350Z, RX8, EVO, and an evolved/improved Z3 (read Z4) and Boxster, the unchanged S2000 was no longer as attractive.

---

I don't necessarily agree with this. The 350Z is was very good value for money but it has a truck engine. The RX8 was a complete let down and the EVO is a Lancer (albeit a very fast one). The Z3/4 and Boxsters were either more money for less performance or a lot more money for the same.

And out of all of them, only the S2000 is built by hand, in low volume, and with any sort of passion.

That said, the sales figures back up your opinion. But for me, I still would have bought the S2000.

The 2 face-ness off the S2000 is awesome.. An MX5 until 5500. And the fact that the bitches love it..

Almost as much as they love to be referred to as 'bitches' I expect.

I see what you're trying to say VeYzZii, but I hate it when the S2000 is referred to as an MX5... :)

Well, I'd be in the same boat (or is it car?) as you Aus. For what I wanted, none of those cars really matched what I was after for the price (although I almost bought an EVO8 instead). BUT, for the average person who probably doesn't understand - or is after - what the S2000 was designed for, the other options post-2003 were more attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusS2000

Almost as much as they love to be referred to as 'bitches' I expect.

---

Oath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9large

I see what you're trying to say VeYzZii, but I hate it when the S2000 is referred to as an MX5... :)

Well, I'd be in the same boat (or is it car?) as you Aus. For what I wanted, none of those cars really matched what I was after for the price (although I almost bought an EVO8 instead). BUT, for the average person who probably doesn't understand - or is after - what the S2000 was designed for, the other options post-2003 were more attractive.

---

+1 The s2000 is not a MX5 and should not be referred to as one.

I was in the same boat about 2 months before I bought my s2000 I saw a EVO VIII in the central coast for 20K with only 20,000 km on the clock, in some ways I regret not buying it - because it was such a steal, but I am happy with the choice I made.

There is a video on youtube of top gear, s2000 vs z4 vs boxster, Clarkson absoutly loved the s2000. I think they all finished with in a second around the top gear test track. (despite the s2000 coming last)

Out here in the sticks, with no Honda dealer for miles, very few people have ever heard of an S2000. Even fewer have knowingly seen one.

When I slip around town, as quietly as I would in a Jazz, most locals think I'm just another hair dresses, in my MX5, & pay no attention. This is exactly what I want.

When on my way home, I catch old farmer Jim, in his 20 year old diesel Hilux cruising at 85Km/H I can slip past quietly in 6Th, & he'll probably not notice me.

However if I'm in a hurry, & there is not a Km of open road, I can blast past in 3Rd, & keep going. Farmer Jim will probably think "bl00dy idiot hair dresser", & then forget me.

I love it that everyone out here thinks it's just another MX5, it keeps me anonomus.

my previous car was an 89 NA6 eunos roadster, which in my opinion was the best original MX5, had subtle handling and performance mods.

Loved it.

My 2000 S2000 is by far the best car I have ever owned. Honda took the simplicity and amplified it by using a similar approach to the MX5 - less is more in this case, there is no other car even in the market today which does the same thing. Its raw and simple and thats what I love about it.

my close friend who drives a 350z track loves driving my car, and other than the beautiful exhaust note I dont really like driving his.
I haven't experienced a RX8, and an EVO is a different target market/league all together.

they laugh that I dont even have cruise control, I laugh and say it wasn't designed for cruising!

Now that I totally agree with.

The original MX-5 was what I love in a car, with the volume set on 7. The S2000 is the same formula, turned up to 11. And my S2000 turbo follows the theme, but turned way up to 22 (psi). ;)

very jealous Aus

what you think of my NA6?

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...1/IMG_0044.jpg

It was overpriced. Thats why so little sold.
Facts are facts, and the proof is in the sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garett

what you think of my NA6?

---

Nice tidy unit. But what's under the hood? ;)

There are more cockroaches than humans. Does that make them better?

There are more Hyundai Excels than S2000s. Same argument.

Ok, so the S doesn't make economic sense. It costs more than a Commodore. Nor does it make practical sense. You can't haul around a nagging wife and 2.4 screaming kids in it.

What you're using as proof here is the results of the general car buying public, mediocrity at it's best. I ascribe to a slightly higher standard.

So when I'm sitting in my mother's basement and she's screaming at me to do my homework nothing beats blasting a few mountain roads in the S and I have no regrets about buying it. Simple as that.

Here's another thought. It's a nice sunny day and I'm out cruising in the S. How many 'practical, economic car' drivers wish they were in my position. I certainly never wish I was in theirs.

http://justbritish.com/jaguar-xf-is-...of-the-decade/

S2000 came 6th. And that's in a country where a sunny day is rarer than a blue moon.

I agree with Aus and garett. The S2000's purity is its allure. I also thought it was great value when I bought my '03 new - I didn't want an over-priced mid-engined beetle and the other German stuff was just tripe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h3nno

+1 The s2000 is not a MX5 and should not be referred to as one.

I was in the same boat about 2 months before I bought my s2000 I saw a EVO VIII in the central coast for 20K with only 20,000 km on the clock, in some ways I regret not buying it - because it was such a steal, but I am happy with the choice I made.

There is a video on youtube of top gear, s2000 vs z4 vs boxster, Clarkson absoutly loved the s2000. I think they all finished with in a second around the top gear test track. (despite the s2000 coming last)

---

Oh oh oh....u mean this one:

http://fliiby.com/file/455947/dj36c54h2s.html

Its what drew me closer to buying one when I first thought about it.

But this is where Sir Clarkson gave it his alll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_OkORHOqY

Aus you crack me up. you make the best arguments.!! haha,

its just a shame that Honda will probably never make another car like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h3nno

+1 The s2000 is not a MX5 and should not be referred to as one.

I was in the same boat about 2 months before I bought my s2000 I saw a EVO VIII in the central coast for 20K with only 20,000 km on the clock, in some ways I regret not buying it - because it was such a steal, but I am happy with the choice I made.

There is a video on youtube of top gear, s2000 vs z4 vs boxster, Clarkson absoutly loved the s2000. I think they all finished with in a second around the top gear test track. (despite the s2000 coming last)

---

Yea totally. I think you misunderstood. I hate it being referred to as an MX5, its happened to many times. But the fact is, power wise it is like an MX5 till Vtec.

this thread makes me want an S2000.... hmmm feel like selling up both cars to get one. It will have to be turbo as i drove one n/a and it just didnt seem to be that quick ?
maybe it was a lemon.

Don't take this personally but if an NA S2000 doesn't seem quick to you you're not driving it right. I expect the defective part was the nut that holds the wheel. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusS2000

I expect the defective part was the nut that holds the wheel. :)

---

HAHAHA!! that's funny

lol dont get me wrong i was giving it all its got, just expected more from it.... i guess 14 second cars just dont do it for me anymore

On the track the s2000 even in stock form is fast enough, on the road it does take effort to get it going. 4.77 Final drive sorts that out though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSi_PSi

i guess 14 second cars just dont do it for me anymore

---

The S2000 is like a fine woman. You gotta last more than 14 seconds.

For a guy with k20 eg and b20 dc2, I am not surprise when he said s2000 is slow.

If you're after a drag car, the S2000 is not for you. Get a Falcodore.
If you're after a car to cruise in comfortably, the S2000 is not for you. Get an S15.
If you're after a car to pull skids in, the S2000 is not for you. Get any of the above.
If you do get an S2000 and complain about any of the above, give yourself an uppercut.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9large

if you're after a drag car, the s2000 is not for you. Get a falcodore.
If you're after a car to cruise in comfortably, the s2000 is not for you. Get an s15.
If you're after a car to pull skids in, the s2000 is not for you. Get any of the above.
If you do get an s2000 and complain about any of the above, give yourself an uppercut.

:)

---

LOL. Niceee :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSi_PSi

lol dont get me wrong i was giving it all its got, just expected more from it.... i guess 14 second cars just dont do it for me anymore

---

why do you like hondas then?

get a SCHKYLINE BRO

im on p plates :( ... Off my P's looking at either an EVO or GTR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSi_PSi

im on p plates :( ... Off my P's looking at either an EVO or GTR

---

GET OFF THIS FORUM! :p