You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000

Honda S2000

604 messages,  Last post on Mar 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM

You are in the Honda S2000 Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Honda S2000, Convertible

Messages Page 13 of 62 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 62 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#112 of 604 by sphinx99 Aug 03, 2004 (8:11 am)
tirerack.com has wheels and tires. I do understand that the S2000 as a funky offset which significantly limits the choices. eBay has a smattering of wheels, too.   I like the '04 rims, which fill out the look of the car nicely. Granted, some people would prefer a more BMW-style or Corvette-Style look. Just not me.
#113 of 604 S2000 Insurance by clint98v6at Aug 03, 2004 (8:11 am)
The Netscape home page today lists a survey of the most expensive to insure cars under $40K. The S2000 tied the Mustang GT Convertible as most expensive to insure with an average cost of $2,363/yr. The survey was done by Runzheimer International.   $2,363 seems awfully high to me for this car. What are you owners paying?
#114 of 604 clint98 by carliker Aug 03, 2004 (12:02 pm)
I checked out that netscape.com article about insurance. I don't know about sphinx and other S2000 owners here, but I pay nowhere near that amount. I'll be paying $823.20 this year (little less if I paid it all at once). Of course, I have a clean driving record, no accidents, own a house, and I'm 28 (over the 25 mark). If I was only married, it would be even cheaper...well, that's fine. Also, some states people live in just cost people more to insure their vehicles.   The numbers in that article should be taken with a GIANT grain of salt (especially for the S2000). Obviously, any fast (and/or convertible) vehicle is going to be more expensive to insure if there is a younger driver or even a younger driver in the household that can get their hands on the keys. The cars in the list are also vehicles typically tuned (except for the Sebring??) Actually, I'd be more concerned about the less expensive cars with higher rates. The Mustang is $5000 less than the S2000, but costs the same to insure. The Celica is $10,000 less, but just $200 less to insure and it's not even a convertible. The Dodge Neon SRT and the Honda Civic cost of insurance to car price ratio is extremely high as well. Neither are convertibles and both are $13K less than the S2K, but almost the same to insure. Except for the VW Passat W8 which is a sedan, the S2000 is the only $30K+ on the list. The article doesn't make a mention of that. I also like how the article eliminates several brands just because of the "high class" brand name as if none of those would be a surprise. What is the point in doing that when those brands have vehicles under $30K too? I guess some people are surprised that Honda even has a vehicle over $30K, so why wouldn't they be surprised that it costs a little more to insure?
#115 of 604 Re: titan [carliker] by titan Aug 03, 2004 (3:15 pm)
Replying to: carliker (Aug 03, 2004 6:57 am) Earth to Carliker, come in. This is Reality calling. There is no stock S2000 on this planet that will do 5.4 in the 60. Please reference the article- or as you say- the numerous ones telling this story b/c I have obviously been reading the wrong journals. That time is a 911/Vette time, not a Honda time. If you are banging out those times, then you'll be receiving a call shortly from Ferrari as a replacement driver for Schumacher. The S2000 is an awesome car with a quick agile engine that, what do you know, does provides two seats for, hey here's a thought, actually driving with a person in the passenger seat. Albiet an adult or a 7 yr old, I would think that is why Honda put an extra seat in the car in the first place. Scan the pages of previous posts and you'll quickly see I am not alone in wishing Honda had a cut-off switch for this exact reason.   Furthermore, wheels are wheels and tires are tires. I am interested in optional 17" rims. The tires are fine. Good rims will run you $2K.   Still cannot find a silver w/ red. Replies to this message: sphinx99 (Aug 03, 2004 9:29 pm) titan (Aug 04, 2004 3:07 am) radiate (Aug 04, 2004 5:44 am)
#116 of 604 Re: Question?? [wh9] by dario Aug 03, 2004 (7:25 pm)
Replying to: wh9 (Jul 27, 2004 11:19 am) I own a 2001 S2K, I have taken it on several trips from Delray Beach, FL to Orlando, FL which is about 250 miles. I am 5'7" 155lbs., and experienced minor aches and pains from the trip. I attribute this to the seats (supportive but not cushioned to luxury standards) and limited elbow room. I offer this information in comparison to the other vehicle we have taken on same trips.(luxury sports car) But I consider this a puny price to pay for what it gives me in return (adrenaline rush, sensory rewards, handling, feelings, etc.) Hope this helps you.   Dario soydayyahoo.com
#117 of 604 titan by sphinx99 Aug 03, 2004 (9:19 pm)
I don't think 5.4 is unreasonable at all. Based on real-world results at s2ki.com over the years, that seems to be towards the lower-end of times, but still within reason. Just like Vette/911 territory is more like upper 4s, not 5.4. (If a 3000lb 350hp torquey fat-tired V8 Corvette couldn't break 5.4 0-60s, it wouldn't sell so well!)
#118 of 604 Re: titan [titan] by sphinx99 Aug 03, 2004 (9:29 pm)
Replying to: titan (Aug 03, 2004 3:15 pm) "Earth to Carliker, come in. This is Reality calling. There is no stock S2000 on this planet that will do 5.4 in the 60. Please reference the article- or as you say- the numerous ones telling this story b/c I have obviously been reading the wrong journals. That time is a 911/Vette time, not a Honda time."   http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=8202&page_number=5 Replies to this message: titan (Aug 04, 2004 3:07 am) radiate (Aug 04, 2004 5:44 am)
#119 of 604 Re: titan [sphinx99] by titan Aug 04, 2004 (3:07 am)
Replying to: sphinx99 (Aug 03, 2004 9:29 pm) Sphinx99, I respect your posts from the various and numerous intelligent ones you've made, but the article link you provided draws reference to the Elise's time of 5.5 in the 60- not Honda's. Bottom line is the S2k is quick- very quick and engineered almost perfectly. IMO, there is just no way a stock S2K is clipping 5.4 or lower. Replies to this message: radiate (Aug 04, 2004 5:44 am)
#120 of 604 Re: 0-60 times by radiate Aug 04, 2004 (5:44 am)
Replying to: titan (Aug 04, 2004 3:07 am) That Car and Driver article referenced a 0-60 mph time of 5.5 seconds for the Honda "The Honda’s acceleration looked a little tepid compared with the much lighter Elise—60 in 5.5 seconds". the lotus' time on the last page of the article states "the Elise can scoot: 4.4 seconds to 60 mph". it is poorly worded regarding the honda, but it seems clear when reading about the lotus, that the 5.5 refers to the honda.
#121 of 604 Insurance by clint98v6at Aug 04, 2004 (8:06 am)
Thanks for the response Carliker. I'm sure my premium would be much lower also due to my driving record, age, etc. I was just surprised to see an S2000 as most costly to insure for cars under 40K. I've been eyeing an S2000 that is listed in a local paper. 02, less than 10k miles for $23,500. Verrrry tempting!

Messages Page 13 of 62 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 62 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000