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 16 of 62 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 62 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#143 of 604 Re: habitat1/sphinx99 [carliker] by habitat1 Aug 11, 2004 (2:06 pm)
Replying to: carliker (Aug 09, 2004 8:17 am) "If you drive both vehicles properly, the S2000 will edge out the Boxster S every time".   Obviously, I am partial to the S2000, but I don't think that is a correct statement. I've seen a few road test 0-60 numbers that put the S2000 neck and neck with the Boxster S, but I've also seen a few that put the Boxster S slightly ahead of the S2000. Going to 100 mph, the figure I recall for the S2000 by Motor Trend is 14.0 or 14.1; the Boxster S 13.8. And the Boxster S tops out at 160+ mph, whereas the S2000 is more like 150-155.   Again, all of these "numbers" are insignificant to me. I think the S2000 has twice as much "fun to drive" value as the Boxster S, even if the Boxster S slightly edges out the S2000 in lateral g's, slalom, and top end acceleration. And that extra $25k+ that stays in your pocket with the S2000 doesn't hurt matters; nor does Honda vs. Porsche maintenance and reliability issues.   "Why did you decide on the TL?" It was a tough decision. The 2004 TL 6-speed offers very good performance for a FWD sedan that can comfortably carry 4-5. I was replacing a 1995 Maxima SE and, unfortunately the 330i was just too small for our needs. The 545i 6-speed would have done the trick size wise, but by the time you loaded it up with the TL's standard features, it cost $30k more. And the i-drive still "drives-me" nuts. I also considered a E320 CDI, but didn't think it was a very good value and, other than the fun of driving by gas stations, doesn't offer much excitement. I am reasonably happy with the TL, but my 6 year old daughter likes to rub in the fact that I "used to look cool" driving the S2000. So, yeah, I am a little heartbroken. For those that have an S2000, don't take it for granted. You could spend twice as much to only be half as happy.
#144 of 604 SK2 lateral g's by ginot Aug 13, 2004 (8:21 am)
I've had the back end of our 2K kick out of shape more than a few times--it's catchable with little drama--under heavy throttle in a corner, a trait I'm familiar with from racing days and other RWD cars.   The first thing to go on what I consider one of the greatest "fun to drive" cars I've ever driven or owned, is the set of Bridgestones under it, in favor of Goodyear GS-D3s. The D3s are stickier, wet or dry, and inspire a greater sense of confidence under cornering--much better rubber more suited to the vehicle, IMO. Of course, the B's are Japanese, so it's understandable they're standard fare.   BTW, the second thing to go are the stock speakers and maybe the radio, as well.   Otherwise, my wife--an excellent driver of performance vehicles--and I consider the 2K a quite stunning machine and plan to keep it.
#145 of 604 by sphinx99 Aug 13, 2004 (12:46 pm)
Thanks for the advice on tires. I have been wondering.   Update; I'm nearing 17k miles. I'm guessing that mileage-wise I'm in the upper echelon of MY04 owners. What's frightening is the fact that I am probably going to need my SECOND set of rear tires by the time I hit the 20k mark. I do not know if the Potenza RE050s simply don't last as long as the S02s, or if I am driving much more aggressively, but I don't recall the S02s going in 10k miles of non-racing daily driving.
#146 of 604 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Aug 14, 2004 (8:24 am)
do you do 4-wheel alignments and regular tire rotations? Replies to this message: habitat1 (Aug 14, 2004 2:08 pm)
#147 of 604 Re: [Mr_Shiftright] by habitat1 Aug 14, 2004 (2:08 pm)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Aug 14, 2004 8:24 am) And, if you do, that's part of your problem. The S2000 (as well as most sports cars) has different size front and rear wheels/tires that cant' be rotated front to back and unidirectional tires that should never be rotated left to right. Unless you decide to drive backwards every other rotation.   I traded my S2000 in with 18,000 miles and the original tires, although the rears were ready to be replaced.
#148 of 604 by sphinx99 Aug 15, 2004 (5:39 am)
As habitat said, you don't do rotations on the S2000. It isn't an alignment issue, either, the tires wear uniformly.   I'm just assuming that the RE050s wear faster than the S02s did. This is a surprise to me because the Z4 uses runflat versions of these tires and I don't hear the same issue. The only other car that uses RE050s is the Enzo, and I have heard that is a different compound (but same tread pattern).
#149 of 604 Comment from the track by starrow68 Aug 15, 2004 (2:23 pm)
Having spent the last year plus going to road courses and seeing lots of S2000's but very few Boxsters or S's I can say that on a road course the S2000 seems to have a pronounced advantage. When discussion at the track gets around to those two cars the Boxsters are easy to pass IMO while the S2000 with a good driver is really tough to stay close to in the corners. Only seen one Boxster S and it couldn't grade the car based on that driver. Older 911's are common at the tracks but Boxsters just don't seem to have the demographic that wants performance beyond 'fun to drive'.
#150 of 604 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Aug 16, 2004 (8:43 am)
Well must have to do with the tire compound then. Automakers do like to put sticky shoes on the cars as OEM to give you those good handling numbers. Remember how the NSX eats tires?   Also let's face it, if you are in a car like the S2000, you are going to corner aggressively and that takes its toll. I used to get only about 8K on front tires on my Saab turbo no matter which tire I used. I tried Pirelli, Bridgestone and Michelin, all about the same results. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Aug 17, 2004 1:35 am)
#151 of 604 Re: [Mr_Shiftright] by habitat1 Aug 17, 2004 (1:35 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Aug 16, 2004 8:43 am) Now back to you - you didn't rotate your tires on the FWD Saab Turbo? I suspect that car ate tires because of poor balance and a sloppy suspension. A friend of mine had one and, although I thought it was an impressive car for the 1980's, I was amazed at how unimpressive it felt in 1995 after comparing it to my 1995 Maxima SE (not exactly a sports car, either). Although FWD, the Maxima felt much more balanced and didn't plow through the turns nearly as severely as the Saab.   I suspect with the S2000, it is indeed the softer compound. The S2000 drives about as "flat" as any car I've driven (including the NSX). You would almost have to take it to a track to get enough body roll to wear the edges of the tires. With the Saab, a quick exit from the grocery store parking lot would do the trick. My friend used to get 20k miles out of his tires with frequent rotations. Compare that to the 35-40k miles he gets out of similar driving with his 540i that has much higher performance tires than the Saab. Tires don't make up for bad suspensions and, if they try to, you pay dearly for replacements.
#152 of 604 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Aug 17, 2004 (8:54 am)
Yes I agree. Tire compounds are critical on today's sports cars. You put the wrong tires on some of today's hi-po sports cars, and they will literally fly off the road. A lot of what we attribute to the car's "handling" or "suspension" is actually in the tires. Modern tires are a sort of miracle compared to what we had to use ten years ago.

Messages Page 16 of 62 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 62 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

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