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 7 of 61 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 61 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#62 of 604 HONDA S2000 by bmwbud Jan 18, 2004 (1:04 pm)
Started looking at S2000's. AutoTrader has 500+ used for sale, many w/ really low miles. Why so many owners selling so soon? (My guess: looks appeal to many who aren't ready for the true sports car they find when they get it home?)
#63 of 604 bmwbud by habitat1 Jan 18, 2004 (11:10 pm)
I think that many sports cars have relatively short lives as other priorities (or toys) take precedence. Even though I have no immediate plans to sell, I am pretty sure that my 2002 S2000 w/ 16k miles won't ever see the 9+ years, 149k miles I have on my Maxima.   The other factor influencing S2000's is that they have held their value quite well. I could probably sell my 2002 next spring (not now) for about $7,000 less than I paid for it (n/i taxes & tags). Had I bought a 2002 Boxster S at $58k, I'd be looking at a $20,000+ hit. I think it's more tempting to sell when you aren't losing much (right, Sphinx99?).   FWIW, I consistently see as many or more BMW E46 M3's for sale in the Washington Post as S2000's. I also caught an ad for a 2002 E55 w/ 20k miles in "mint" condition for $43.8k at my Nissan/BMW dealer (VOB in Rockville). When they say mint condition, you can bet the car smells new. Now there's someone taking a $30k+ hit for no more fun than I've had in an S2000 for less than 25% of the "net" cost.
#64 of 604 low miles on s2k by motokichi Jan 21, 2004 (3:43 pm)
could it be that it's not a car to be driven casually with a cell phone in one hand? or that it's a buzzy highway cruiser?   or could it be that some people bought the car, put them on trailers and drove them primarily in races or auto-x?   or it might be that it's a second (or third or fourth) car and it spends a lot of time in the garage, especially when the weather is less than perfect?   i think some drivers sold their 00 for 02 when the glass rear window became available. Still others sold their 00 or 02 for the 04. if you sold an s2k, what's your story?   whatever the reason i'm glad that there were a lot of low mileage cars to choose from out there at reasonable prices.
#65 of 604 by sphinx99 Jan 21, 2004 (4:13 pm)
For all the reasons you listed, the S2000 is typically a low mileage car. There are a vanishingly few number of cars with 100k miles on them. It's frustrating, there's no real high mileage reliability data due to the number of weekend cruisers and garage or track queens amongst the S2000 ranks.   I would also add that S2000 owners might tend to be flighty. Many seem to come from the "latest and greatest" mindset and just as they are quick to jump into the S2000 the moment they can afford one, they're equally quick to jump right out of it and into an EVO8 or Z06 or M3 the moment they have the financial werewithal to do so. I know of quite a few who jumped from one sports car to the S2000 to yet another sports car in the space of a year.
#66 of 604 by habitat1 Jan 22, 2004 (2:07 am)
Check out your local Porsche, Ferrari, or even Mercedes/AMG, BMW/M dealer for their sports car lines and you will find, on the average, that 10,000+ miles per year is the relatively rare exception, rather than the rule.   Once again, the fact that the S2000 sells for a low enough price to be in the same general affordability category as, say, a 350Z or Miata, might result in a relatively higher percentage of drivers purchasing it as a daily driver. Or at least attempting to do so. But, in reality, it has the same "drivability" virtues and weaknesses for such use as a $60,000 Boxster S and a $160,000 360 Modena. Personally, I consider this a good thing, as virtually all other Japanese wannabe sports cars, NSX excluded, are full of practical compromises or marketed to the MTV generation.   P.S. I have 35,000 miles on a 20 month old 2002 M5; a business associate has 38,000 miles on a 24 month old 360 Modena. The former is not unusual, the latter got him featured in a Wall Street Journal article a while back.
#67 of 604 not the host by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jan 22, 2004 (3:32 pm)
High miles on a Porsche or Honda don't hurt resale very much because people know they can take it; but a very high miles Ferrari is basically a parts car. Ferrari buyers demand low miles but Porsche and Honda buyers don't seem to worry too much about it one way or the other. You can always sell a high miles S2000, Boxster or 911 if you price it right but a 60K Ferrari is just about sale-proof.
#68 of 604 First S2000 Test Drive (Part 1) by blacktalon May 13, 2004 (8:34 pm)
I took my Prelude in for some scheduled maintenance yesterday, and while I was waiting in the dealership, I asked the salesmen whether they had any S2000s in stock. They said yes, and offered me a test drive. Of course, I said yes .   It was a 2004 Sebring Silver S2K, and it was a demo with about 400 miles, so the sales guy encouraged me to redline it and see what it could do.   The S2000 is on my short list of cars I might buy in a year or two. The other two on the list are the 350Z and the RX-8.   I had three questions in mind when I took the car out for a test drive:   1) How much fun is it to drive? 2) Is it unpleasant to drive with the top up? 3) Could I live with it as an only car in Boston?   The short answers are: A lot, no, and a resounding yes.   It was a beautiful sunny day, so we took the first drive with the top down.   The first thing that struck me was how right everything felt. I had heard about the rifle-bolt shifter, and it lived up to expectations -- very short, extremely precise throws. The clutch combined a short and easy throw with amazing precision and smoothness. I figured it would take a little while to get used to driving a new, high-performance sports car, but it was so easy that I was pulling off rapid-fire shifts after just a minute of driving.   A number of reviewers have criticized the S2000 for being too much of an uncompromising sports car, with an uncomfortable ride and a punishingly firm suspension. I couldn't see what they were complaining about. Maybe that was true of the older models, but that 2004 S2K rode at least as well as my Prelude. Despite Boston's less than perfect asphalt, I would have no trouble at all living with that ride as a daily driver.
#69 of 604 First S2000 Test Drive (Part 2) by blacktalon May 13, 2004 (8:49 pm)
Given the reality of Boston's climate, I knew that I would have to drive with the top up for much of the year. If that was an unpleasant experience, it would have been a dealbreaker.   I was pleasantly surprised. We took the second lap of city streets and highways with the top up, and yes, it was noisier than my 'lude and had larger blind spots -- but certainly not unpleasant.   Now, the important fun-to-drive question...   The handling felt flawless. The steering was firm, precise, and responsive. The result was near-telepathic driving -- you think where you want to go, and you're there.   I didn't push the limits of its grip, or slide the tail out on off-ramps, so I can't comment about its at-the-limit handling. However, quick lane changes and the slalom through city traffic were delightful.   Though the traffic made it difficult to go full throttle for long, the S2K responded nicely for those brief moments near redline.   However, with the caveats that it was a warm day, with a salesman in the passenger seat, and in city traffic -- if there was one slight disappointment, it was the acceleration. It was definitely faster than my Prelude, but it wasn't as much faster as I expected. The push-you-in-your-seat factor felt subjectively about the same as the 'lude, but with a bigger rev-range to take advantage of. I'm sure if I had more time, I could have wrung faster performance out of the S2K, but while the handling was a "Wow!", the acceleration was just a "Nice."   Overall, the test drive was a lot of fun, and the S2000 rose to the top of my list. Since I don't need four-doors or cargo space, it seems like a clear win over the RX-8 for my taste.   I still do have to test drive a 350Z, to see whether its 274 ft-lbs of torque make up for its 400 pound weight disadvantage... Replies to this message: habitat1 (May 27, 2004 2:16 am) Mr_Shiftright (May 27, 2004 10:20 am) roadstergal (Oct 22, 2004 10:08 am)
#70 of 604 Re: First S2000 Test Drive (Part 2) [blacktalon #69] by habitat1 May 27, 2004 (2:16 am)
Replying to: blacktalon (May 13, 2004 8:49 pm) I'm somewhat sorry to report that after 2.5 years of a most enjoyable relationship, I am trading my 2002 S2000 as part of a deal to get a 2004 TL (6-speed of course). There will, undoubtedly, be some significant moments of remorse; especially when I see someone else, top down, shoot by me in a spa yellow S2000. But when I got the S2000, I intended for it to be a fun car for 2 years and it served its purpose as good as a 360 Modena would have at about 20% of the price.   Blacktalon, go ahead and test drive the 350Z to satisfy yourself. I would say that the torque makes up for the added weight in straight line acceleration. However, the 350Z, IMHO, is not even remotely in the same league as the S2000 on a number of fronts. The S2000 is a ground up world class sports car. You'd have to jump to the $60k Boxster S to match it in performance and I still like the feel of the handling and 9,000 rpm redline of the S2000 better than the Porsche. The 350Z is a platform sharing, overweight, corporate answer to Nissan's need for profits. That's fine, but it has about as much true passion behind it's design as generic brand vanilla ice cream. The G35 coupe is a better car, in many regards.   Obviously, I have a passion for the S2000. I actually prefer the 9,000 rpm 2002 to the 8,000 rpm 2004, although either is several rungs up in their visceral feel to the 350Z. The 350Z coupe weighs 200 lbs more than my 1995 Maxima SE. The 350Z roadster weighs nearly 700 lbs more than the S2000. Almost exactly halfway between the S2000 and our Isuzu Trooper. A "sports car"? Not in my book. Extra foot pounds make it go fast. But there are souped up pick up trucks that go fast.   The S2000 is the closest thing - other than perhaps the Lotus Elise - that any mere mortal will get to a Ferrari. Period. And with Honda reliability and hand crafted quality, to boot.   There are a lot of cars that do "compromise" well. The 2004 TL 6-speed among them. The S2000 isn't about compromise, it's about passion. Thank goodness Honda makes enough money to be able to put all of their ground up engineering talent and craftsmanship into 6,000+/- copies annually and sell them at a price that's the best true sports car bargain on the planet. Double Period. Even the Elise borrows a comparitively uninspired Toyota engine. Consider yourself fortunate to even have the Honda S2000 as a choice. I certainly did.   P.S. 400 miles on the odometer is not "broken in". In fact, it may be "broken". My S2000 was babied for the first 1,000 miles and didn't get fully broken in until 4,000+. It was definitley quicker after that. And, at least with the 2002, you need to use the 6,000 - 9,000 range in the rev band to get it to show it's true colors. Which is just fine in my book. A nice, friendly sedate Accord or Prelude up to 6,000 rpm, a screaming Ferrari if driven to it's capacity. Try taking most other so-called sports cars above 6,000 rpm repeatedly and you will be sweeping the parts off the street. The S2000 is made to fly at high rpms.   Replies to this message: Mr_Shiftright (May 27, 2004 10:20 am) roadstergal (Oct 22, 2004 10:08 am)

Messages Page 7 of 61 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 61 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

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