Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z
183 messages, Last post on Sep 08, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You are in the Honda S2000 Forum. Your Host is claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (May 17, 2007 7:32 pm) My search is for the high performance, top down, affordable, roadster experience. Honda S2000 and Solstice GXP both clearly fall in that category. Aston Martin Vantage and Ferrari F430 Spider both clearly do not. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: claires (May 17, 2007 9:31 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: accelerator (May 18, 2007 7:02 am) BTW, I was once the proud owner of a Fiero ( my son and daughter shared this car). Overall, it did OK for satisfying basic transportation needs and they thought it was great. It was an absolute nightmare to work on. The parts bin philosophy can be made to work if done carefully. In this case taking an entire front wheel drive powertrain and shoving it to the rear with very few changes produced mixed results.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (May 21, 2007 8:57 am)  And no, alcohol nor excessive speed were involved; just inexperienced kids over-correcting trying to avoid hitting an animal. Oh, the point I was trying to make is that the cars design did what it was designed to to do, save our lives in the event of a crash and I can never find fault with that.
|
|
|
Replying to: accelerator (May 21, 2007 9:50 am) Honda S2000 vs. Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice |
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (May 21, 2007 7:40 am) I think just based on the specifications of each car, it should be obvious how each will drive. The Z is going to be a brute with a lot of torque that tappers off by redline whereas the S2K is going to be the exact opposite with no torque down low but an all out attack from 6k to redline. The S is a lot more high strung and edgy, harder and more demanding to drive at 10/10ths, but much more rewarding when doing so. The Z is less refined, but a lot more forgiving, it wont bite you quite as hard if you make a mistake like backing off the throttle mid-corner. For me, the S would be more rewarding wringing every last second out of it on a track while the Z is more fun showing off and screwing around sliding the back end around. I haven't driven the Sky/Solistice, but I'd imagine it's going to be somewhere in the middle of the S and the Z, more for giving and less high strung than the S and not quite as brutish or portly as the Z. If the S is scalpel, the Sky/Solstice is a steak knife and the Z is a machete. If learning how to be a better driver is one of your goals, then the S is the car for you because it won't mask driver errors like the Z will, but other than that I don't see a point in arguing which car is "better" because each of them is designed so differently. Choose whichever best suites your driving style. If you like drag racing, go buy a Z, if you like road racing, go buy an S, because while each can do both, the Z is a better drag car and the S is better when the road gets twisty, end of story. When comparing all three as roadsters, it should be pointed out that the Z was NOT designed to be a roadster and without it's top, the performance is NOTICEABLY LESSER than the coupe. The suspension is softer, the car is a few hundred pounds heavier, and the chasis is a lot less stiff than the coupe. This even further takes away from the driving experience that everyone raves about the S for. The Z roadster wasn't designed for the performance minded driver, it was designed for the driver that just wants to look good with the top down, and as such it's been watered down a bit. As far as reliabilty, I do service at a Nissan dealership and I used to own and still do work on Hondas. I don't know a whole lot about the Sky/Solstice other than what I've seen on the net, but I am 100% confident (even if I don't know a damn thing about the Sky/Solstice) that the the S and any other Honda will always be more reliable and have a better fit an finish than most other cars in the same price range (with Subaru and Toyota up there too), including the Z and the Sky/Solstice. I know for a fact (because I've replaced a few Z engines and transmissions myself) that up untill this year (time will tell if the '07 Z motor is any good) the Z has had problems with the motors not seating the piston rings correctly and thus burning oil like crazy (such as 1 quart for 1k miles) and the earlier model years ('03-'04 in particular) had problems with blowing up transmissions as well as front tire wear issues because of flaws in the front suspension design (the tire issue hasn't been completely resolved), and the brakes on the non-Track models were crap up until I think '06. I like the Z enough to make me want to buy one, but I won't because they are junk, along with the better part of Nissans lineup. The '07 Z has addressed many of these issuses with better brakes and a brand new motor that gives me that tingley feeling when I think about it, but I won't get too excited until they show better reliabilty than the previous engines. Nissan is bottom of the barrel for reliablilty as far as Japanese cars go, maybe a little better than Mitsubishi. I read some "most and least reliable cars of 2006" article on the web the other day and out of 5 or 6 categories (SUV, sedan, sports...), Nissan was in 4 categories for top 5 worst of '06. I think we only had 9 or 10 models all together last year. The Z wasn't one of those 4, but it goes to show Nissans "quality". I don't think I even have to talk about the American car manufacturer's reputation for quality, reliabilty, and fit and finish, and turbos eventually wear themselves out as well as putting a lot of stress on the rest of the engine. I've owned a turbocharged car in the past. While it's fun and easy to make a lot of power, they're a pain in the ass. All of this is not to say that the S2000 doesn't have it quirks, but most of them were worked out with the 2002 revisions and then even further "refined" with the 2004 revisions. The pre-2002 models had a few bugs to be worked out and the pre-2004 have a problem with toe change throughout the rear suspension travel that makes them a bit twitchy, but as far as reliability, they are just like any other Honda. The only serious problems I've heard of since the '02 model are directly related to driver error and abuse, not Honda's manufacturing deffects (blown rear differetials from hard launches and clutch drops and blown motors do to mechanical over-revs caused by a driver miss-shift, which could happen just the same in any other car). You'd be hard fetched to blow out a Nissan rear end from any sort of abuse, but that's about the only place that Nissan's got Honda beat in the reliabilty department. The Solstice/Sky might turn out to be great cars in the long run, but they still won't touch Honda as far as reliability and quality is concerned. Nissans warranty isn't that great and Honda's might be a little better, while the GM cars have a good warranty, but you don't really even need a warranty on the Honda, whereas the other two cars I wouldn't feel comfortable not knowing where the nearest dealership was at all times. The Nissan gets the worst gas mileage of the bunch (it's the heaviest) and despite what the sticker on the window says, the S will get around 30 mpg on the highway just like the Sky/Solstice. This leads me to resale value. While I don't think it should factor in too much when you're buying a car (as long as you're in it for the long haul), the Honda does and always will have a better resale value than GM or Nissan because of how reliable Honda's are and how reliable GM's and Nissan's AREN'T. This could help you or hurt you, depending on whether or not you're buying new. In the end, it doesn't matter, buy what you like. Just make sure you get the extended warranty with the Nissan and the GM, because you'll be keeping me and my friends over at the GM dealerships busy. |
|
|
|
|
My mom just handed off her beloved 91' 240SX to her brother with 300k miles on it. Sure, it needs some work here and there, but he's still driving it. You're right, the 350 is all about power, not precision. I know a couple of people with them and they've had no issues to speak of, and these people either own or previously owned an S2000 so they don;t drive them gently.  I wouldn't even put the Kappa cars in the same sentence, Turbo or not, they were "el cheapo" from right out of the gate serving their mission as "Entry Level" as you can't go any lower in both price nor quality. Bad rear diffs, self-destructing Auto trannies, poor fitting soft tops seem to be pretty common occurance. The 350 on the other hand has been around long enough to be a yay or nay in the reliability dept. but as far as the cars go, they get good ratings in the CR while the Kappa get a big fat black easter egg... I'd go with the Z without batting an eye. |
|
|
Replying to: montrose (May 29, 2007 11:38 pm) Food for thought. It's not to say that if you buy a Z, you're going have a nightmare with reliability, because not all of them have problems, but an abnormal percentage of them do. Many people are on their third and forth engines or transmissions. Just the thought of possibly having to pay for a motor or tranny outside of warranty, or new tires every 6k miles, would be enough to make me run, not walk, away from the Nissan dealership. |
|
|
Replying to: montrose (May 29, 2007 11:38 pm) Your comment about the S2K only having reliability issues related to driver error is hearsay and could just as easily be applied to the 350Z's that you have seen having trannys, motors and clutches changed out. Some owners of 350Z's are young people running hard or even tracked cars. Granted some of them were also engineering defects in the earlier cars. Look at the sales volume of Z's, then compare to the repair record and sales volume of the S2K and I bet you won't see the results you (subjectively) mentioned. I routinely get 30 mpg hiway with my Z. Not sure where your comment about the Z fuel economy came from. That's pretty impressive mpg for sports car putting out nearly 300 horses. And the new 07 models get even better mpg. |
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (May 30, 2007 12:54 pm) I wrote "the only serious problems I'VE HEARD OF since the '02 model". That means IN MY EXPERIENCE, not that Honda has never built a deffected motor or tranny, whereas with the Z, I've seen quite a few trannys and motors with MANUFATURER DEFFECTS, not related to driver error. The tranny deffects were mostly in the '03-'04 cars, but the Z's were still having a problem seating the piston rings all the way up until '06, that's a maufacturer deffect, not driver error, and that's why people are getting new motors under warranty. If either case of tranny or motor problems was related to driver error, Nissan wouldn't cover the work under warranty and they wouldn't have TSB on checking oil consumption. Maybe the '07 motor will be better. That's the first time I've heard of a Z getting 30 mpg and I think it's safe to say that for the most part the S2000 and the Sky/Solstice will get better mileage than the Z. It's a heavier car with a bigger motor; not rocekt science. I don't own any one of these cars and I don't have any brand loyalty, I'll go with whichever is the better car. I couldn't care less which car you, or anyone else bought or plans on buying. I'm not trying to defend Honda or criticize Nissan, I'm just stating what I know from my experience with the intention of giving a potential buyer some more input about these cars that their salesman won't be telling them. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Honda S2000
2009 Nissan 350Z
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
