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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: montrose (May 29, 2007 11:38 pm) I would have to say that the Honda is probably the most satisfying car to shift manually of anything I have ever driven, including the Z. If you're into shifting for yourself, as I have been doing for the past 25 years, you end up placing a very high value on a good shifter and clutch feel because you will be using these controls thousands of times every month. The S2000 was clearly designed by car guys who live and breathe manual shifting. Shifting gears feels like clicking the bezel on a Swiss watch, and the clutch feels like an old friend after the first five minutes. This is attention to detail. And Honda didn't even deign to offer an automatic. What's not to love about that attitude? Honda will get my money, is all I can say. The Z is a blast to drive in its own way, more like a motorboat for the road than a scalpel. It's a lot heavier, and it feels it, but I wouldn't kick it out of bed. I would be happy with either one. But the Honda made a connection to me that was absent with the Z, and it achieved this within five minutes. To each his own, I'm sure. I really need to drive the Solstice/Sky next. Sadly, I haven't heard too many good things about the manuals in these cars, and if they feel anything less than perfect, they're out of the running. In my book, you don't release a sports car until you have this fundamental thing basically worked out to perfection.
|
|
|
"I've noticed that when I see a 350Z convertible, all I can see is the drivers head peeking out from inside the cockpit. It's like they're sitting in a deep tub up to their chin, surrounded by windows (rolled up, of course) and a wind blocker - not exactly my idea of a convertible." Don'cha love it when pot calls kettle black: http://www.automobilemag.com/new_and_future_cars/2008/0703_2008_honda_s2000_cr/photo_03.html Typical, however, of the BS the S2000 crowd is slinging on this thread. S2000 is an undersized (interior) one-trick pony with a nice shifter--appropriate because you have to constantly use it to get any performance whatsoever. Must be a huge market for replacement shift knobs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tgeen (May 30, 2007 6:45 pm)  If you take the plunge, let us know what you decide. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: glendower (May 31, 2007 4:42 am)  apologists: You made me spit milk out my nose! Don't move, I'm loading up my slingshot and getting ready to take aim.  All I can say is the adage, "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand" applies here (of course you have to replace Jeep with S2000). If I'm slinging BS, my S don't stink!
|
|
|
I test drove the Miata, S, Z, and Solstice. I'm a roadster guy from way back. My first was a 1976 MGB. The Miata was a fun drive, but with the options I want was getting expensive. It reminded me of my old MGB on steroids. A great car, but as you start moving up in style (touring, grand touring) the car gets a little to pricey compared with the others. The S is also a fun drive, shifting is as easy and simple as everyone here has posted. But the seats left a little to be desired in my opinion. They just didn't seem all that comfortable. I'm not buying a daily driver, this car is a play car but even so, the seats were too stiff for my taste. It's quick, it's fun, and it's good looking as well. But the cost for what you get is influenced by the Honda mystique in my opinion. I'd stay away from the Solstice. The manual was just ugly to work in comparison with the japanese cars (or German cars for that matter). I cannot for the life of me figure out why American car makers cannot get the manual transmission down pat in the same way that the imports do. This car is soft in its handling compared with the S, Miata, and Z. Here's why I ended up with the Z (new 2006 Roadster Touring): For the money it was simply the nicest car for me. I like the low end power (and no I'm not a mustang or camaro fan). I liked the sound of the engine. But most of all, I felt really connected to the car as I put it through its paces on the test drive. You don't sit lower in a Z than a miata or s (don't know why someone would say that... you simply adjust the seat). When I compared the final price on my Z with the S and the miata, I received a more powerful car with just as proven a track record as the others. I also have more options for the money. So it came down to both features and economics. For those of you who are looking at either the S or the Z, you need to understand that many folks come to these forums to complain. If you go to the enthusist forums for each car, you'll get a more balanced view of each car. Each car is different in its own way. Personal choice makes the difference if the price is the same. But drive each car that you are interested in and make your own mind up. Whatever you buy, you should be happy to drive. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dadsz (May 31, 2007 6:50 am) Nissan 350z: My350z/ Honda S2000: Honda S2000 Just know you will find the same debates there that you are finding here, only a bit more heated. BUT you will find a great deal of help, information, and perhaps even a local active chapter that promote fun runs (e.g. The Dragon). I'm looking forward to my first fun run in my S2000 this summer. Be safe! Oh, with any roadster you end up getting, don't forget the sun screen! 
|
|
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
