Last post on Sep 08, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You are in the Honda S2000
What is this discussion about?
Honda S2000, Nissan 350Z, Coupe, Convertible
#116 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [montrose]
May 30, 2007 (12:54 pm)
I have a 2005 350Z and just replaced the OEM tires at 31,000 miles, the wear was fairly even especially considering you can't rotate them. Of course the rear tires were pretty much shot, thank you Nissan bulletproof rear end. Nissan had resolved the tire problem by the 05 model and they properly took care of customers by replacing tires and adjusting the alignment specs as well.
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.
#117 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [dat2]
May 30, 2007 (2:46 pm)
I think you're right, the tire wear problems have been addressed for the most part, but as far as I know, no changes were made to the front suspension, only the alignment, so the problem is not gone. You shouldn't have to worry about weird feathering problems with your front tires running any alignment specs you'd like, so long as the toe is reasonably close to 0, and that just isn't the case with the Z. You're experience with your Nissan dealership taking care of you with new tires and the new alignment specs was a good one, but not all dealerships are so quick to take care of their customers, so not all have had the same good experience.
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.
#118 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [montrose]
May 30, 2007 (6:45 pm)
Trucktricks, our impressions of the 350Z vs S2000 are very similar. I don't own either one, but I've been shopping lately.
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.
#119 of 183 One more inaccurate assertion by the S2000 apologists
May 31, 2007 (4:42 am)
"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.
#120 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [tgeen]
May 31, 2007 (6:22 am)
In response to the first five minutes comment, I've been without a manual shifter for a little over 5 years now. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to enjoy a manual again and was actually leery of taking the S on a test drive (being used didn't bother me, it was the simple fact of being a stick). After 5 minutes behind the wheel and zero stalls, I knew I was home. That was a 2004 model. After driving that one for about 15 minutes (very nice sales person), I decided I wanted a new one just so I could drive it that much longer. Last week, I picked up my Rio Yellow and I haven't looked back since. I drive 30 miles one way; of those 30 miles, the first 10 miles are stop-n-go traffic and my leg hasn't gotten tired or sore (remember, I haven't driven a stick in 5+ years). This is a true testament to the quality of shifter/clutch in the S2000. If you are on the fence and
like LOVE to drive, then the S is for you.
If you take the plunge, let us know what you decide.
#121 of 183 Re: One more inaccurate assertion by the S2000 apologists [glendower]
May 31, 2007 (6:28 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!
#122 of 183 Test Drove then bought the Z
May 31, 2007 (6:50 am)
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!
#123 of 183 Re: Test Drove then bought the Z [dadsz]
May 31, 2007 (7:40 am)
Here are the links for the respective Entusist Forums:
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.
Oh, with any roadster you end up getting, don't forget the sun screen!
#124 of 183 Re: Test Drove then bought the Z [dadsz]
May 31, 2007 (4:47 pm)
"But the cost for what you get is influenced by the Honda mystique in my opinion."
"Honda mystique"? That's pretty funny.
In my opinion, the $30,000 S2000 is the deal of the century, price wise, if what you want is a serious sports car with world class driving dynamics and handling. It compares favorably with the base Boxster at $50k+ and bests both the Z4 and SLK350, both of which are $45k+. The closest thing to an S2000 in driving experience is a Lotus Elise, which is even less civilized for well over $40k.
The 350Z Roadster does indeed offer more amenities and a more "comfortable" touring style ride. But at 600+ lbs more than the S2000 and Boxster, it can't come close to the S2000 and Boxster in agility and driving dynamics. It really is more of a GT car than a sports car, which is perfectly fine, if that's what you want.
Back to the "mystique". Honda has it? I don't really think so. I bought an S2000 in 2001 because it was a better car than the mystique-laden base Boxster at the time. Every car that the S2000 competes with has more "mystique". Honda delivers the goods with the S2000 and, in spite of being nearly 8 years old, shows just how well you can do when you set out to build a sports car from the ground up. Something that no other Japanese manufacturer has done in the last decade, period.
I suspect I could get accused of succumbing to the "mystique" of Porsche with my purchase of a 911S Cab. But I never thought I'd hear that about a Honda.
#125 of 183 Re: Test Drove then bought the Z [habitat1]
May 31, 2007 (6:38 pm)
Does mystique = "What is that?"
I've filled up my tank 3 times, and 2 of the times, I've been asked, "What kind of car is that?" I reply with, "It's a Honda S2000."
Their response: "That's a Honda?"
I love it!