Last post on Sep 08, 2007 at 12:04 PM
You are in the Honda S2000
What is this discussion about?
Honda S2000, Nissan 350Z, Coupe, Convertible
#134 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [trucktricks]
Jun 04, 2007 (9:25 am)
Be sure to factor in how long it takes to put up/down a top on a ? An S2000 can do it in less than 4 seconds.
Don't think it is important? I found myself just last week in some questionable weather but the air was cool and I didn't want to miss out on the cool breeze. So, I dropped the top. About half way home, I could literally see the wall of rain up ahead... I pulled over, pushed the button, and up went the top. I pulled over, put the top up and was was back on the freeway 15 seconds later; another 45 seconds after that, the rain was pouring down on me as I was heading into the rain. If I had been in a Solstice/Sky, I don't know that I would have risked putting the top down, not to mention getting out of the car on the freeway to put the top back up... safety factor there.
But I can't argue with the push the GXP/Redline has, the looks of the Solstice, nor thier stereos! For me though, the S2000 just fits me like a glove, and every control is exactly where I would have put it had I designed the car.
#135 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [dat2]
Jun 04, 2007 (12:25 pm)
I purchased a 2005 350z for my wife and the tire problem is not resolved. I was totally unaware of it even thought I usually research vehicles as thoroughly as possible. We keep cars 10 years or more and take care of them. My wife is over 60 and drives on well-kept paved roads. At about 24K, I noticed front end noises that I thought might be brake rotor wear and had her take it back to the dealer. They charged me about $500 for new brakes and rotors and I let her pick it up. I rarely drive the car, but about 3 months later (just under 26K miles on the car), I drove it and noted the exact same noise that I thought the brake replacement should have fixed. I made another appointment, took it in myself, watched them put it up on the rack, look it over and let it down. The service manager said nothing was wrong and I insisted that a mechanic drive the car with me. It would only take 50 feet to pick up the sound. The mechanic told me about "tire roar" while strapping himself in the seat. He picked up the sound before we exited the shop and brought it back to the rack and showed me the inside of the front tires. The service manager couldn't have been ignorant, he just didn't want to mention it. His solution was to give me 1-800-nissan1 number and an estimate to replace all tires along with an alignment.
I travel extensively, but have tried to get through 3 times now and have never succeeded. Furthermore, I'm not doing anything until I find some better advise than the dealer gave me (I won't be doing business with them in the future. I can't stand being lied to).
For those of you that think it was fixed after 2004, you're mistaken. They may have delayed the onset of the symptoms, but the service schedule doesn't recommend alignment until 30K. If I had known of the issue, I would have checked the alignment long ago and taken it to a shop with the best equipment. The dealer that quoted it above admitted that they don't have equipment sophisticated enough to accurately correct the 350z.
I'm aware that the Potenzas are soft (I raced SCCA long ago and know tires and sports cars), but expected 35 to 40 K given my wife's driving habits. If any of you have information on a tire replacement recommendation for the 350z or an alignment machine that is suited for this car's suspension geometry, let me know. After all, my wife isn't going to the dragstrip with the car, she just loves the look and feel of the car and Nissan has no intent of addressing the issue.
#136 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [rp1947]
Jun 04, 2007 (1:12 pm)
For your replacement tires, I might recommend you checking out www.my350z.com. I think you may get a better response than on here. I know the S2KI.com has an entire section dedicated to tires. I'm not familiar with the 350 tires but the S also rides on Potenzas. I did some preliminary research on tires and found a nice set for around $400, OEM is closer to $1000 for all four corners. Sounds like your wife may drive like my wife does and $400 would suite my wife just fine and not put her in any danger. I'd have to look it up again, but I believe the manufacturer was Sumitomo.
#137 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [rp1947]
Jun 04, 2007 (1:33 pm)
Even with your wife driving there's no way you're going to get 40k out of a set of tires on the 350Z, or any other rear drive sports car with summer tires for that matter. I just replaced my original tires on my 05 Z at 28,000 miles and was very happy at that level. If your tires were going bad at 24k, that is very reasonable (when they starting making noises like they were worn out). I went with the Dunlop Direzzas from tire rack, about 130 a piece for the Z. These would be a good choice for your wife since they will retain a sporty feel, though not as serious a tire as the OEM bridgestones, but they will add a little softer ride and quieter on the hiway, they are the cheapest name brand tire you can get for the Z. But, they still won't work in the snow, never drive in the snow.
#138 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [trucktricks]
Jun 04, 2007 (6:15 pm)
"Look at these and you will see why I just ordered the Solstice.
Solstice GXP/Sky Redline = 11.4 lbs/lb-ft
Z350 = 13.4 lbs/lb-ft
S2000 = 17.6 lbs/lb-ft
The Sol will flat put you deep into you seat. I also went with the auto. The torque converter gives you another 2.0 torque multiplication over the gears by themselves."
Sorry to pick on you, but this post is EXACTLY why people should NOT put too much credibility in one particular statistic. I trust your numbers above are correct. But, according to Automobile Magazine Automobile Mag:
"The joy begins petering out by 4500 rpm"
Maybe that's why they only managed 5.7 seconds 0-60 and 14.2 seconds in the quarter mile - which would put the Solstice dead last in acceleration compared to the S2000 (5.3 /13.8) and 350Z.
And to think anyone would hamstring a sports car with a power sapping AUTOMATIC SLUSHBOX transmission under some screwed up notion that doing so would somehow increase the torque? Those times above were with a manual transmission - the GM slushbox version is considerably slower. Plus, what the hell fun is a sports car with an automatic?
If you decided to buy the Solstice for other reasons, fine. But if you are buying it because of your torque per pound calculations, rethink your choice. And for goodness sakes sake don't get a friggin slushbox on a sports car. That move makes Forest Gump look like a rocket scientist.
#139 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [trucktricks]
Jun 04, 2007 (6:29 pm)
Thanks, everyone, for all the good advice. It's great to have a dilemma where the choices are so delicious that you can't pick a favorite right off the bat.
I live in Phoenix and I have a choice of daily commutes--I can slog through 7 miles of crawling freeway traffic followed by 11 miles of reasonably quick freeway traffic, or I can take the 35 mile route through the reservation and enjoy the mountains and desert scenery, but at a fairly sedate speed due to the sharp eyes of the tribal police. I respect the speed limits on the reservation, including a very long stretch at 35 mph, so I usually just set the cruise control and enjoy the view. It's funny how I don't mind breaking the speed limits everywhere else, but being in a sovereign nation and all, I just relax and take it easy. Either way takes about 45 minutes.
Calculating power to weight ratios is a good idea, but it's misleading with these variable-lift valve engines. If I can find the data, I'd like to know what those ratios are like at 3000 rpms, and 4000, etc. Subjectively, the current S didn't feel flat, which is the main thing. And this was with a passenger.
A cramped cockpit is not much of a ding on a car from the driver's point of view, in my opinion. The driver can't exactly do jumping jacks while the car is moving, so a good seat and good ergonomics mean everything. On a trip of 500-1500 miles, I appreciate good lumbar support and satellite radio more than anything else. Wiggle room is far more important for kids in the back seat. That's not an issue if I'm just driving myself around town.
Noise and harshness can get old in a hurry, though. Since my time in the S was fairly short, and the top was down and I was laughing out loud for most of it, I'm afraid my judgment was skewed. I will have to consider this more seriously. Thank God there are still some cars that have this effect on me in my old age, anyway.
It bothers me that many of the rumors I read of the replacement for the S2000 sound like a step in the wrong direction. A 2+2? A V6? An Acura? Yuck. It all sounds to me like an extra 600 lbs and a complete surrender to the automatic transmission mindset. It makes me think I should get a real Honda sports car while they're still in production, and keep it forever. I hope the rumors prove false, and Honda comes up with an evolutionary improvement like Porsche did with the Boxster.
Speaking of which, can anyone comment on driving a pre-2005 Boxster with a more recent S2000 and 350Z?
#140 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [tgeen]
Jun 05, 2007 (11:34 am)
"Speaking of which, can anyone comment on driving a pre-2005 Boxster with a more recent S2000"
After trading my Honda S2000 for a replacement sedan in 2004, I got back into the "fun car" market in 2005 and test drove and nearly bought a 2005 Boxster S (280 hp version). That car was quicker than the S2000, but not be a huge margin. It also would have been a bit more civilized daily driver (less engine noise in top up cockpit, better stereo, etc.). But, bottom line, at $58,000 for a well loaded Boxster S, that's a significant price premium over an S2000 for some to justify. Of course, then I went and got a 911S, at an even greater premium, but the fact that it holds our entire family made it easier.
If you are looking at a pre-2005 Boxster S (258 horsepower), it is more comparable to the S2000 in performance. The base Boxster is not - the S2000 is definitely quicker than all versions of the base Boxster.
#141 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [habitat1]
Jun 05, 2007 (11:57 am)
the 07 Z is just as fast as a new Boxster S, and the 08 Z will feature the new 330hp+ 3.7 litre motor (from the new G37 coupe), so expect an extremely fast Z next year!
#142 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
Jun 05, 2007 (12:33 pm)
350Z conv - 306hp / 3580 lbs.
Boxster S - 295hp / 2990 lbs.
Is 10 extra HP really able to overcome a 600 lb weight disadvantage? Even the 350Z coupe weighs 350 lbs more than the Boxster S.
#143 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
Jun 05, 2007 (1:41 pm)
so expect an extremely fast Z next year!
I probably have a different definition than you of "extremely fast". Using 0-60 as the basis (only because that's what everybody quotes, but I prefer 0-100 as the metric) here are my definitions and a few examples I've driven:
"Extremely Fast": under 3.7 seconds. Porsche 911 Turbo, Ferrari 430.
"Very Fast": 3.8-4.2 seconds. 911S, Corvette, AMG E63, Ferrari 360.
"Fast": 4.3-4.7 seconds. M5, M3, 911 (base).
"Very Quick": 4.8 to 5.2 seconds. 335i, Cayman S, Boxster S.
"Quick": 5.3 to 5.7 seconds. S2000, 350Z, Z4.
By my definition, the 350Z might go from "Quick" to "Very Quick" next year, but I will doubt it will make it to "Fast", let only "Very" or "Extremely".
Please note, thaqt I don't consider acceleration the most important metric of a sports car. Give me an S2000, and I'll have more fun driving it than an E63 - at least after I get one or two drag races out of my system.