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: dat2 (May 30, 2007 12:54 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rp1947 (Jun 04, 2007 11:25 am) |
|
|
Replying to: rp1947 (Jun 04, 2007 11:25 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (Jun 04, 2007 7:43 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (Jun 04, 2007 7:43 am) 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?
|
|
|
Replying to: tgeen (Jun 04, 2007 5:29 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jun 05, 2007 10:34 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 05, 2007 10:57 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 05, 2007 10:57 am) 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. 
|
|
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
