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: 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. 
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jun 05, 2007 12:41 pm) BTW, the 07 350Z would rank in your "very quick" class now, CD just tested a model without limited slip at 5.2 sec, 13.7 in the quarter. Next year with roughly 30 more horses we should see that figure easily slip below 5 sec, which is commendable for a vehicle that rings in at a price below anything you mentioned (maybe getting into your fast cat). And of course I agree accel alone does not make a sporting car. Example all the midsize sedans that are nearly as quick as some sports cars these days. And to those people comparing the Z to a barge in driving precision, how do you explain the 06 Z winning the balls to the wall track competetion in CD last year, beating out the STI, EVO, S2000, RX8, etc. That must have been difficult with a car that had the precision of, what was it, a butter knife or something?
|
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 04, 2007 12:33 pm) |
|
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
