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) 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) |
|
|
Here is the Car and Driver actual test results for the automatic: Read and weep!!! C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec Zero to 100 mph: 14.7 sec Zero to 130 mph: 37.4 sec Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec Top speed (drag limited): 141 mph NICE!! What am I supposed to weep about? According to a road test from your Car and Driver gurus, the 2002 model S2000 I had clocked a 0-60 of 5.4, 0-100 of 13.9 and a top speed of 155 mph. Good for Pontiac to gear the Solstice to achieve a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds, but that's exactly why 0-100 mph, with a couple more gear changes and less dependent upon "launching" is a more relevent test. I'm sure someone as knowledgeable as you knows those C&D guys hold the brake while flooring an automatic transmission. Clearly, after you've mashed your foot to the floor in the slushbox Solstice and done your 0-60 sprint, it's all downhill from there. I think you need to get out the hankies for the tears you'll shed if drag racing is your gig. By the way, my 5-passenger 1995 Maxima SE 5-speed with 155,000 miles has a top speed of 142 mph. "NICE"? As far as a manual transmission vs. slushbox in a sports car, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Although fedlawman is correct in pointing out that GM's manual transmissions are not exactly the cat's meow. |
|
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
