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
#139 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [trucktricks]
Jun 04, 2007 (5:29 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 (10:34 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 (10:57 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 (11:33 am)
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 (12:41 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.
#146 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [habitat1]
Jun 06, 2007 (12:20 am)
Oh, the 0-100k means a lot more than 0-60mph. Is that like saying you prefer fags over cigarettes? Don't get me wrong, I am all for finally going to the metric system, but you are just sounding extremely pompous, what with your 100k Porches and Beemers, etc.
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?
#147 of 183 Re: Z Vs. s2k [dat2]
Jun 06, 2007 (12:22 am)
I should clarify, these Dunlops are pretty shitty tires, but for the price they are hard to beat for street use. The sidewalls are a bit weak. Otherwise they have decent grip, even wear and pretty quiet on the road.
#148 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [trucktricks]
Jun 06, 2007 (4:35 am)
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.