Ask the Car People.SM


Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z

183 messages,  Last post on Sep 08, 2007 at 12:04 PM

You are in the Honda S2000 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda S2000, Nissan 350Z, Coupe, Convertible

Messages Page 16 of 19

#146 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [habitat1] by dat2

Jun 06, 2007 (1:20 am)

Replying to: habitat1 (Jun 05, 2007 1:41 pm)
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] by dat2

Jun 06, 2007 (1:22 am)

Replying to: dat2 (Jun 04, 2007 1:33 pm)
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] by habitat1

Jun 06, 2007 (5:35 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.

#149 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [dat2] by habitat1

Jun 06, 2007 (7:10 am)

Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 1:20 am)
Oh, the 0-100k means a lot more than 0-60mph.
 
I was referring to 0-100 MPH (not KPH). By "metric" I meant standard of measurment, not the metric system. I should have been clearer.

#150 of 183 Hmmm by dadsz

Jun 06, 2007 (8:30 am)

Is it me or does TrickTrucks come off like a GM employee or one from their advertising agency? First he successfully hijacked the thread away from the SC vs. Z conversations, then continues with the comparisons to the GM car over and over. Guess he's trying to build brand awareness, but enough already mate...

#151 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [habitat1] by dat2

Jun 06, 2007 (8:55 am)

Replying to: habitat1 (Jun 06, 2007 7:10 am)
Sorry for attacking you last night, not sure what got into me anyway. However, for a bit of fun take a look at CAR magazine from the UK, and in the back where they have quick rundowns of a lot of cars, take a look at the "Zed" read, where they prefer the Z over a Boxster and that is their recommendation!

#152 of 183 Re: S2000 torque? [dat2] by habitat1

Jun 06, 2007 (9:10 am)

Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 8:55 am)
No worries. I'll check the Car magazine article out if I get a chance. Not sure what their recommendation was based upon, but I also picked an S2000 over a base Boxster on performance and a Boxster S on price back in 2002. The 350Z coupe gives you a lot of performance for a minimum of $10-15k less than the 2007 base Boxster.

#153 of 183 Re: Hmmm [dadsz] by anythngbutgm

Jun 06, 2007 (9:45 am)

Replying to: dadsz (Jun 06, 2007 8:30 am)
Yeah, I noticed that too. The logic was a bit off as well, but anyways...
 
Only thing worth commenting on was this:
 
Now add to this the weight difference and what you have is the automatic equipped GXP driver smiling as he whizzes by the S2000.
 
Per Edmunds:
2007 S2000: 2855 lbs
2007 Solstice GXP: 2976 lbs
 
link title
 
So no.
 
Comaprably, the Lotus Elise comes in at a featherweight 1984 lbs.

Messages Page 16 of 19

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement