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: donquixote30 (May 14, 2007 7:36 pm) I paid $32,000 for a 2002 S2000 in November 2001 and thought I got a heck of a deal. The Edmunds "TMV" at the time was $36,800, $4,000 OVER MSRP. So $29,500 seems like a no-brainer, if you like the car. "As you know, not every GT3 owner is necessarily a hard core, track-oriented person." I would have said that about "regular" 911's and even Turbos, but the GT3 does tend to appeal to the more hard core drivers. According to my dealer, the settings on the PASM are dialed up a notch or two on the GT3, making for a jolting ride over rough streets even in the "regular" mode. "Sport" mode can be downright painful, except on a track or very smooth highway. I am pretty sure the GT3 would be a hoot to drive - for all the reasons you cited (especially the 8,400 rpm redline)- but I doubt I'd have driven it daily the way I do my 911S. As long as the buyer is aware of that, it's their money. But it's not exactly an easy car to find to test drive. Every one of the dealers I've asked has sold out their allocation way in advance and they only way to get a test drive is to bribe an existing owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (May 16, 2007 2:41 pm) By the way, if you are interested in driving a 997 GT3, I would suggest joining Rennlist. The core 997 GT3 forum participants are very committed to their beloved track toy and I have no doubt would let you drive their GT3s. Indeed I have been invited to drive a couple of them without solicitation. These enthusiasts are very friendly, extremely knowledgeable about their sport, and have a great sense of humor to boot.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: donquixote30 (May 16, 2007 5:20 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: donquixote30 (May 16, 2007 5:20 pm) Solstice vs S2000 260HP vs 237HP 260 lb-ft  2500rpm vs 162 lb-ft 6800 (WOW!) 22/31 MPG vs 20/26 MPG P245/45R 18 tires vs P245/40ZR 17‘s 100,000 mile powertrain warranty vs 60,000 XM radio vs not available Now here is the clinker: $25,057 vs $31,637 Now styling of course is an entirely subjective thing but the Soltice looks much more up-to-date to me. What am I missing here???
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (May 17, 2007 7:47 am) You are missing the weight difference of the two cars, the Honda reliability, S2000 proven track record, and residual value.  If I may chime in here, I don't think you can get a Solstice GXP at $25,057, can you? That is the invoice pricing and you haven't added any options yet. There is more to than just numbers on paper, the subjective factors. Personally, the S2000 fits me. I'm fairly slender (140#, 5'9"). In the S, I'm planted; in the SOL, there was not enough bolster support for me, I slid side to side. The nice thing is that all three (S2000, Sky, and Sol) are all produced in limited numbers so the uniquness remains in tact. I did stop a guy on the street who was more than happy to talk about his Sky R/L. He was a considerably larger man, height and width wise and said he preferred the Sky because he thought it looked like a mini corvette, not the mention he could fit better in the Sky. He got the 5speed automatic and said it was smooth. I haven't heard that the stick is very smooth; perhaps that will be addressed in 2008 models. Either way you go, let us know what you think after you drive them.
|
|
|
|
|
The Sky is an econobox, built to a pricepoint and it shows. There is a lot of lessons to be learned when the next generation bows (which in GM terms will be in about 10 years) starting with the piece-parts approach. Lessee, the rear end comes out of the CTS, the engine from a Cobalt (mounted longtitudinally for RWD application, good luck checking the oil dipstick stuffed in front of the firewall) and the not so slick gearbox pulled out of a Colorado pickup truck. Add to that the lawnchair support of the front buckets, those asthetic humps that impede on any rearward vision unless you put your hand on the seat and prop yourself up over to see (Not the best move while driving) and door sills that are about eye level giving you the feeling sitting in a clawfoot tub. Then, there's the ill-fitting, cumbersome-to-operate soft top that looks like an afterthought and if you plan on taking taking your wife/girlfriend with you on a weekend getaway, leave your change of clothes at home. Or, have her follow you with the bags in another car. Good thing all this good stuff remains in the Turbo version, including the clunky pickup truck gearbox.... Um no. Yay, so they added more power, just enough to keep up with a 7 year old NA design. On the reliability front, the S has an excellent record. The car is overbuilt, the engine is bulletproof even with its ridiculous 9000RPM redline. The Kappa, eh not so much (Black circles in the CR and a "not recommended" rating). Tranny issues and bad rear ends are common along with water leaks (wonder why) from everything I read about them. 100k mile warranty? Gonna need it. Drive them both. Congrats on your choice. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (May 17, 2007 11:39 am) Regarding the piece-parts approach, Ford did the same thing with the Mustang. Look at the air vents of the mustang and the F150. They are the same. Even the Ford Ligtning had brakes from an F250 (or was it the differential?). It makes economical sense to share the parts bin, as long as you are taking the quality parts. As much as I love the Sky's look, I fear it may be another Fiero. While the Fiero looked great... I'll just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Replying to: trucktricks (May 17, 2007 7:47 am) With all due respect, you didn't "run" any real comparison, you looked at a bunch of paper statistics. If you got your butt in the seat of an S2000 and Solstace GTP back to back, you'd (hopefully) figure out what you are missing. And it's a lot. The S2000 outperforms the Solstace in every category. Not by a large margin from a "statistical" comparison, but an enouromous amount with respect to how a refined sports car should feel. A quote from the Edmunds editors in their review of the Solstace GTP: The combination of heavy steering, imprecise shift action and fading brakes led us into trouble in one decreasing-radius corner. Wide Goodyear Eagle tires and the GXP's standard stability control kept us on our intended line, but it was a little lesson that while this car has some serious capability, it's not a very handy package. Regardless of its impressive 65.2-mph speed in our slalom test, the boys at the test track believe the GXP's poor control feel and lack of a close-ratio six-speed transmission will lead it to be overlooked by people who are really savvy about sports cars. Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton notes, "The unintuitive clutch uptake and heavy-handed shift action don't provide the driver with the kind of no-brainer experience a sports car should." If you think a big boxy vinyl sided McMansion in the suburbs "beats" Frank Lloyd Wrights Fallingwater because it has 2 more bedrooms and three and a half more bathrooms, go for it. And park your Pontiac in the garage. But for those that seek precision, performance and refinement in a high quality package, there really is no comparison between the Solstace and the S2000.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: accelerator (May 17, 2007 10:09 am) MSRP for the Solstice is $26,515. If you add air (it is optional), the total comes to $27,475. This compares to 34,250 MSRP for the S2000. That is a $6875 difference. That is a huge number …. as in a cruise vacation to Hawaii for my wife and I. Knock $3000 off of each one for proper deal making and you still have a huge difference. Don’t know about the reliability thing. My latest experience with a GM vehicle has been with my 2002 Tahoe. It has been virtually bulletproof for its 129,000 miles. Probably too soon to tell on the Pontiac. But with 100,000 miles on the warranty, I must say I am not the least bit concerned. I am leaning toward the automatic which was on the Solstice I drove. It is a snappy shifting unit also used on Cadillac CTS, STS, SRX and some BMWs. That’s another $850. (There goes the captain’s preferred deluxe cabin with porthole windows.) As far as the weight, if you assume a 175# driver, the Solstice comes in at 12.1 lbs/HP and the S2000 is 12.8 lbs/HP. Pretty close there. But the fatter torque curve would clearly give the advantage to the Solstice in terms of raw performance. And at $3.70/gal premium fuel, that 31 MPG looks pretty good to me……….. Styling wise, again very subjective, I like the cleaner, simpler lines of the Solstice or Honda over the Sky. Kinda reminds me of an AC Cobra which is my all time favorite.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (May 17, 2007 12:38 pm) Also, you get a D- in spelling.
|
|
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
