Re: This car is horrible...

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by 300zxdriver, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. i know mazda hasn't won since, the rx-7 got BANNED. oh and sorry for the every year thing, i didn't know how many years rx was in le mans
     
  2. Again, I would take the lotus. ;) if I am going for handling I am going to go all the way.
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Well, let's talk about a couple things you brought up.

    The NSX was designed a long time ago and the technology barely changed, and many other cars caught up to it, right? Doesn't that defeat the myth that Honda is sooo much more technologically advanced than American car makers? Personally I think that pitting a 50K Corvette against an 85K NSX is more than fair. Hell, the NSX is supposed to be an exotic, and the Z06 is just a lowely sports car. Don't worry the NSX isn't the first expensive car to get beat by the Z06, and it won't be the last.

    Now YOU say the S2000 is not in the same class as the 03 Cobra and shouldn't be compared. I actually agree with you, however; there are a sh!t load of Honda boys who say otherwise. So many people think the S2000 is the most complete race race car to hit the streets since Lamborghini. You can talk about technology all day long, but here's what the S2000 really comes down to. A great handling roadster with mediocre power, and nice interior. Nice car? Sure it is. But it's not some intimidating monster on wheels.

    I have no doubt that Ford will produce AT LEAST the claimed 390/390 horsepower/torque. The 1999 designs weren't meeting specs, and Ford paid the price and learned from their mistakes. The 2001 Cobras were actually exceeding the claimed 320 horsepower. Plus I've seen what supercharging Ford's 4.6 DOHC engine can do. Had they used a centrifugal supercharger it would have been close to 500HP. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I think the NSX is cool, when you think of it as a collectors's item. It's past its prime, and I think it's foolish of Honda to keep producing it without keeping pace with their own technology. In my mind, it's almost a novelty these days; if Ferrari still made the 355, I'd feel the same way about that. The NSX just isn't a serious performance machine anymore. 'Nuff said.

    I agree with your assessment of the S2000, but I'd only like to point out that the Z3, SLK, and their higher performance cousins from the M and AMG divisions have significantly more power and torque, but only slightly better performance. The M roadster has twice the torque of the S2000 but only manages to scoot to 60 a half second faster. The M, however, is more of a serious track car (for a convertible) than the S2000, and would use that torque to destroy the Honda coming out of every single corner. BMW's motorsport division doesn't mess around. AMG's cute, isn't it?

    I know what you mean about the little half-wits that think Hondas are really fast. They should be rounded up and forced - a la Clockwork Orange - to watch the chase scene from "Bullit" over and over again. I love the S2000, but it isn't a muscle car. Fun as hell and nicely made, but blisteringly fast, it isn't.

    Also, I hope Ford has learned their lesson. After the Cobra fiasco and the Firestone disaster, I think everyone was a little disappointed in them.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Supra and Bronco</i>
    <b>Okay, before you get to god damn cocky, i think everyone that has a membership to a supercars.net account would agree with me, its not an opinion everyone knows that an s2000 is just to expensive for a 6 speed inline 250hp car. 40k id rather spend anoth 10k and get a ZO6. not only would the ZO6 eat this car on the track and in the quarter mile, but it looks MUCH MUCH BETTER, and i dont even like chevy and im saying this... Poor guy, go pout to mamasin and eat your bowl of rice!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You actually have a lot more problems that I initially thought. The S2000 costs $32000 base, thats THIRTY TWO thousand dollars. are you vision impaired? and I only paid $1000 more than base price to buy my car! besides, if You think the state of the art engineering, design, and HAND built quality thats been heavily invested in the S2000 is NOT worth the $32,000 price, then I truly urge you to check out the prices of other CONVERTIBLES(Z06 doesn't count) out there in the auto market. better even, why don't you "educate" your self in a better manner by actually reading some professional reviews, and comparisons that have been made and done on the S2000. That way, you'll see what people who actually tested the S2000 think about it. and what about this stupid argument "i think everyone that has a membership to a supercars.net account would agree with me, its not an opinion everyone knows that an s2000 is just to expensive for a 6 speed inline 250hp car" how in GOD's name did you reach that conclusion?? finally, lemme tell you something Mr. Mechanic, it just shows the caliber of your ignorance to think that every single S2000 advocate is Japanese or even oriental.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Ummm... didnt ford take over mazda in like 93-94? if so, how did they design the rotary engine? they just took over the company, they didnt design anything.
     
  6. This car is horrible...

    Aside from the fact that it's a chaep foreign car and it has Dr.jeckyl-mr.Hyde handeling it is over rated. What's your opion? Post reply here.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. I truly pitty those who tend to throw-in false statements about cars they know nothing about. cheap? over-rated? how can you possibly know if you haven't even sat in one, not to mention driving it. But if you have done any of the two, and still think it's cheap and overrated! then you are a worthless case, and in need of serious tuning of your senses!

    P.S. wanna hear the sound of cheap-ness? knock on the interior plastics of any American made car, and you'll definitely preceive and understand the true meaning of that word.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. well said simzer. this car is not the fastest in the world, but it is faster than most others. and that earns it my respect. cars i respect get defended by me when people on here talk trash they don't know. you are right simzer, they call the japanese cheap while the american competition markets an economy car(mustang), and simply puts a more powerful engine in it. maybe i have missed the point, but i thought sports cars were built from the beginning as sports cars. starting with the chassis, suspension, transmission, practical interior. only when they have the car to back up an engine will a company put a powerful engine in. several cars don't need over 300hp to compete though. one needs to only look at the old mazda rx7's. it had an "underpowerd" 1.3 L rotary engine when everyone else used big V8s, but it won the race every year until it got banned from leman's because they had to change the rules so the other companies could compete.
     
  9. Hahaha!! Getting carried away talking about your dream car is the first sign that proves you're a certified car nut just like myself and everyone else in here too. Keep it real!!
     
  10. I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

    ....<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>I truly pitty those who tend to throw-in false statements about cars they know nothing about. cheap? over-rated? how can you possibly know if you haven't even sat in one, not to mention driving it. But if you have done any of the two, and still think it's cheap and overrated! then you are a worthless case, and in need of serious tuning of your senses!

    P.S. wanna hear the sound of cheap-ness? knock on the interior plastics of any American made car, and you'll definitely preceive and understand the true meaning of that word.

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    The S2000 is a very capable car, but only in the hands of someone who knows how to drive it.

    Motor Trend was only able to get 5.2 0-60 with the S2000 by revving up to launching at 8000 RPM's and then shifting through gears at 8300 RPMs. At launch, the S2000 does not even squeel its tires, as evident by the car's lack of torque.

    If the S2000 was launched and shifted at 4500 RPM's, the car, as tested under Motor Trend, would take over 11 seconds to reach 60mph.

    Meanwhile, a car like the Camaro, Trans Am, Mustang, and so on, if launched at 4500 RPM's would take a bit longer to get off the line because of the smoke from the shredding rear tires caused by the massive amount of torque, and their times would suffer a bit, but nowhere near as much as the S2000.

    And about the cheap plastics. Its really only GM who really over used the plastic material, but since Lutz came into the GM fold, the new cars coming out of GM have been magnificent inside and out.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Very true. I agree with the fact that only GM "used" to produce really cheap interiors. Fords and Chrysler interiors are alright. But in the recent years, as shown in the trucks especially, the interior has improved a lot over the previous years.
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from AmericanMuscle0291</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b>I truly pitty those who tend to throw-in false statements about cars they know nothing about. cheap? over-rated? how can you possibly know if you haven't even sat in one, not to mention driving it. But if you have done any of the two, and still think it's cheap and overrated! then you are a worthless case, and in need of serious tuning of your senses!

    P.S. wanna hear the sound of cheap-ness? knock on the interior plastics of any American made car, and you'll definitely preceive and understand the true meaning of that word.

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    The S2000 is a very capable car, but only in the hands of someone who knows how to drive it.

    Motor Trend was only able to get 5.2 0-60 with the S2000 by revving up to launching at 8000 RPM's and then shifting through gears at 8300 RPMs. At launch, the S2000 does not even squeel its tires, as evident by the car's lack of torque.

    If the S2000 was launched and shifted at 4500 RPM's, the car, as tested under Motor Trend, would take over 11 seconds to reach 60mph.

    Meanwhile, a car like the Camaro, Trans Am, Mustang, and so on, if launched at 4500 RPM's would take a bit longer to get off the line because of the smoke from the shredding rear tires caused by the massive amount of torque, and their times would suffer a bit, but nowhere near as much as the S2000.

    And about the cheap plastics. Its really only GM who really over used the plastic material, but since Lutz came into the GM fold, the new cars coming out of GM have been magnificent inside and out.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I don't know why anyone would be surprised by the fact that you have to push the S2000 to its limit to get the best performance out of it; that's what you have to do in any car to get the best results. What's nice about the S2000 is that its limit is very high - one of the many results of excellent engineering and manufacturing techniques. There aren't many other cars in the world that can reliably rev to 9000rpm, and for good reason: it's not easy to build an engine that precise.

    Also, I'm sick of hearing, "A Camaro this" and, "A Mustang that." The S2000 doesn't compete with these cars because it is more expensive, a totally different type of car, and designed for a totally different audience. Of course a Camaro SS could beat this car off the line; that hunk of trash has Chevvy's awesome LS1 engine in it, sporting 5.7L of V8 displacement. Is the S2000 slower? Yes. Is the S2000 more responsive? Higher quality? More luxurious? More precise? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Too many people are simply stating and re-stating three facts: the S2000 has no torque, the S2000 is slow to 60, and the S2000 is made by Honda, a Japanese company. No one seems to appreciate that this is an absolutely beautiful car with an awe-inspiring engine and transmission. You can't get as involving a driving experience anywhere but from Porsche or Ferrari. Lay off the S2000 a little, Mr. American Muscle.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. As I have stated before this car is not for me. And there is no real american roadster to compare this too. (well maybe the AC, but thats part british, and in a whole different price range). This is not a bad car for being a roadster. Besides

    1. It has no torque
    2. Its 0-60 is slow
    3. Its a Honda for god sakes

    Sorry, couldn't help myself. Cars to compare to would be the Lotus Elise which doesn't nearly have the engine this car does (according to this page anyways), but pulls the 1/4 mile faster, has a mid engine and priced about the same. Then the Audi TT Which has more torque, but slower in the 1/4, and I believe it is heavier. The Toyota MR2, the Miata,the Boxster and maybe the BMW Z3 . And the AC Cobra (Just kidding way to expensive but the only American roadster I could think of). Most of these cars are more expensive than the S2000, personally I would pick the Lotus, I like the mid engine configuration. Well there always the AC and those 5.0 Miatas, but thats another story.
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Jadotch</i>
    <b>As I have stated before this car is not for me. And there is no real american roadster to compare this too. (well maybe the AC, but thats part british, and in a whole different price range). This is not a bad car for being a roadster. Besides

    1. It has no torque
    2. Its 0-60 is slow
    3. Its a Honda for god sakes

    Sorry, couldn't help myself. Cars to compare to would be the Lotus Elise which doesn't nearly have the engine this car does (according to this page anyways), but pulls the 1/4 mile faster, has a mid engine and priced about the same. Then the Audi TT Which has more torque, but slower in the 1/4, and I believe it is heavier. The Toyota MR2, the Miata,the Boxster and maybe the BMW Z3 . And the AC Cobra (Just kidding way to expensive but the only American roadster I could think of). Most of these cars are more expensive than the S2000, personally I would pick the Lotus, I like the mid engine configuration. Well there always the AC and those 5.0 Miatas, but thats another story.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    whats the use of having a huge digit in the Torque field when the performance doesn't back it up? the S2000 has only 153lb-ft of torque, but it can out perform cars with engines producing double it's torque. And please, don't get into how light weight the S2000 is, because anyone can make a car light, but light, and solid? the New T-Bird roadster for instance, everything in it was built from SMC plastic, except the doors and rear panels, but the car is still as heavy as a hippo(still looks nice though)
    and why would someone prefer a certain configuration over another? weight distribution for better handeling and stability? the MR config. is superb, but give me another FR configed. car with an excellent 50/50 weight distribution!

    P.S LanciaDelta, now that you're back to your senses, we are in love with you all over again. HAHAHAHAHAH<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Jadotch</i>
    <b>As I have stated before this car is not for me. And there is no real american roadster to compare this too. (well maybe the AC, but thats part british, and in a whole different price range). This is not a bad car for being a roadster. Besides

    1. It has no torque
    2. Its 0-60 is slow
    3. Its a Honda for god sakes

    Sorry, couldn't help myself. Cars to compare to would be the Lotus Elise which doesn't nearly have the engine this car does (according to this page anyways), but pulls the 1/4 mile faster, has a mid engine and priced about the same. Then the Audi TT Which has more torque, but slower in the 1/4, and I believe it is heavier. The Toyota MR2, the Miata,the Boxster and maybe the BMW Z3 . And the AC Cobra (Just kidding way to expensive but the only American roadster I could think of). Most of these cars are more expensive than the S2000, personally I would pick the Lotus, I like the mid engine configuration. Well there always the AC and those 5.0 Miatas, but thats another story.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    That's what I mean! The Lotus Elise, the Audi TT, and the Z3 are really the only roadsters in the S2000's price class, so THOSE are the cars that should be compared to it. I'd only really consider the Elise over this if I was thinking about performance - the car weighs nothing and handles like a go-cart! And I would consider the TT if I was talking about the 225 TT Quattro and thinking about luxury and prestige. I wouldn't ever consider the Z3...it sucks.

    Sizmer, I never left you. The thing is that I'm just as sick of hearing people trash this car because it's not a Camaro as I am of hearing people say "My cousin's friend's supercharged Civic can outrun any Mustang ever." It's mostly ignorance that I'm tired of. If you're going to talk about a car, know something about it. There's more to a car than just its performance stats and price. Otherwise, everyone would be driving a Z06.<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. I agree. And people should stop comparing apples to oranges too. Comments like that are just plain ignorant.
     
  18. I agree. Its just total ignorant people making one car out to be a god (The Supra, Skyline, Camaro, the Vette), while closing off there minds to other possiblities. Few cars have reached "godhood" in my views, but those that have are not me either. So I am stuck with my dreams of a supercharged fuel injected 1970 Hemi 'Cuda. (A clone of course with a modren Hemi Block in it, with exotic internal ect...ect.) Oh yeah and a switch for my superchaer, like in movies. Black on Black, with a flat black Hemi strip down the side so you could only see it in a reflection. Ahh......dreams. What where we talking about?
     
  19. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300zxdriver</i>
    <b>well said simzer. this car is not the fastest in the world, but it is faster than most others. and that earns it my respect. cars i respect get defended by me when people on here talk trash they don't know. you are right simzer, they call the japanese cheap while the american competition markets an economy car(mustang), and simply puts a more powerful engine in it. maybe i have missed the point, but i thought sports cars were built from the beginning as sports cars. starting with the chassis, suspension, transmission, practical interior. only when they have the car to back up an engine will a company put a powerful engine in. several cars don't need over 300hp to compete though. one needs to only look at the old mazda rx7's. it had an "underpowerd" 1.3 L rotary engine when everyone else used big V8s, but it won the race every year until it got banned from leman's because they had to change the rules so the other companies could compete. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You are a liar !!

    Mazda has won only once at Le Mans !! 1991.
     
  20. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SPHZ</i>
    <b>I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

    ....</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Maybe you don't want to sound like a *****, but you do.

    1: Horse power per liter is much easier to get from a SMALLER engine because it's easier to rev them high in the RPM Range.

    2: Horse power per liter doesn't do dick for performance

    3: Torque is the real tricky thing to produce with small displacement, not horse power. Show me a N/A 2.0L I4 with 240 ft/lbs of torque, THEN I'll be impressed.

    4: What does your 120 horse power per liter give you in this car? A 240 horsepower, 153 ft/lbs of torque car that gets worse gas mileage than the 5.7 liter 405 horsepower, 400 ft/lbs of torque Corvette LS6 engine.

    You have to be pretty narrow minded to think that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge don't have the money and resourses to produce a tiny high reving engine with lots of horsepower per liter. That makes no sense at all. Especially when you consider Ford owns Mazda who designed the rotary engine RX-7, which many import fans consider to be the God of Japanese sports cars.

    Did any of you read the lastest Car and Driver shootout between the SVT Focus, the Civic Si, and the VW Golf GTI?
    Guess who came in first... the SVT Focus. And if you think Car and Driver was only looking at 1/4 mile times you're wrong. The GTI blew away both Ford and Honda with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and they came in 3rd. <!-- Signature -->
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SPHZ</i>
    <b>I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

    ....</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I can't believe you said that...we were getting along so well.<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from simzer</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Supra and Bronco</i>
    <b>Okay, before you get to god damn cocky, i think everyone that has a membership to a supercars.net account would agree with me, its not an opinion everyone knows that an s2000 is just to expensive for a 6 speed inline 250hp car. 40k id rather spend anoth 10k and get a ZO6. not only would the ZO6 eat this car on the track and in the quarter mile, but it looks MUCH MUCH BETTER, and i dont even like chevy and im saying this... Poor guy, go pout to mamasin and eat your bowl of rice!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You actually have a lot more problems that I initially thought. The S2000 costs $32000 base, thats THIRTY TWO thousand dollars. are you vision impaired? and I only paid $1000 more than base price to buy my car! besides, if You think the state of the art engineering, design, and HAND built quality thats been heavily invested in the S2000 is NOT worth the $32,000 price, then I truly urge you to check out the prices of other CONVERTIBLES(Z06 doesn't count) out there in the auto market. better even, why don't you "educate" your self in a better manner by actually reading some professional reviews, and comparisons that have been made and done on the S2000. That way, you'll see what people who actually tested the S2000 think about it. and what about this stupid argument "i think everyone that has a membership to a supercars.net account would agree with me, its not an opinion everyone knows that an s2000 is just to expensive for a 6 speed inline 250hp car" how in GOD's name did you reach that conclusion?? finally, lemme tell you something Mr. Mechanic, it just shows the caliber of your ignorance to think that every single S2000 advocate is Japanese or even oriental.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Okay douchbag, ill put it in crude lehmans terms for you, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, TEH S2000 IS TO EXPENSIVE, ID RATHER PAY 2 THOUSAND LESS AND GET THE SVT MUSTANG, AND I HATE MUSTANGS! BUT PLEASE BEFORE WE ARGUE ON, I REALLY DONT LIKE ARGUING WITH DUMBASS' WHO DONT KNOW SHIT WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT. 32,000 is THE BASE PIRCE. BASE. Thats #$%#ing no air, no power windows, or locks. Thats shitty. and prolly cloth seating.SO please before you insult yourself anymore, sell your s2000<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. I should probably ignore you, but I couldn't help my self. You see, A stock S2000 comes almost fully loaded. the only options that you might pay some money on are Cruise control, and the Navigation system. almost everything else you might think of comes standard. now, lemme ask you this, when you look in the mirror, do you actually see a mechanic? or a douchbag? HAHAHA .. you probably didn't know when you wokeup this morning that you would be feeling as stupid as you feel now?!! a piece of advice, try to do some homework before you start any argument, that way you won't be proven "stupid" like in our little argument here.

    P.S. What would you think of someone who pays 30 grand on a car that he "Hates" ? you would probably think he is a DUMBASS!! HAHAHAHAH <!-- Signature -->
     
  24. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SPHZ</i>
    <b>I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L

    ....</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Maybe you don't want to sound like a *****, but you do.

    1: Horse power per liter is much easier to get from a SMALLER engine because it's easier to rev them high in the RPM Range.

    2: Horse power per liter doesn't do dick for performance

    3: Torque is the real tricky thing to produce with small displacement, not horse power. Show me a N/A 2.0L I4 with 240 ft/lbs of torque, THEN I'll be impressed.

    4: What does your 120 horse power per liter give you in this car? A 240 horsepower, 153 ft/lbs of torque car that gets worse gas mileage than the 5.7 liter 405 horsepower, 400 ft/lbs of torque Corvette LS6 engine.

    You have to be pretty narrow minded to think that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge don't have the money and resourses to produce a tiny high reving engine with lots of horsepower per liter. That makes no sense at all. Especially when you consider Ford owns Mazda who designed the rotary engine RX-7, which many import fans consider to be the God of Japanese sports cars.

    Did any of you read the lastest Car and Driver shootout between the SVT Focus, the Civic Si, and the VW Golf GTI?
    Guess who came in first... the SVT Focus. And if you think Car and Driver was only looking at 1/4 mile times you're wrong. The GTI blew away both Ford and Honda with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, and they came in 3rd. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I think the Civic Si should have been disqualified for being a disgrace to its home island. The GTI is a great little car, but so is the SVT Focus. Did they ever make a GTI VR6 4Motion? That would one bitchin' little hot-rod-to-be. The Focus has really surprised me, and in a good way. It's brought some of the young tuner folk back to American cars. I just hope that the Matrix/Vibe thing doesn't screw it up.<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. Quote from SPHZ
    I dont want to sound like a *****

    but lets see a N/A American car produce 125HP/L


    I can't believe you just said that.
     

Share This Page