Somewhat Flat

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

  1. From edmunds.com

    Somewhat Flat
    Yet once the initial high wears off, it slowly becomes apparent that the S2000 doesn't have an abundance of torque. It has 153 foot-pounds at heady 7,500 rpm, which is only 1 foot pound more than a four-cylinder Accord LX. Two liters of displacement, no matter how much technology one throws at it, is still two liters. Honda is about the only auto company in the world that can write 50 pages of press material about a new sports car and conveniently forget to mention torque until the last page.

    This isn't to say the S2000 is a slowpoke. In normal driving, VTEC plumps out the torque curve sufficiently. It's just when you're stuck well below 6,000 rpm and you ask the S2000 to leap forward immediately that there's a big lag between command and actual execution. So either you keep the engine on boil at all times (not really realistic), or you take the S2000 out of the city where it can truly run.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Re: Somewhat Flat

    Ever watch "Speedvision?" Seen that episode of Car and Driver Television where they compare the S2000 to a Boxter? They even chose THAT over the Honda. What a waste of money.
     
  3. Re: Somewhat Flat

    Ouch, the Boxter over an S2000? That fat mutha is pretty awful, so it's pretty pathetic that the S2000 lost to it. I feel for Honda on that one.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: Somewhat Flat

    ouch, the Boxter over the s2000, the Boxter isn't that great of a car. they must have found something they really didn't like about the S2000.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: Somewhat Flat

    you got it all backwards. The people who chose the boxster chose it because of the comforts and roominess. The S2000 is much faster than a standard boxster, but the boxster is built to be comfortable. The S2000 was made to simulate a formula 1 car, minus about 400hp. The close ratio gearbox, and clutch in the S2000 are quick and precise, the boxster is more forgiving. And a dont forget a boxster is a porsche...porsche has never made a bad car. (914s were made by Volkswagen).<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: Somewhat Flat

    dude, i like the different pics of the S2000 in all your posts.


    anyways, who cares what other people say. for every article against the S2000, i can throw three at you that are for it. it doesnt matter. when you read an article about a car, do you say, "oh okay so thats what its like to drive it." and never do it yourself? NO<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: Somewhat Flat

    You're right. But almost every review you read will give stregths and weaknesses. Everyone agrees that the lack of torque is one of the weaknesses. Yes, the S2000 is a nice car. But it's definately not the most complete race car ever made like some people make it out to be. To me going fast in a straight line is important and the S2000 is lacking in that department. <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: Somewhat Flat

    agreed. its a difficult car to drive fast. the actors in the fake and ridiculous burned two clutches on that 350hp S2000, because they cant drive. but it is completely dependant on the driver and the opinion. going fast in a straight line was fun to me at one time. it just got old to me at one point. now i like the turns, but thats just my thing.

    as for the S2000, i like to look at the lack of torque differently. sort of for useability. you dont have to rev it up above 6800 rpm just to move 40 feet. but if you want to quickly (not viper-style, but quickly nevertheless) you can rev it up that much. sort of a two cam, two mode system. low cam for daily driving, when you dont need to go fast. and the agressive high revving cam for racing, etc. <!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page