S2000 Worste car ever! - Page 3

thepolarfoxqx · 08-15-04, 10:30 PM

I would have loved to have seen the engine out of the S2000 under the hood of the lotus elise, or better yet, if they could refine the chasis of the S2000 a bit further, get - oh, 500 lbs out of it, they would have something incredible.

bleh · 08-26-04, 04:37 AM

yea... that was hondas designed competition.... miatas.... too bad the s2000 is 2800lbs... really defeats the purpose. the strange thing is that its wheelbase and dimensions are very close to that of my civic, but my civic weighs in at 2400lbs. w/ a full tank of gas, no a/c, gutted trunk and me in it (i weigh 170). do you think a real hard top s2000 would be lighter, while maintaining the same chasis regidity? it should be...

thepolarfoxqx · 08-26-04, 06:21 AM

The convertible is what kills it. That said, there isn't a stiffer convertible build.

Period. The X-Bone chasis is heavy, but pays off. In hard top they could scrap the X-Bone and lose the soft top weight, toss some aluminum panels into the mix, i bet they could get down to say, 2,400, maybe 2,300 or lower yet even.

My bimmer, which is nicely larger weighs in at only 2,420 - with some stuff gutted, given, plus my 190lbs. But I have seats for 4 and a real interior - with things like a stereo not based on a disc-man. (the S2000 stereo is truly the worst since the days honda made civics without catalysts.

bleh · 08-30-04, 05:45 AM

the good old days before airbags

i thought about gutting my interior but i decided it just wasnt worth it, especially with a 4door. i do have a few pounds less of sound proofing tar but aside from that my interior is pretty stock. automatic windows and mirrors i probably could take off a real big chunk by going manual...but it its a simple thing that should stay on all daily driven cars.

to get back on topic: a 2400lb. s2000 would be such a worthy investment. i would definitely get one.

thepolarfoxqx · 08-30-04, 02:41 PM

Well, I'm convinced a hardtop could shed at least 250lbs, and then probably another 100 atleast gutting all the chasis bolsters they had to add to stiffen the up back when it was a convertible.

Charlie 350 Z · 06-03-05, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIR

Quote:

Originally Posted by bleh

just out of curiosity was it entirely stock? different rims/tires?

All were stock except the Civic which has Koni shocks, BBS RD 220 (17 inch) rims and Goodyear eagle sliks. Further more it was chipped, highflow intake and a highflow exhaust.

Personally I think the S2000 is a an over rated car. I test drove it and compare it with the 350 Z, deciding which one to buy and my friends, S2000 sucks in all aspects. You could say flimsy structure, you don't really feell it. Now the 350 Z that is something else although you can over steer in curves and go all over the place if you are not carefull, hehehe.

Charlie 350 Z · 06-03-05, 05:33 PM

Personally I think the S2000 is a an over rated car. I test drove it and compare it with the 350 Z, deciding which one to buy and my friends, S2000 sucks in all aspects. You could say flimsy structure, you don't really feell it and the rpms going nuts,it looked like it wanted to explode. I only was able to drag it the sales man did not let me do anything else, he almost shoked in that shit. Now the 350 Z that is something else although you can over steer in curves and go all over the place if you are not carefull, hehehe.

. but still the best car I have driven so far, sorry but only talking about performance, never had the privilege to test it on real track. peace

bleh · 06-03-05, 05:40 PM

the s2000 quality is much higher. wait till you sychros take a crap, or your toe angle gets screwy and your tires start to feather, or your interior door handles break. the average person will always think the s2000 is slow, cus they want low end torque. you have to take it to 9 to appreciate it.

one of my buddies used to have a z and it performed decently, but he got rid of it within less than a year and lost a chunk in the process. im not saying its a crappy car, i loved driving it, but i would never buy one. however, given the finances, i would be a proud owner of an s2000. its a matter of preference.

Charlie 350 Z · 06-05-05, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bleh

the s2000 quality is much higher. wait till you sychros take a crap, or your toe angle gets screwy and your tires start to feather, or your interior door handles break. the average person will always think the s2000 is slow, cus they want low end torque. you have to take it to 9 to appreciate it.

one of my buddies used to have a z and it performed decently, but he got rid of it within less than a year and lost a chunk in the process. im not saying its a crappy car, i loved driving it, but i would never buy one. however, given the finances, i would be a proud owner of an s2000. its a matter of preference.

What Z was the new 350? How did he drive it, trying to bust it all over. Please is not a Honda but it is a Nissan, they both make exellent cars & quality to be honest is comparable. Now i drag race a lot and believe me I would get a 350 over the S2000. Only droping some weight out of it and it becomes really fast. So far I have only lost one race with an STI souped up pushing 350 to the wheels and I have race it with SRT's , S2000's, Porshe's ( got kicked but no for to much )

RX-8 's and only lost that race with the STI ( great car by the way

) Remember my friend is not what you drive, is how you drive it also, and so far no complaints, although I could not say much about the S2000 since I haven't tested to the fullest but in a drag I would take the Z. Just a coment peace

Also the Z is what some people call Japanese muscle, I will go with it, low end torque, yeah

mercedes_junge · 06-05-05, 04:09 PM

A neugbour kissed a tree with his s2000.
i liked the car, because i hate my neugbour