2004 Honda S2000

[Ns1]

they extended the backend out WAY TOO FREAKING LONG.

it looks lot longer than it should be

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo s2k is nice, but 350z is so much cooler now

but 350z doesn't have any convertable action and the 350z convertable sucks ass.

why does the 360z convertible suck ass? it looked ok to me.

While I don't think that the 350z roadster sucks ass, the S2000 roadster has it beat. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1091634&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
i just like the 350z/g35 coupe a bit more than the S2000 beacuse it is a "BIT" more luxurious.

I like the navigation and all the luxury the car provides. IMO, s2000 is too much $$$ for what it's worth. 350z is a better value.

Yes, I've always thought Honda would have done well had they made a fixed-roof version of the S2000 with all the bells and whistles the high-end crowd likes.

When it first came about, the S2000 was purposefully minimalist--no clock anywhere, a few simple digital gauges, no cupholders, bare carpet everywhere, etc...

They could have very easily have made an Acura version of it with leather everywhere, fully-automatic roof (I have to remove a pair of clips), DVD navigation, and :Q an optional automatic mated to an engine with more gradual acceleration.

But at the same time, I do enjoy the exclusive nature of the S2000 with it's rough VTEC point, empty cabin, and Honda badge...It takes a very different sort of person to pick a car like this when he/she could just as easily pay for the more mainstream 350z/RX8/American muscle or the 4-door family car or the big SUV. As such, I've become good friends with a lot of other S-drivers--renegade spirit and all

 

[BigSmooth]

As for structure, any convertible based on a fixed-roof isn't going to be as structurally sound as a convertible built on its own platform from the ground up.

That may be true in many cases, especially in the past, but recently convertibles have reduced their structural rigidity a LOT through improved materials and engineering. For instance, the brand new Saab 9-3 'vert is light years better than the old cowl-shake happy 900 from as little as 5-6 years ago.
I don't hear many people complain about the Audi TT Roadster or BMW 3-Series cabrio being "structurally unsound".

And like the TT, the Z was designed with the knowledge that a topless version was on the way. Like I said, I haven't driven the Roadster, but straight from Edmunds' review:

Our first clue as to how capable the Roadster is came when traversing bumps and powering through rapid left-right/right-left transitions. Because of our strong familiarity with the coupe's capabilities (due to our long-term testing of one), we were instantly aware of how little the Roadster was flexing on our regular driving loop. In fact, with the optional 18-inch alloy wheels fitted to our test car, the Roadster felt just as confident as our Track model despite the open sky over our heads.

Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. To enhance body rigidity, the company installed reinforcing cross bars underneath the passenger and engine compartments. Nissan also strengthened the door openings and floor structure. A tempered glass wind deflector, located between the front seats, helps reduce wind turbulence within the cabin and further adds to the car's placid nature.

The S2000 has a fantastic, stiff chassis and is probably the best convertible on the road in this regard, but the Z Roadster is no slouch. It probably has less body flex than some convertible-only models out there.

 

[freebee]

Well the talk of the 2.2l engine has been going on for some time....though its still a bit shocking to see that there is little or no gain in power..every little bit of torque is good though. The s2k won't really get a fair comparison on these boards simply because many here are commuters rather than enthusiasts.

Hopefully the price is still around 29-32k....so it can be affordabe. Ever since having stumbled onto the s2ki forums I've been wanted to get one....(despite brief thoughts of the Z06, current financial condition wont allow it). Probably wait a year or so to see how people like the 2004 before I purchase it...and to see how that new Boxter coupe does in the market.

My only concerns are theft (conv. tops can be bad in the city), driveability in traffic (long stop and go commute to work) and performance on snow (which is needed for the NE ski season.) Too bad subaru doesnt make a convertible 2 door coupe.

 

[Doggiedog]

The 350Z engine probably has alot more room to tinker with. The S2000 engine is tweak to max isn't it?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
i just like the 350z/g35 coupe a bit more than the S2000 beacuse it is a "BIT" more luxurious.

I like the navigation and all the luxury the car provides. IMO, s2000 is too much $$$ for what it's worth. 350z is a better value.

Yes, I've always thought Honda would have done well had they made a fixed-roof version of the S2000 with all the bells and whistles the high-end crowd likes.

When it first came about, the S2000 was purposefully minimalist--no clock anywhere, a few simple digital gauges, no cupholders, bare carpet everywhere, etc...

They could have very easily have made an Acura version of it with leather everywhere, fully-automatic roof (I have to remove a pair of clips), DVD navigation, and :Q an optional automatic mated to an engine with more gradual acceleration.

But at the same time, I do enjoy the exclusive nature of the S2000 with it's rough VTEC point, empty cabin, and Honda badge...It takes a very different sort of person to pick a car like this when he/she could just as easily pay for the more mainstream 350z/RX8/American muscle or the 4-door family car or the big SUV. As such, I've become good friends with a lot of other S-drivers--renegade spirit and all

I feel the same way about the Z. I get almost all positive comments about the Z, and I always felt it was because of the "Nissan" badge. In other words, I'm not a badge whore who got an older Porsche just to get a Porsche, and I didn't get an underpowered E46 bimmer just for the "bimmer" image. The Z is also very minimalist, and that's what I love about it. I wanted thrills not frills. Most S2K owners are the same.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
The 350Z engine probably has alot more room to tinker with. The S2000 engine is tweak to max isn't it?

GReddy 350Z Turbo kit
S2K Superchargers

There are many others of course, but those are just examples. There will be sufficient aftermarket mods for both cars.

 

[Forrest2b]

Hmm... Might have to trade in my '00 for it. We'll see. i still wonder if they are going to keep producing them or stick to limited production.

 

[Forrest2b]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
When it first came about, the S2000 was purposefully minimalist--no clock anywhere, a few simple digital gauges, no cupholders, bare carpet everywhere, etc...
I feel the same way about the Z. I get almost all positive comments about the Z, and I always felt it was because of the "Nissan" badge. In other words, I'm not a badge whore who got an older Porsche just to get a Porsche, and I didn't get an underpowered E46 bimmer just for the "bimmer" image. The Z is also very minimalist, and that's what I love about it. I wanted thrills not frills. Most S2K owners are the same.

I didn't like the "no clock" at first though. I never figure out why they chose that.

 

[Ranger X]

Not a drastic change from its previous releases but I like it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

very nice, esp the interior

 

[Howard]

I wish Honda would actually put the fake S2000R into production. That would be ungodly sweet.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Howard
I wish Honda would actually put the fake S2000R into production. That would be ungodly sweet.

And they'd have to charge twice as much, sell less S's than NSX's, have more limited warranty support, and scrap the idea the next year.

People talk about wanting cars like S2000 Type R's, Skylines, and the like brought over here but in reality, those people wouldn't buy them. They just want to see hot Hondas and Nissans stateside so they can say their Civic or Pulsar came from a company that makes race cars...

You know why?

Because you people love your cupholders! And you absolutely need 30 cubic feet of cargo space. The age of sports cars came and went in the US and there's only space for a few pure sports, minimalist cars nowadays

 

[m2kewl]

dasm! the interior colors are SWEEET!!

 

[Regs]

What was the orginal engine? 2.0?

How do they get so much horse power out of a 4 cylinder again? Direct fuel port injection with a huge ass air intake blower and shite? Linkage!

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Vortex22

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Vortex22 No official specs have been released but speculation is around 250hp and 165lb-ft I think. And the wheels are 17's up from 16's

They should quit dicking around and just put an i6 in there. Nobody wants to be the Japanese Porsche.

That would definitely be sweet. I doubt they ever will though I'm pretty sure Honda doesn't make any I6 engines as of now.

I know a Japanese inline 6 you can (may be not) put in this car, RBDETT, or may be the newer VQ33DDTT. Those whose in the know will know what I'm talking about, and yes, I know that these are not Honda's engines.

 

[Cfour]

Torque, torque, torque. Too little torque. Did I mention this thing has no torque already? Who the hell wants to rev to 9k rpms to make power anyways. If I want to do that, I'll buy a crotchrocket.. that would probably have more torque anyways, lol.

 

[PCMarine]

Originally posted by: Regs
What was the orginal engine? 2.0?

How do they get so much horse power out of a 4 cylinder again? Direct fuel port injection with a huge ass air intake blower and shite? Linkage!