O-Town_TypeS

I drive an 04 and the powerband responds pretty well pretty much all the way through. If you drive it like a grandma then yes possibly anything under 3k rpm may be a bit slow. Launching at 2500 or so and you are fine...6000 and you are golden

O-Town_TypeS

I like that idea!

Crazy Bimmer

I still need to drive one of these so i can comment. But doesnt it get annoying being that high in revs all the time? Is there no vibration from that 4banger?

Ken1997TL

Its smoother than you'd expect. Its the closest thing to a racing bike on 4 wheels.

O-Town_TypeS

As Ken said it's pretty smooth. Highway speeds are a bit noisy because of the high rpm's plus the wind noise...that's why I put an amp in the car though Personally I like the high rpms all of the time. Makes it much more fun to drive. I've never driven an AP1 and I'm not sure I want to...I would like the extra 1000 rpms too much that I would probably hate mine

Maximized

The S2K has no low end power and it does feel like a turbocharged engine. The car is downright slow under 6K. An N/A engine with torque gives instantaneous response, but in the case of the S2K this doesn't happen. That was my main problem with the S2K, it has no torque.

vishnus11

No offense Mazimized but that's the typical response of someone who's never driven an S2000.

Crazy Sellout: Its not so much that it vibrates so much as it thrums, somewhat like a flat 6 in a bosxter of 911. You kind of feel everything whirring in front of you, and I prefer it that way. IMHO, its no objectional vibration in the sense of thrashiness.

Just for further proof that the "no torque" statements are utter bullshit, just go look at a dyno plot, especially that of an AP2. Relatively flat torque curve all the way from 2800 rpms to 7800 rpms. Especially with the AP2's, VTEC is no longer a whack in a back, but more like a shot of epinephrine, and a second set of lungs

Like O-Town_TypeS said - just under 3k rpms and above and it pulls very well. Just 2 days ago, I had a guy who drives a V6 Impala as a DD driver (no sports car, but a relatively torquey car), who was swearing up and down that my car had to have a 6/8 cyl under the hood, given the way that it pulled even at 40mph in 4th.

The tradeoff to all this is really two things: a lot of shifting due to the close ratios, and higher cruising rpms. It's either your cup of tea or not depending on whether you like these atttributes or not.

Maximized

Oh really? That's funny because I test drove one last year and have extensively driven my friend's S2k. The car was downright slow under 6K. Both the new and old engines had nothing down low. You look any automotive forum or media test and they always point out the lack of low end torque and peak torque. It's a function the lack of displacement.

vishnus11

Hmmm. Funny thing really, is that I own one. As does O-Town_TypeS. And neither of us seem to think that the car is "downright slow" at low rpms - wouldn't have bought it otherwise. Anyways, like I said, any dyno plot would back up my assertions if you bothered to look - like I said, very flat from 2800 to 7800.

I'm not saying that the S2000 has LS2 grade torque - I'm saying it isn't slow or laggy or whatever other BS you seem to think it is low down. If you want prodigious torque in this class, the 350Z beckons. But is also a good 800lbs heavier, so it needs the extra 100 and some odd ft.lbs. But drive the S2000 against the Z4 or 3.2TT and you'll find it to be as competent at lower rpms. Of course, as O-Town_TypeS said, "low" rpms is 2.5k and above.

As I said previously, the main "issues" some might not like are the constant shifting because of the close ratios and the generally higher cruising rpms. Different strokes for different folks.

As an aside, the Boxster S gives you more torque with S2k weight = a phenomenal vehicle. But of course it costs $55k.

srika

problem here is Maximimzed's idea of a torquey car is a single-turbo Supra w/ 600+ lb-fts...

ive driven an 05 S2k on the street, it is definitely not a "slow" car by any means. compared to like 11 and 12 second cars, yes its "slow", I guess.

also driven an AP1, the AP2 is a BIG improvement!

Maximized

I drive a 12 second car daily, so yes an S2K is downright slow. In the sports car world, its biggest attaction is the nimble handling and that was dumbed down in the AP2.

Maximized

So you own the car, thus you are used to it. The S2K has no torque. I've looked at the dynos, driven the cars, and seen them at the track. For example, why do you think that to achieve decent 1/4 mile times, the cars have to be launched at a very high RPM??? All of what I have seen and experienced has not struck me as impressive.

FYI...Your curb weight is off on the 350Z and the Z4 3.0 is much more competent in the low end powerband.

Crazy Bimmer

Mustang GT runs 12s?

Ken1997TL

Dumbed down?

From my understanding and limited test drives, its just less tail happy.

vishnus11

like I said, comments from someone who hasn't driven the car or at best has had a brief drive in it.

AP2 is more planted, and allows you to carry a greater overall speed through the corners. There's a best motoring video out there that has an AP1 and AP2 on the same track, and the AP2 is several car lengths ahead through the course.

Drive a 12 sec car and the S2k will seem slow at low rpms. But compared to cars within its class, its fine. Yes, it needs to be launched at higher rpms for the best 1/4 times but especially in the AP2, even lack of launch will lead to a decent time. I never said the car had prodigious torque. I just said that it isn't "downright slow" under 6k. Again, as srika said "downright slow" will mean different things to someone who drives a 12 sec car.

I've also got a 3.2TL which makes a healthy amount of torque when compared to the S2k. Yet I'd say that without hitting VTEC (6k plus rpms) in the S2k and without launching the car, I'm confident that an AP2 S2k will hold its own against the TL. And I'm sure that we can all agree that the TL is fairly quick.

But like I said, debating about low rpm performance in an S2k is a waste of time, when the car just begs to be driven at high rpms. Keep it in its native powerband, and it will crush a 350Z/Z4/986 Boxster/TT/ and many others in its class.

EDIT: Maxmized, you haven't looked at the dyno's because if you had you notice that it has a pretty FLAT torque curve (at least in AP2 guise).

srika

honestly I don't even know why you're giving us your input on the S2k..

phile

O-Town_TypeS

And for what it's worth...it's been known to do sub 14's completely stock. I don't think that's too bad for something that was not even remotely designed to do a 1/4 mile.

srika

seriously though - the S2k is a terrific SPORTS CAR!!!

TheAcAvenger

I'm still waiting to see what he says about his 12 second daily driver

Maximized

That might have been misleading. It's a high 12s car right now. It will hopefully be a mid to low 12s car this weekend when I head out to GLD. 12 second Mustangs are a dime a dozen.

Maximized

Honda made the suspension easier for novices to drive and not find trees. For an experienced driver, the cars was dumbed down. Honda tuned the snap oversteer characteristics out of the car.

Maximized

Again, I don't think you are comprehending. I've driven both S2K "gens" fairly extensively. I've also looked at the dynos and used my butt dyno. If you want to look at some of my posts on S2Ki, have at it. I actually considered buying an S2K a few years back, but couldn't get over how slow it felt down until it hit roughly 6K. I do a lot of stop and go driving, take that into account.

Best motoring videos are HIGHLY biased. Take a look at the latest video with the C6 Z06. Best Motoring is the automotive equivalant of the National Enquirer.

That was my original point. I feel it's downright slow under 6K. I do disagree that it's fine within it's respective class. The 350Z is almost a good .5 faster down the 1/4 from what I've witnessed with my own eyes. I've seen numerous S2K's over the years at the dragstrip and have never witnessed a 13 second run. Most are 14.1-14.5 at the local tracks. Will a S2K crap into the 13s with a good DA and great driving; Yes, but it's not common. A lack of a hard launch will result in high 14s to low 15s. How do I know? My friend Brett babied his S2K at the GLD on the launch resulting in those times. When he got aggressive with the launch, the car was in the low 14s.

I am not bashing the S2K, rather pointing out it's major shortcoming in my own eyes(and many others). I thought the idea of the 2.3L turbocharged engine was a great concept. The engine makes torque and could turn out to be a tuners dream. I know tha most enthusiasts would love to have a turbocharged engine for the modability. Look at all the guys on this forum raving about the 335i, for example. I guess you can stay with an N/A powerplant and have almost no potential for increasing power.

GreenMonster

Stock s-197 Mustangs are high 13 second vehicles... with some bolt on's and a tune you can easily get into the 12's...

I think that Max has a tune and intake (at least)...

fsttyms1

Close ratios because it doesnt have the power. If it had more "USEABLE" torque they would be able to change gearing so you didnt have to shift alot. The S2k doesnt have real world "useable" power down low. Now if they put a turbo or a v6 in it it would be a far better car

vishnus11

Not sure if you've been on s2ki.com as you claim you have - try posting over there about "snap oversteer" and see what kind of responses you get Read any review from a competent mag after the 04 suspension revisions, and you'll find that all of them find the car to be more planted, and able to carry more speed through the corners.

If you've been on S2ki.com, you'd also find that plenty of members have run high 13s in both AP1 and AP2. I believe that both have ran 13.6 bone stock. My understanding is that a 350Z puts down similar if not slightly slower numbers. Regardless, its splitting hairs. You feel its slow, I feel its not - its pointless to debate over this when the car was built for so much more than straightline speed. One things for sure though - the "philosophy" of the S2k is something that you don't get and its obviously not the car to you. From the S500 all the way to the S2000, these are meant to be high revving machines that makes the driver work to extract maximum power (and fun) that push the limits of a N/A motor. A turbo S2k would be out of character, and out of keeping with the philosophy of the S series. Those who desire and engine with good low end grunt, and limited revs should look elsewhere.

vishnus11

Have you driven one?

Maximized

I don't need to post over on S2Ki. I've seen it at the track and it's pretty well known to automotive enthusiasts.

The Z is faster stock for stock. Most S2K's are lucky if they break 14.1. It takes a real aggressive launch to get a decent 60' time. I get the philosophy of the S2K and understand that it's a handling orientated car. I've also seen the lap times posted from various sources and it's not earthshattering in that department either. It's a nimble vehicle with very responsive controls. Times change and the competition is bringing out cars that are equal(if not better) for thousands less. I know a S2K fanboy won't want to hear it, but the Solstice GXP puts up the same numbers for roughly 5K less.

fsttyms1

Yes and i have to agree. Its not very powerfull down low. You have to drive it like you stole it. Granted its not a dog like say a metro but it isnt very good down low.

Ive driven one many times on the street, as well as many times auto x'ing. Great car fun to drive, but it needs much more down low.

Maximized

That's exactly my feelings. Maybe Vishnu has never driven a car with more than 240hp? If he had, he would know exactly what we are talking about.

vishnus11

A Z isn't faster stock for stock - just go look at any or the rags' times. Best times for an S2k are usually better than those for a Z.

Laptimes of an S2K are usually faster 9 times out of 10 faster than that of a 350Z.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...ow-dryers.html

^Fastest around BeaverRun ahead of the Z4/Boxster/350Z/TT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=13

^ Again faster than the 350Z/Z4. It placed ahead of the 350Z, Z4, SLK350, and Viper, losing out to the Elise, 911S, 987S, and Vette. Yes, the S2k just isn't that good of a bargain anymore.

If you read C&D's review of the GXP they said that it "couldn't quite keep up with the lighter S2000". 0-60, and 1.4 times for the GXP are slower than those for an S2k. That said, the GXP is a good value - not as balanced, but a good car nonetheless for the price.

Again, regardless of whether I've driven a Veyron or not, the car should be compared against others in its class plain and simple. You said it was "downright slow". Others think not.

The only vehicle that has really surpassed the S2000 in that class of cars in terms of outright performance is the new 987 Boxster S and possibly the newer Z4 3.0si. You pay the price for admission, but both are damn fine cars.

btw fsttyms1: was the S2k you drove 00-03 or 04 and up?

vishnus11

Here's what R&T had to say about the "dumbed down" handling:

"The reason the S2000 handled differently from past models is that the suspension system, most notably the rear multilink setup, has been retuned to provide better stability and composure through all types of corners. Gone is the twitchy, nervous rear end that plagued autocrossers and weekend racers. Now those Bridgestone Potenzas stay properly planted on the driving surface, making the entire car behave smoothly and predictably. And speaking of rubber, the S2000 has more of it than before, with P215/45R-17s up front and P245/40R-17s at the rear. The steering is fantastic — quick and precise — enabling the car to exhibit flawless balance through left/right transitions. It was among the fastest through the esses of the West Loop."

Here's what they had to say about the power. Gee, how similarly it echoes what owner like myself and O-Town have said:

"The engine has also seen changes, most notably the increase in displacement, from 2.0 to 2.2 liters. This was done to give the car more low- and mid-range pop. While hardly perceptible at the track — keeping it on the cam still means staying above the 6500-rpm mark — the added flexibility pays substantial dividends on the open road. The car manages to pull from about 3000 rpm, making it unnecessary to constantly change gears when the flow of traffic fluctuates. But some would consider that a pity because this Honda 2-seater still has the best gearbox in the business. This direct-linkage 6-speed unit — with its well-defined gates, short throws and solid overall feel — scored a perfect 20 in the Gearbox category."

Dumbed down handling and no torque indeed.

Maximized

A classic case of 18 year old magazine racer syndrome. I used to be a bit like you when I was young. Take your car to the track and post some times, then come talk to me. Again, I track my car fairly often and have seen numerous S2K times with my own eyes. You aren't going to change my opinion on the car. Again, I think it's a great handling car, but it's slow.

Fact: The 350Z is a faster car.
Fact: You are a magazine racer, whom has little real life experience.
Fact: You are a S2000 nut-swinger.

Maximized

Magazines Rule!!


This post above is a classic case of the magazine racer syndrome.

vishnus11

Instead of responding to the articles posted above, you've now resorted to name calling, and attacks at my age

You made some remarks on the S2k based on nothing but hearsay (no torque and "downright slow" below 6krpms, AP2s have "dumbed down" handling), and now you have nothing to back those assertions up save for your self-proclaimed "facts".

Maximized

So you are claiming that Honda didn't change a thing in response to the instabilty at the limit? Please learn something about the car YOU own.

This is directly off of Honda's own literature stating the 2004 Improvements:
-High-speed stability enhanced
-At-the-limit performance increased with more gradual fall-off
-Sensitivity to disturbances decreased (less bump steer)

or maybe read the "handling" section:
http://www.s2000.com/2004.php

Yes, Honda did "dumb" down the handling to make it more user friendly. Keep the reading up and think outside the box. If you have the logic that the S2K is the best thing since sliced bread, you aren't going to learn much about the competition. In your case, it's apparent because you spewed misinformation regarding the 350Z.

I'd quit while your ahead because I can provide the same sources for the torque issues.

vishnus11

"Quit while I'm ahead"? - heyitsme, is that you?

The suspension revisions to AP2's have made the car more planted, stable, and able to carry a greater speed through the corners. If this is considered "dumbed down" handling, then I can only hope this trend continues.

S2k is the best thing since sliced bread? - heyitsme, i swear its you.

Your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. The S2k is a car that has many positive attributes and many negative attributes like any other car. Some like it, and some don't. Not once in this thread did I ever say that the S2k was the best car of the bunch. Performance wise it is at or near the top of the heap. But in many other areas such as ride comfort and amenities, it is lacking compared to the competition.

"spewed misinformation regarding the 350Z"? Yeah, I must have said that whilst talking about the WMDs I swear I found in my backyard.

The only misinformation that I said with regards to the 350Z was that it was 700 - 800lbs heavier. The car is infact, ~650lbs heavier. What an egregious mistake.

Reading comprehension is your friend. I never said Honda didn't change a thing with regards to the suspension. I only contended that the suspension hadn't been "dumbed down". Read your own post - "at-the-limit performance incresed" - is this hard for you to comprehend. Maybe you need to get hooked on phonics for christmas.

You sir, are the one who spewed misinformation with no hard facts to back your assertions up. Failing in that respect, you've now resorted to name calling, and personal attacks.

Maximized

I provided facts with the above links(one with Honda's own literature), so you feel the need to get the last word. I guess the engineers at Honda wouldn't be a good source of hard facts

Again, the suspension was dumbed down. Read up on how the engineers changed the roll center, toe, spring rates, etc. etc. Read, learn, and quit being such a nut swinger of the S2K. I think the problem lies in that you really have no clue what you are talking about and base your arguement on magazines.

I am dealing with an 18 year old know it all with diarhea of the mouth. It's sad when a Mustang owner knows more about the car than the owner does. I bet the true owners are mommy and daddy.

Maximized

FYI Vishnu....I am done. Have a good one and if you want to continue this PM me.

srika

the S2000 performs (slightly) better than the 350Z, in all areas. consistently. Yes this includes magazine reviews, but its also proven by various homemade videos I have seen online over the years. its also more fun to drive, even though it doesnt have as much torque down low.