Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster Reviews

Click here if this is your business
★★★★★
4.8 / 5
96% of users recommend this
Click here if this is your business
  • Performance

  • Practicality

  • Reliability

  • Value For Money

? Ask our helpful community of experts about this product or company
Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster - Ask a question now

Media Gallery for Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster

Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster
Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster

Latest Reviews

★★★★★

“I thought I have to warn you about this car which I...”

Written on: 05/05/2010 by bemre82 (2 reviews written)

I thought I have to warn you about this car which I missed in my previous review. s2000 is a very fast and as I told before a very seductive car. Because of its f1 sound your adrenalin level gets higher and higher and you want to go faster. This can be a very dangerous thing indeed. You have to persuade not to hit the throttle as much as you can and make the speed you that you believe you can control... Otherwise this car can really be deadly... I think of this car as a racing motor with a… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Hi friends!! I'm from Istanbul TURKEY. I bought my...”

Written on: 05/05/2010 by bemre82 (2 reviews written)

Hi friends!! I'm from Istanbul TURKEY. I bought my s2000 in 2005 and be the first owner. This car has always been my dream car since its introduction in 1999. But when I owned it I realized that the s2k is a real legend. I can't call it the fastest car in the world because it isn't, I can't call it the best handling car because it isn't. But one thing I can say about this car is that after 5000 rpm this car turns into a beast and makes you forget about all the fastest cars... All of the body… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“best car i have ever owned by a long way, and i have...”

Written on: 31/10/2009

best car i have ever owned by a long way, and i have owned some nice and expensive cars… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Am onto my second s2000 and its going to be an 09...”

Written on: 04/10/2009

Am onto my second s2000 and its going to be an 09 version. Why! some of you might think. This was my dream car since it first came out, It was kind of like love at first site! Its everything a proper sport car should be. Ok theres are of choices on the market, faster, greener etc but this is the proper thing(for its money) Believe me! get your hands on a peace of something that will be a great part of history of motoring… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I have a new Aston Martin which is gorgeous and sounds...”

Written on: 12/03/2009 by khanak (1 review written)

I have a new Aston Martin which is gorgeous and sounds sweet but it can not match my S2000 for the sheer fun of driving. The S2000 would surely force a smile on even the most manic depressive. I love it.... but am about to be a VERY reluctant seller. 3 things I don't hear mentioned enough - the fastest convertible roof in the world?; awesome ergonomics/design which allow the driver to operate the a/c and stereo without taking hands off the steering; and the amazing heating system means… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“ The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster has good acceleration....”

Written on: 28/02/2009 by raynbex (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster has good acceleration. Engine Sound. Styling the list goes on and on. Wow what a car. Well TOY! Its like a go kart in the sense you really do fly by the seat of your pants! I got mine brand new in 2008 and its the greatest purchase ive ever made. Even now a year on I still get a great feeling from driving it, I could quite literally drive all day! Greatest car I have had the privilege of driving. No its not the fastest but thats the joy of it your getting nion… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Very quick, extremely reliable, best engine note...”

Written on: 04/01/2009

Very quick, extremely reliable, best engine note (after 5,000rpm) I have ever heard inside a car, still got great looks even today (in right colour)… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Could have, should have, given it another 1000cc of...”

Written on: 06/12/2008

Could have, should have, given it another 1000cc of grunt so you don't have to hit the rev limiter to have a kick in the britches incrediblely fast car.
Thieves have cut my $2000 top for my radio, baseball cap and driving gloves. I suggest owners don't lock the cubby, theives could break into that to get into the truck… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Massive acceleration over 6000 rpms. Beautiful gas...”

Written on: 02/12/2008 by scorpiom31x (1 review written)

Massive acceleration over 6000 rpms. Beautiful gas mileage when kept under 6000 roms. PERFECT 50/50 balance enables the car to handle unbelieveably. Honda reliability and dependability. Everytime you start the car up, it brings a smile to your face because you know you're going to own the road once you leave your parking spot.
The cars a beast. The acceleration is breath taking. 0-60 in 5.8 and a 1/4 mile in 13.8 is very impressive. 120hp per liter is INSANE. Once you drive the car, you will… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Much has been written in these reviews about the...”

Written on: 14/05/2008 by Alichat (3 reviews written)

Much has been written in these reviews about the qualities, characteristics and statistics surrounding the Honda S2000 and there is little that a test drive wouldn't readily confirm, particularly some of the myths. There has been too much emphasis on the S2000 being loud, raw, tail happy and all other things associated with your average track dat car. Lets clear this one up. Around town and at moderate speeds this car is a peach. Up to 5,500 revs which will deliver over 90 mph in 6th, the… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
See next 10 reviews Showing 1 - 10 of 68 Reviews
★★★★☆

“This was a love at first site for me? Since the first...”

Written on: 13/02/2008 by yoyyooy (1 review written)

This was a love at first site for me? Since the first time I saw one at college, I knew this was the car for me I wanted, so about 6 years later I bought one and a year later I sold it for something more practical and here I am again am planning to buy another one, even though there are so much more choices out there now and probably many people think its not worth it but I have to say that Love does not need reasoning, you love it because you love it! This is a definition of a true sports car… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Simply awesome ”

Written on: 27/11/2007 by Cham001 (1 review written)

Simply awesome
(I have demoed these cars since 2003 and every single person has re-booked for a 2nd test drive)
An incredible car that has to be driven to fully appreciate what a performance car is all about… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Love the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster, buy one they are...”

Written on: 12/06/2007 by Iain Coleman (1 review written)

Love the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster, buy one they are great and hold their value. Only go for ones with Honda SH as the Vtec needs to be serviced by guys in the know… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I love the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster, it's incredible....”

Written on: 11/05/2007 by DaPoets (1 review written)

I love the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster, it's incredible. Fast, stable, reliable, and man can it accelerate. 101mph in 3rd gear..... and it's 6 speed… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I bought my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster from new, in...”

Written on: 16/03/2007 by S2Kman (1 review written)

I bought my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster from new, in Stratstone (best colour), with optional bodykit. It is the fastest car I have ever owned. Build quality and solidity of chassis is fantastic and the engine is a dream over 6k revs. I've raced everything... S3's, Subaru's, Porsche Boxster 3.2 S, SLK's, Mercedes CLS500, BMW Z4 2.0i as well as your average BMW driver and the car's performance (in the dry) has always astonished the rival. Lost one race to a Evo FQ320, oh and don't try a 911… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Analysis's Response to 282174_S2Kman's Review

Written on: 09/10/2007

This was helpful as it told me what I needed to know about the car's performance.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 1 Comment
★★★★★

“This is the best car I have ever owned - the s2000 is...”

Written on: 11/12/2006 by polkat22 (1 review written)

This is the best car I have ever owned - the s2000 is a head turner with a very unique look… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“This is the most fun car I have ever owned. I have...”

Written on: 24/11/2006 by reapn (1 review written)

This is the most fun car I have ever owned. I have owned other "hot" cars, however, none have combined in so many ways the qualities necessary to thoroughly excite it's driver. Drive it, you'll love it… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I had a budget and wanted a car to make me smile. I...”

Written on: 17/08/2006 by Cruncher (1 review written)

I had a budget and wanted a car to make me smile. I looked at a z3/4, everyone's got one, and found a boxster in my price range, tried it, then came across an S2000. I drove it, loved it, bought it, and have not looked back. There are not many on the road. I'm still smiling. It's got blistering performance, a screeming high rev engine and good economy when driven below 5000 revs (only by the wife). If you want a practical day to day work/shop runaround its not for you. If you want a car that… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★☆☆☆

“I regret to say after buying my dream car, the Honda...”

Written on: 03/07/2006 by shawn14 (1 review written)

I regret to say after buying my dream car, the Honda S2000, and driving it for 12 months I am very disappointed with it. After two close smashes, one where I turned 180 degrees in the wet I had to get rid of it. Definately an overrated car. Do not buy one, have an Impreza T will blow it away… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

263782_Skipp's Response to 249687_shawn14's Review

Written on: 18/10/2006

Perhaps you need to take some advanced driving lessons. That's what RWD is all about.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Iain Coleman's Response to 249687_shawn14's Review

Written on: 13/06/2007

Hello! That is what rear wheel drive is all about. Perhaps you should go and get some lessons on driving with rear wheel power and then try again. Or perhaps you should get something like a Volvo, it will make you feels safe. Yes I have spun mine in the dry but that’s what made me respect the car particularly in the wet. The throttle is not an on off button you can push that little peddle progressively ease in the power and really exit the turn.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Iain Coleman's Response to 249687_shawn14's Review

Written on: 12/06/2007

All I can say is go on a driving course get some experience in a rear wheeler then try again.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rubblegum's Response to 249687_shawn14's Review

Written on: 23/02/2007

'Lacklustre performance' go on!..the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster does 150Mph. What are you used to driving? Veyron?
<br/>
<br/>It's an old fashioned roadster with old fashioned handling traits. Stability, traction control anti-yaw etc., aren't its bag.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

267214_Michaelcleavely's Response to 249687_shawn14's Review

Written on: 16/11/2006

You would think that people would learn that driving a rear wheel car in the wet is dangerous at speed. Maybe a 4 wheel drive car is more suited to less skilled/less sensible drivers. Half the fun is that it is real wheel drive, but you have to treat it with respect. I&#039;ve had my S2000 for 6 months now and have only just started to drive it hard as I now feel I know the car well enough.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 5 Comments
★★★★★

“I have now owned 2 Honda S2000s. Firstly a 2002 first...”

Written on: 25/03/2006 by Rishlo (1 review written)

I have now owned 2 Honda S2000s. Firstly a 2002 first revision model and then a 2004 facelift model. Both are great cars but that later model is just that much better. A better drive and ride and better looking. A two seater practicality can never be high - but for me that just doesn't matter. I've driven all the so-called competition at one time or another and I'd only trade it in for a Boxster 3.2S… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
See next 10 reviews Showing 11 - 20 of 68 Reviews
★★★★★

“I have been driving the Honda 2.0i Roadster 2004 model...”

Written on: 22/01/2006 by sspclarke (2 reviews written)

I have been driving the Honda 2.0i Roadster 2004 model year S2000 for 2 years now and I love it, I have had 3 already as I just keep buying a new one every 6 months, I am holding on for the new 06 model out shortly.

You can even get a weeks shopping in the car!!

I would reccommend this car to everyone!!! I had a Civic Type R too, they are awesome too… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Nicktaylor's Response to sspclarke's Review

Written on: 26/06/2006

What does it cost to upgrade every 6 months? Is the trade in good?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Sspclarke's Response to sspclarke's Review

Written on: 17/07/2006

Hi, I have a good relationship with a Honda garage and i commit to buying their demo from them at a fixed price based on approx miles and condition. I now have the 06 model and its not much different to the last but the head rest speakers are definitely a must. Always go for the GT model too.
<br/>
I am offered £22000 for my car every six months and they always sell me theirs for £24,000 so it costs me £4000 a year, which isnt the most cost affective, but i do a reasonably high mileage. So actually works out quite well for me.
<br/>
<br/>If you keep an S2000 for 3 years you will return yourself £19,000 - 20,000 if you look after it and dont do a lot of miles.... and these are trade prices.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 2 Comments
★★★★★

“I have one of the first three Honda S2000's to come to...”

Written on: 14/12/2005 by maggiesmind (2 reviews written)

I have one of the first three Honda S2000's to come to our area in Sept of 1999. It's a 2000 model & doesn't have the glass rear window but I LOVE it. It's my dream car. I've had it over 6 years now & it still looks & drives like new. The Honda service center in our area is great. It handles so well & responds so quickly when needed. I hope to have it for as long as I can drive. It's just my husband & myself & he has a CRV for when we need more room. I have the S2000 for when we need… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is by far the best car I...”

Written on: 16/11/2005 by aida11 (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is by far the best car I have driven not to mention a real head turner.

10/10 all round… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is an absolutely amazing...”

Written on: 14/11/2005 by rajhunjan (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is an absolutely amazing sports car!… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★☆

“The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is an exhilerating drive...”

Written on: 30/10/2005 by afzalmahammad (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is an exhilerating drive - fun and manic that is guaranteed to make you grin! All motorcyclists should immediately dispense with their bikes and are advised to buy one of these beauties.
This car is a real 'boys toy' - Porsche drivers will not bother racing you, a 93 Carrera yielded too easily. As a 40 year old, I have now regained my youth... tee hee!… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I own a Honda S2000 the car is just great. It puts a...”

Written on: 28/09/2005 by rEDs2000 (1 review written)

I own a Honda S2000 the car is just great. It puts a smile on my face every time I drive it. Would not trade it for any car right now maybe except a new Viper which I can not afford. I test drove many cars including the Boxter S and the S2000 just seemed to be more of a sports car. If you are not extremeley tall or overweight the car is quite comfortable and I'm 5'10. Getting in the car is easy but getting out is a totally diffrent story. The way the car handles and how it accelerates with the… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“First time owned a Honda and test drove the S2000 out...”

Written on: 27/09/2005 by Tazzer (1 review written)

First time owned a Honda and test drove the S2000 out of curiosity and was hooked! What an interesting car it is with a screaming 9,000 rpm 240 bhp engine out of just 2 litres. Docile it can be at low revs with a light clutch mated to a sweet slick 6 spd gearbox. Quick steering, great brakes and a car that goes through bends like no other I've driven, real sports car unhindered by traction control, but with ABS just in case !
Best of all you don't see that many around and is cheaper than a… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is the best overall...”

Written on: 29/07/2005 by AAmazon (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is the best overall performance car I have ever owned, even compared to my 1965 442 Oldsmobile convertible, through to my last BMW M3. The mid range acceleration, over 6,000 rpm, is awesome. I was afraid that comfort would be a problem after a few hours, but was surprised to find that not to be the case. I drove it for 9 hours with only gas stops without any problems. I wish they would add an integrated top cover similar to the Boxster's. The cup holder location… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I got a Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster Sports Car after...”

Written on: 05/05/2005 by dgreync (1 review written)

I got a Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster Sports Car after driving the Mazda RX-8, Audi TT, BMW Z4, and MB SLK. My choosing the S2000 was a function of my wallet and a style of performance that evoked fond memories of my '94 Toyota MR2, to which the S2000 is a worthy successor. While I'd have to say that I slightly prefer the styling of the MR2, the drop top and performance more than make up for any deficiency.
The oft-quoted praise of the gearbox is certainly deserved as every shift feels purposeful… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rajhunjan's Response to dgreync's Review

Written on: 22/09/2005

Absolutely fantastic. I have just bought a brand new one and I have had a few sporty numbers before, but they dont seem to compare. This car has excellent torque and great power. I use to own a RX7, MX3, Z3 and a Subaru. But the S2000 is that good. Good boot, nice looks (especially the new model). With the roof down it is a beast. It revs to 9000 revs then its in the RED!!! Amazing.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 1 Comment
★★★★★

“After 9 Porsche sports cars in a row (from 928gts to...”

Written on: 26/07/2004 by Athol (1 review written)

After 9 Porsche sports cars in a row (from 928gts to 911 turbo) I have decided to get married. So out went the bachelor car and in came the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster. I drove every possible car at all price ranges (i'm lucky enough to be able to afford most cars) but from M3 to CLK55, and Alpina to 350z, only one car stood out true and proud. The s2000. There are other cars out there, sure, but for value (i got an ex-demo 2004 model gt with 400 miles for £24750), nothing can touch it. The only… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

184229_Davidaustin1's Response to 163657_Athol's Review

Written on: 21/02/2005

If I won the lottery I would be hard pressed to let go my s2000 the only reason would be to impress eyeryone on a status basis. Being realistic as a lover of probably the best underestimated open top sports car on the road I would keep it anyway. The only way other people are going to know this is by test driving one. I drove a Lotus Elise and Exige (not open top) both worthy cars with loads of underestimated power and excellent road holding. Then I had a test drive in the s2000 and I was immersed in the sound of the engine as it hit 9000 revs and beyond as I soon found out as the automatic cut out came in at 10000 revs. Therefore I use the car for the enjoyment factor (especially the engine noise) and do not bother playing the radio as the enjoyment for me is that the car demands my full attention and when you get the gearchanges and accelleration spot on there are few cars that can match it.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jass's Response to 163657_Athol's Review

Written on: 27/05/2005

This car is really fun. When I drove the honda type R I was already convinced to buy a honda but then when I tried the s2000 the only thing that keeps me away of it is the limitation of 2 passengers.
<br>The best thing about this car is the gear change and the sound of the engine.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 2 Comments
See next 10 reviews Showing 21 - 30 of 68 Reviews
★★★★★

“I recently purchased a 2004 S2000 and all I can say is...”

Written on: 12/05/2004 by ProfJerry (1 review written)

I recently purchased a 2004 S2000 and all I can say is WOW! I wanted to address the 0-60 times. Road & Track just did a review of the 2004 and their 0-60 times were 5.8 sec.
I took my car down to the local speed shop. I popped the hood and put in an HKS air intake and Comptech stainless exhaust. Just for good measure, I threw on shocks, dropping the car down a full inch and adding a strut brace. All I can say now is...look out. Took it out to the track and did consistent times of 5.2 to 5.3… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Terryfwall's Response to ProfJerry's Review

Written on: 06/07/2004

practicality 2/10: what sort of bloat-boxes has this guy been driving? travel light, man - I’ve been away for two nights with my wife and her luggage, and two golf bags: all in the boot! okay, small golf bags!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Eddie007's Response to ProfJerry's Review

Written on: 16/03/2005

Are you mad? I have owned lots of sports cars and one of them being a S2000 of which I had all mods possiable done to the car. Great car but no way can you even try to compare it with an E46 M3. The M3 would blast that screaming motor bike engine S2000 on to another planet. Yes, I own an M3 and its in a much higher class of performance than your S2000, stop dreaming.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Terryfwall's Response to ProfJerry's Review

Written on: 08/07/2004

ProfJerry, you must have a big bag! I can get a folding electric trolley (wheels removed) in the well of the boot, and my golf bag with full set squeezed in above, shoe and towel bag too. I admit the two golf bags for the weekend were very slim with halfsets! Also, if I need to take a change of clothing on a golf day then the passenger seat is the only place for the kit bag, with the jacket/trousers wedged behind the seat. All redundant now I've sold the car, of course!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Profjerry's Response to ProfJerry's Review

Written on: 08/07/2004

Golf bags?? I can't fit mine in the boot with a shoe horn! I have to put the top down and place it on the passanger seat!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 4 Comments
★★★★★

“What a car the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster. Just picking...”

Written on: 11/05/2004 by gavinbadcock (1 review written)

What a car the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster. Just picking up the car keys for the first time and getting in the car at the garage was amazing. The new body modifications for the 2004 model with the bigger bumpers, bigger alloys and new front lights give the car a heightened sense of purpose and sporting aggression. Sitting in the car, you feel that with the hood up it is cramped and dark but with the hood down feels nice and airy (obviously). You can't dispute the quality of the interior and the… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to gavinbadcock's Review

Written on: 12/05/2004

Good choice!..... if you want some hints and tips on your new baby come over to the UK S2000 Owners club at http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=25
<br>
<br>Not sure most owners would agree about the better low down torque in the 2004 car..... its the same engine as before but the VTEC kick has been smoothed out in the new car so it may give the impression that its different.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 1 Comment
★★★★★

“Owned the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster for 2 years and it...”

Written on: 30/04/2004 by tbrown (1 review written)

Owned the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster for 2 years and it is a blast to own!!! Buy a good radar detector as it refuses to do the speed limit. Low maintenance, though 2 things stand out. Stock tires bald in 10K miles & $600 to replace. They were VERY sticky while cornering and that's the trade off for wear. Honestly was not driven hard. The other item is we live on a short strech of gravel road which is traveled slowly. Suspension loosened up (clunking like worn ball joint) only on that type of… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster: I was looking for a...”

Written on: 03/03/2004 by revvyman (5 reviews written)

Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster: I was looking for a performance roadster of the non-handbag variety, which basically narrowed it down to Boxster v S2000.
As my budget would not stretch to a Boxster S, I was comparing with the standard car and frankly no comparison!
The S2000 is quicker, handles better, especially in the dry and is rarer round my neck of the woods.
I have done a number of track days and generally thrash the goolies off it and it has never skipped a beat, although I go through tyres… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to revvyman's Review

Written on: 03/04/2004

Good review, and fun reading! I'm curious about the Elise, though, why you haven't considered it instead. JohnG keeps on saying how much better it is than the S2000. I didn't know about the Elise here in the US when I bought my S2000, but you must have known. Isn't it just a bit more expensive? Incidentally, I myself, being a little older now, would be somewhat concerned about very light cars. The only other car I was considering, for sentimental reasons, was a Ferrari 308. I am also curious about the TVRs. They seem great, albeit more expensive, but do I hear correcly that even new they are not as reliable as, let say, a Honda? One more question: if the S2000 were to go into oversteer upon powering out of a curve, am I correct in assuming that countersteering is the thing to do to correct it? Thanks, and good job with the review!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Revvyman's Response to revvyman's Review

Written on: 13/04/2004

Yes I did consider the Elise, it is about the same price as the S2000 in the UK, but I needed something that is a bit friendlier for longer journeys (the UK spec cars are/were VERY basic, no carpets etc), and like you I am a bit older and would need a crane to get in and out of an Elise on a regular basis!.
<br>TVR's do have a reputation for returning to kit form on a regular basis, with particular problems usually with the electrics. Having said that a friend of mine ran a Chimera for 3 years with no problems (other than having to grow the obligitory chest wig!).
<br>I also dream about a 308/328, one of the best looking cars ever made in my book, but for now the Honda is I think the best "proper" small sports car around.
<br>Handling wise, yes steer into the skid, or best of all don't skid in the first place!! My only spin was a power on skid on a very wet race track (freshly resurfaced, so VERY greasy). Had a very pleasant gyrate on to the infield, with the only damage being to my pride!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 2 Comments
★★★☆☆

“Built to celebrate Honda's 50th birthday in 1999, the...”

Written on: 24/02/2004 by carsgroup (8 reviews written)

Built to celebrate Honda's 50th birthday in 1999, the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster sits between the Mazda MX-5/MG TF budget sportsters and the more glamorous Mercedes SLK/Porsche Boxster/Audi TT Roadster brigade. It is built to thrill the enthusiast (which it certainly does with a 240bhp engine that revs to 9000rpm)… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

A10Enw's Response to carsgroup's Review

Written on: 02/03/2004

The review presents no reasons for its assertions. Perhaps there are none.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to carsgroup's Review

Written on: 23/08/2005

Can't believe I just clicked Helpful by mistake.
<br>
This is probably one of the LEAST helpful reviews I've seen.
<br>
I wonder why they even bothered.
<br>
Can Someone delete my "helpful" point please?
<br>
Thanks.
<br>
<br>"the more glamorous Mercedes SLK/Porsche Boxster/Audi TT Roadster" Indeed. ... Oh dear.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Terryfwall's Response to carsgroup's Review

Written on: 06/07/2004

More glamorous Mercedes slk: this is a spoof from a Mercedes dealer, right? I couldn't even be bothered to ask for a test drive when I sat in a slk and I own another Mercedes! the only car I ever felt was an equal to the s2000 was the boxster s: but who would want to belong to the crowd who owns that car? at least s2k owners acknowledge each other!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 3 Comments
★★★★★

“Driven the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster for 15000 miles...”

Written on: 04/02/2004 by moff (2 reviews written)

Driven the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster for 15000 miles now (I have an 03) and everytime I drive the car it brings a grin to my face. Nothing can beat having the top down and hitting 9000 rpm shooting through country roads. The heating is fantastic, I had the top down cruising to my parents on Xmas day.

Against its competitors nothing can touch the S2000 for value. The TT is dull and boring, the Porsche Boxster S is too expensive (and the normal Boxster too slow and expensive), the Z4 is a great… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to moff's Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

I have an 00 version in Silverstone/Red and agree entirely. Even after 2.5 years of ownership, you will NEVER get bored of driving this car. Rarer than a Porsche or BMW, this car is one of those best kept secrets. Buy it and have no regrets! This is the only car I've ever had where I'm looking to buy another one (2004)!!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Seriousx95's Response to moff's Review

Written on: 13/09/2004

I have a 2003 S2000 and it has the power and sporty look i need, but in the down side i have a problem with the transmission making noises. Dealer said its fixable they just need to put some grease in the transmission but i dont think thats it.., From experience i think the noise is coming from the trow-out-bering the noise goes away when i press the clutch in and i have only 14,000 miles. What do you guys think? do you guys have the same problem as me? thanks in advance...

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Revvyman's Response to moff's Review

Written on: 03/03/2004

Toatally agree! Top car and will probably get another to replace my 2001 plastic rear screen model which is my only bug bear.
<br>
<br>Forget the Boxster and the Marcos (ooh sorry BMW Z4!)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 3 Comments
★★★★★

“I ran a street test of the 0-60 time in my Honda S2000...”

Written on: 01/02/2004 by antonino carnevali (2 reviews written)

I ran a street test of the 0-60 time in my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster. Honda gives it at just below 6 seconds. From my experience, that's reasonable. Other reported numbers in the low to mid- 5 seconds are questionable. Pre-2004 models reached 60 mph in 2nd gear, saving one shift, but had lower torque at the same RPM. So, results would probably be similar. On a track surface and burning the clutch may of course produce better results than I could. After several trial runs, I made 3 runs in one… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 02/02/2004

Oops, I forgot to mention: The 2004 model hits 60 in 3rd gear and VTEC mode, so it continues to accelerate briskly through 3rd up to 80, and then 4th gear comes in in VTEC mode again, and so does 5th. In other words: this car shines the best as you go to higher speeds. The 0-60 time is hindered by the low torque as you work through 1st gear. Launching at higher RPM could help there, but the clutch may not make it. One final thought: the pre-2004 model will shift into third just past 60 mph, so it will lose the advantage of saving a shift from 0 to 60. Enough of this technical stuff, the car is beautiful and a joy to drive!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

168896_Jw10Ec's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 06/09/2004

Wow! Well written, thougtful, comprehensive and scientific review. This guy really knows his automobile and how to measure it's performance. You guys should hire him. Honda should recruit him. . . and I personally will let him pass me on the interstate.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

A couple of comments:
<br>- Reading the forums on the s2ki.com web site I now realize that a launch at higher RPM (5000+) is needed for lower times, but doing that repeatedly could end up damaging the differential.
<br>- I agree that the 0-60 sprint is not what this car is about. On a winding road is where it excels. Plus it keeps a good acceleration at higher speeds as well.
<br>- My intention was to report on what common drivers (like me) can get this car to do without "killing it".
<br>Thanks for the responses!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 19/03/2004

In the older 2.0ltr cars you should be able to hit a 6.2 or better 0-60 time after a few attempts. The first time I tried (in a test drive) I got 6.2..... so it can't be too hard! :-).
<br>
<br>Like Moff said the S2000 shines on the track......

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 04/02/2004

Please note that in the US the MY04 is a 2.2l with a rev limit of only 8000rpm, the UK version is the orginal F20C 2l engine with the 9000rpm limit.
<br>
<br>To be fair the 0-60 of the S2000 is fairly irrelevant??? The car (clutch) has not been designed for 0-60's, leave that to 4WD cars like Subaru's. This car comes into its own in corners and on a track, not in a straight line.
<br>
<br>The S2000 is VERY fast, a more important figure to quote would be the 0-100mph of 14 seconds.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 5 Comments
★★★★★

“Honda's reputation for reliability persuaded me to buy...”

Written on: 26/01/2004 by caviarsid (1 review written)

Honda's reputation for reliability persuaded me to buy my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster, a UK spec import at a 20% discount. At this price nothing can touch it. It begs to be driven hard and stands out from the boring Z4s, Boxters and TTs that proliferate roads in the SE. The amazing hood means I'm roof down for most of the time listening to the fantastic engine screaming to 9000 rpm as I flick through the gears. My wife loves it too but that's more to do with the looks and the car's street cred… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rich6400's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 01/04/2004

Hello,
<br>
<br>Can you tell me where you got the import from? I am very! interested in getting one and can't pass on the 20% discount!
<br>
<br>Cheers
<br>
<br>Rich

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rich6400's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 19/05/2005

I purchased a S2000 afterall. I have had it for 1 year and it is as exciting to drive today as it was when I bought it. The car itself is a disaster. I have taken it to 3 Honda dealerships for numerous repairs. Each time it was returned with more problems / scratches / defects then it went in with. I am now taking Honda UK to court as their monkey dealers have damaged the vehicle beyond repair.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

190002_Andychalgrove's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 20/04/2005

I bought my s2000 2004 from Bob Gerard, really impressed with them until after I drove away (was an excellent price). They were pretty unhelpful with the niggly problems I had after, and it was clear they expected me to deal with a honda dealer under warranty. Though there were not anymore unhelpful than the Honda dealer itself. I think basically, you buy a car, and once its off the forecourt nobody cares. The paint is rediculously thin on my car, and even a light scratch shows undercoat. I have a rattling roof, and the alarm is pathetic, nobody seems to care from the honda dealer.
<br>
<br>Having said that...it does go very fast, what a shame you can't get the niggles fixed. One dealer actually wants me to pay £10 per day for a courtesy car while they look at mine under warranty. What kind of a deal is that?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Designw's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 25/08/2004

The Staff at Bob Gerard are breath of fresh air to deal with - honest, unassuming, courteous. They never push. I felt really comfortable buying my S2000 from them.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Al2's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 14/06/2004

Hi there,
<br>I'm also interested, and would like to order a Roadster from Bob Gerard.
<br>Could you tell me whether there are any differences between the imports they supply and UK sourced cars? I've heard that I may need to fit an alarm, but it depends on where they come from.
<br>Also, any views on the general level of service you received.
<br>Thanks. Glad you are happy with yours.
<br>Regards,
<br>Alistair

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Caviarsid's Response to caviarsid's Review

Written on: 01/04/2004

It came from Bob Gerard www.bobgerard.co.uk about 12 months ago and was the cheapest place I could find. They import from Cyprus - totally UK spec car so no problem with insurance. They underwrite a 3 year warranty as part of the package.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 6 Comments
★★★★★

“I bought my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster on Saturday,...”

Written on: 20/01/2004 by jeep (1 review written)

I bought my Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster on Saturday, Jan. 17th 2004. I used to own two other sports cars (MX5 and the MR2) and I find that the MX5 tends to be tinny and cheap and the MR2 is "pretty", however, it lacks power. I find the S2000 very exhilirating, what a "fun" car. I'm pretty sure it's not mid-life crisis for me. I just happen to like cars that fit like a glove and cars that can be "one with the driver". It's just my first week driving my new S2000 and I am looking forward to… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to jeep's Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

If you like it that much after one week, you'll like it even more after 2 or 3 years. Just watch the back end in the wet - it'll catch you out. Stick to either Potenza S02's or Goodyear Eagle F1's. Visit the s2k owners club at www.s2ki.com for 'EVERYTHING' you need to know about this car.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 1 Comment
★★★★☆

“The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is a great car. Mine is...”

Written on: 16/01/2004 by craigjcoil (1 review written)

The Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is a great car. Mine is a 2002. Very fast, (you would never guess it is a 4 cyl.) It handles well and is VERY reliable. It loves to have the GUTS run out of it. The harder you push it, the faster it wants to go! It loves to REV !! My overall review is: BUY IT!!! FUN FUN FUN!!!… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to craigjcoil's Review

Written on: 16/01/2004

I agree 100% with your suggestion: you have to be patient and learn how to drive this car to really
<br>enjoy it safely. The races can wait until later. The car's got tons of potential, but needs to be
<br>handled properly. And FUN it is! I bought this as my week end car, but quickly found myself using it
<br>every day to go to work, I don't want to drive anything else now. I tell myself that I need to be on the road for practice,
<br>but the truth is that I'm having too much fun to stop!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Revvyman's Response to craigjcoil's Review

Written on: 03/03/2004

You do need to watch it in the wet as with any powerful car. In particular I have noticed a squirming under heavy braking on the track ( I use mine a lot for track days) that can feel very unsettling and the back can go quite light. My only spin so far has been a power on spin, quite an achievement with the lack of torque!! Luckily it only resulted in me getting intimate with the grass infield of castle coombe!
<br>Great Car, best sub £50K sports car by miles

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Craigjcoil's Response to craigjcoil's Review

Written on: 09/02/2004

I did not mean to enter in the Recomended box a NO.... It is definatley a huge YES... Just feel the car out before you think your Mario Andretti, otherwise yours will be listed as a salvage vehicle too! Get to know this baby .....Then and only then...... drive the hell out of it.. It loves it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 3 Comments
See next 10 reviews Showing 31 - 40 of 68 Reviews
★★★★★

“Middle-life crisis: wanted to buy a 1981 Ferrari 308....”

Written on: 13/01/2004 by antonino carnevali (2 reviews written)

Middle-life crisis: wanted to buy a 1981 Ferrari 308. My wife convinced me to try the Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster instead.
It did the trick. Have had it for a month now, and 1200 miles. I am very pleased with it. Puts a big grin
on my face every time I go for a drive. I often feel the must-go need to go buy milk, taking 30 mile detours.
Handles with extreme confidence, loves curvey mountain roads. On straight line acceleration, first is short and
inconsequential, second gives you a kick in the… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 19/01/2004

Addendum:
<br>Took the car to 125 mph. Still feels very safe and stable. I'm taking my time to learn how the car behaves,
<br>and how to control it safely. I strongly recommend that to all new owners. This car is a real performer, but one
<br>needs to learn how to control it safely, and it takes time and cautious experimenting. Please be safe, while enjoying
<br>the great feeling that driving this car provides. Also, handling on wet pavement has been improved on this 2004 model,
<br>and the car behaves fine unless you push it too hard or take risks on curves. Wet traction is definitely inferior to dry traction,
<br>still good, but do slow down. More later...

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Kris316Pl's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 27/01/2005

Hey,
<br>
<br>I,m one of the 30 - 40 lucky owners in a population of 40 millions in Poland.
<br>
<br>Doing 150 mph (250 km/h) quite regularily on a highway. Drives fantastic even with that speed. Drove from Poland to Greece through Germany Austria and Italy. Made the way from Brindisi (bottom of Italian boot) to Frankfurt/M in one day - started at 10 am...
<br>
<br>the trip to Greece was almost 10000 km I also took it to Nordkapp (the furthest point north in Europe ) - another 10000 km. I was with my girlfriend, we had a tent, carimatas and sleeping bags (apart from regular clothes and some food. You can pack it very well).
<br>
<br>
<br>No other car for me - don't buy it - I enjoy exclusivity (there are only two or three others in Warsaw - polish capital city ;-) ).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Also be careful - I do days on track and sliding and drifting is no news to me, however one wet day I was not concentrating enough and now I have my second S2000 - the first one cut down a concrete lamp post - was racing other car and wasn't careful enough with a throttle and steering wheel - just forgot about the weather....

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 22/03/2004

Just to mention that I went up to 130 mph, and it feels like no big deal at all. The car is just doing what it was designed to do. It reaches high speed very quickly, using 5th gear. However, there is no need to shift down from 6th for most passes, even going uphill, there is plenty of torque and power to do the job nicely. My only problem is avoiding getting my license revoked, as the speed limit is only 65 mph. Nonetheless, a fabulous feeling at high speed, quite effortless and safe. And then there is always driving down country roads, for extra fun!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to antonino carnevali's Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

I'm 6ft and 14st and this car fits fine. I've had the clock reading 154 and its a white knuckle ride at that speed on English roads. Rarer than a rare thing, with bags of street cred. I want a glass rear window so gonna buy another one this year. Highly recommended. The fun you get from this car far outweighs how much you can get in the boot. I can get a full, large Sainsbury's shopping trolley load in my boot (how much more do you want!). Visit www.s2ki.com for all you need to know about this brilliant car.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 4 Comments
★★★★☆

“This Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is a bit of a...”

Written on: 14/11/2003 by JonG (3 reviews written)

This Honda S2000 2.0i Roadster is a bit of a double-edged sword. Almost all of its strengths are also, in other ways, its weaknesses.

When you buy a Honda, you know you're not getting a tempermental British or Italian thoroughbred that will require frequent and expensive visits to the shop. But at the same time, Hondas do seem to lack that certain special flair that seems only to come from companies like Ferrari and TVR whose products ask for as much understanding as they provide… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 14/01/2004

I'd like to comment on the "squirrely rear end on wet". Although I have experienced that effect when accelerating hard
<br>in first or second gear, overall I find that this car has very good handling on wet pavement. If driven at normal speeds,
<br>it's got no bad habits at all, even in curves or under sudden steering. I have the 2004 model: I don't know how much
<br>of a difference that makes.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/11/2006

Well, I feel a little responsible that I started this almost three years ago (see first comment on this review). I still have my Honda S2000 (2004 model), and I love it now even more than when I first bought it. I recently made a 2000 mile trip in it and it was great. Another 2000 miler coming this month, and I'm looking forward to it. What I personally enjoy the most about this car is the solid feeling of safety and fun driving at speed on the interstate. This car cannot do anything wrong. I visually pick up a zig zag line through some traffic for a half mile ahead, press on the gas and ... a few seconds later it's done, the S took me exactly where and how I had imagined it to go. In spite of the low torque numbers, I rarely have to shift down from 6th gear, but either 5th, 4th or 3rd are at ready to provide the extra kick when needed. And if I ever have to change course of action because of changing patterns, it's got the handling, responsiveness and breaking power to adjust to any conditions (36 years of accident free driving experience help there too). The simple and precise beauty of its lines will endure the test of time, and the longer I drive this car the more I feel bonded with it. I imagine it's a similar feeling to riding your own thoroughbred. Highly recommended.
<br/>P.S. If you have a lot of money to buy a fun, single purpose car, the Elise is indeed very appealing, but the S2000 does a lot of that for less, AND it's a car that you can use for many more occasions.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/11/2006

And I replaced mine with a much more torquey SLK350, but still disagree with the author, and would thoroughly recommend the Honda S2000 as a superb handling, remarkable quick sports convertible. It certainly was MUCH quicker (when I felt like ragging it) than my new car, which has 270 odd ft.lb torque.
<br/>
<br/>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/11/2006

Just for the record, the S2000 is such an awful car I replaced ours this year since my earlier comments...
<br/>
<br/>With a newer one ;-)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

262230_Musikman's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/10/2006

I have driven cars of all makes and models, and where I live the Lotus Elise IS NOT less expensive than a S2K. But I might add the Elise is slightly over-styled.
<br/>We also don't find it enjoyable to drive nice convertibles in the rain anyway. If the weather is bad I just beat up on my FWD Civic and leave the S2K in the garage(because I appreciate it). And why compare a car with one that costs about 10 times as much. I could have just turned $30K into an S2000 and it would hang with one of those quarter million dollar pieces of art cars on any curved track as well as 0-100.
<br>
<br/>The wet pavement thing is true (the thing only weighs 2500lbs), but that also depends on tire selection and driving style.
<br/>And the 4000RPM at highway speeds is not annoying. I drove mine 800 miles with only 3 stops. The engine and stock exhaust are well tuned, and not at all noisy, even at 4kRPMs.
<br/>There is no doubt in my mind that you will not find a car that is more dependable, budgetable, nimble, good-looking, value-holding and fun for your money.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Dgreync's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 06/05/2005

Looks like the conversation on this one has come and gone, but I'll add my two cents. First, I'm going to respond, in the main, to the original post as that seems the most objective and least emotional. I have no interest in responding to someone's "heat of the passion" logic (and I use that word loosely).
<br>Jon, you raise some legitimate gripes. I agree that it isn't as functional as some cars and the 6th gear would have been better used as a touring gear. I disagree with your recommendation of the MX-5, but that's merely a question of preference, and, as such is inherently subjective, I'll merely state that my opinion differs from yours on the comparative strengths of these two cars. I will happily point out that most automobile magazines seem to be on the Honda's side.
<br>Regarding the "tricky" back end. I've had no problems with mine.
<br>After having read your initial review, I'm mostly in agreement with it (except, of course, the lack of a recommendation). I do think there is merit in the responses that this car was clearly not suited to your tastes, and that's fine. Your purchase of it, in such instances, reflects only the soundness of your judgment.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mrclox's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/08/2004

I'm sorry but i have just joined in order to add my comment, which is very simple.. a line in your review says it all to me
<br>
<br>"Also, for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration"
<br>
<br>Have you actually tried 'hard acceleration' in this car?
<br>
<br>The gears are designed so that under full on acceleration the engine is kept in vtec (between 6000 and 9000 revs) the whole time.
<br>
<br>If you tried to skip gears the engine would come out of vtec and you would loose momentum big time!
<br>
<br>Any owner of an s2000 will confirm this.
<br>
<br>This comment alone betrays you!!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 16/07/2004

JonG you are doing it again..... comparing the S2000 to cars in different segments.
<br>
<br>Few S2000 owners (including myself) would have much arguement about your comments on the Elise and Tuscan.
<br>
<br>If I wanted a weekend toy I'd go for an Elise as well (or VX220 Turbo)..... but that isn't the market the S2000 is aimed at!, with the S you get a lot of the performance with a lot of practicality (the S is my only car so it needed some practical features)..... as I've said before I've been on track days where the S2000 has been a good match for a standard Elise (the new Toyota 111R would be a different matter).
<br>
<br>On the TVR...... also a car I would love..... but its nearly twice the price of the S2000!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 16/07/2004

---
<br>And I'll be very interested how your going to find a Tuscan in "that price range".
<br>---
<br>
<br>Naturally I'd have to get one with some miles on it already. Actually, given the hand-built nature of TVRs, I think it better to buy them used since that gives the first owner a chance to sort any "niggles" that come up in early ownership.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 16/07/2004

"My next car in that price range will either be a Lotus Elise or, more likely, a TVR Tuscan."
<br>
<br>And I'll be very interested how your going to find a Tuscan in "that price range".
<br>Really, I would.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 15/07/2004

---
<br>I'll be interested to see how either of the Elise or the Tuscan measure up to your expectations. I have a feeling you may come back with more negatives than you've managed to dig up on the S2000.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I've already driven both extensively.
<br>
<br>The thing with the Elise is that it is kind of what the S2000 should have been. In other words, it is a car which requires sacrifices in terms of things like refinement at motorway speeds but is still a little better than the S2000 in that regard. However, in terms of handling, steering response/feedback and other related things, it shows the Honda the door.
<br>
<br>The Elise is the pinnacle of the lightweight roadster concept.
<br>
<br>The Tuscan obviously isn't as good in the handling department as the Elise but it still has the edge over the Honda and it also has two important advantages over the S2000. It has brute force in abundance. The S2000 is as outclassed in the power department by the TVR as it is in the handling department by the Lotus. Also, the Tuscan is far more practical in terms of things like storage space both in the boot and the cabin.
<br>
<br>So, raw power AND practicality. Oh yeah, as good as the Honda's engine sounds, the Tuscan's is... adjectives fail me. There is no straight-six on earth (and damn few engines of any configuration) that sound as good as an AJP6 or have its electrifying throttle-response.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 14/07/2004

"My next car in that price range will either be a Lotus Elise or, more likely, a TVR Tuscan"
<br>
<br>JonG - that sounds rather out of character based on everything you've said here and bearing in mind you're so 'pro-Jag' and 'anti-S2000'.
<br>
<br>I'll be interested to see how either of the Elise or the Tuscan measure up to your expectations. I have a feeling you may come back with more negatives than you've managed to dig up on the S2000.
<br>...but would you ever admit it in this forum? ;O)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 14/07/2004

---
<br>You keep quoting text book figures and not actual driving experience. The information that is being given here is by actual drivers who can qualify their responses with real world testing.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Doesn't the year-and-a-half of daily driving experience I had in the car count?
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Please respond to the fact that some of the information you have quoted, ie being able to stay in VTEC when changing from 1st to 3rd, is just plain wrong...
<br>---
<br>
<br>I did the math, and it appears that I may have been mistaken about that. I'd want to drive an S2000 again before I made any final comment on it. But I may have been wrong about that one thing.
<br>
<br>Problem is that of all the sports-car buffs I know, exactly none of them either own S2000s or are planning on owning one. So, unless I buy another one (which won't happen) for myself, I don't see being behind the wheel of another one.
<br>
<br>My next car in that price range will either be a Lotus Elise or, more likely, a TVR Tuscan.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/07/2004

Jon,
<br>You keep quoting text book figures and not actual driving experience. The information that is being given here is by actual drivers who can qualify their responses with real world testing.
<br>
<br>Please respond to the fact that some of the information you have quoted, ie being able to stay in VTEC when changing from 1st to 3rd, is just plain wrong...
<br>
<br>As you obviously havn't driven the car for a while, take the time to drive the car again and give the rest of the people on this forum some useful informative and most importantly ACCURATE feedback.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/07/2004

JonG.
<br>
<br>What does the final gear ratio have to do with my comment that most cars in the same class will be in the same gear by the time they have reach 100mph?
<br>
<br>Heel and Toe?.... yes the S2000 is perfectly set up for this.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/07/2004

---
<br>"Gearbox rowing" in the S2000 is part of the cars appeal its shift is one of the best.....
<br>---
<br>
<br>You're kidding, right?
<br>
<br>---
<br>I think you'll find that in a drag to 100mph the S2000, Boxster, Nissan 350Z, Z4, new Lotus Elise, VX220, Audi TT and BMW M3 will all be in 4th gear when they reach the ton..... so all will have changed gear three times.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Hmmm, now lets take a look at the respective ratios of the cars you compare to the S2000 and I threw in a TVR Tamora just for good measure (list below - I even did the math for you). Pay particular attention to the final drive and how high the final gearing is even in 6th. The only car that comes close is the anapologetically sprint-geared Elise which, with its larger rear tires still gets 20mph/1000rpm in top gear compared to the Honda's 18.
<br>
<br>Once you see the numbers, you see how short-legged the S2000 really is.
<br>
<br>If you think this is bad, you really don't want to see a normalized torque comparison for the cars you listed. The S2000 will start to look a bit light in the loafers.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>to me and lots of other S2000 owners there is no better challenge and feeling than when you get a perfect heel toe downshift while braking for a tight bend and then come blasting out through the gears after the exit!
<br>---
<br>
<br>You can "heel & toe" in the S2000? ;->
<br>
<br>---
<br>..... you could probably drive the same roads in a 350Z and stay in 3rd gear the whole time..... but where's the fun in that?
<br>---
<br>
<br>Just because you *can* stay in 3rd the whole time doesn't mean you have to. There is a difference. Wouldn't it be better to be able to row the gearbox if you want to rather than being more or less forced to?
<br>
<br>
<br>Honda S2000
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 3.13:1 - 12.833
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 2.04:1 - 8.364
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.48:1 - 6.068
<br>4th Gear Ratio 1.16:1 - 4.756
<br>5th Gear Ratio 0.97:1 - 3.977
<br>6th Gear Ratio 0.81:1 - 3.321
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 4.10:1
<br>
<br>
<br>The Competition...
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Boxter S
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 3.82:1 - 13.14
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 2.20:1 - 7.568
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.52:1 - 5.228
<br>4th Gear Ratio 1.22:1 - 4.197
<br>5th Gear Ratio 1.02:1 - 3.509
<br>6th Gear Ratio 0.84:1 - 2.89
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 3.44:1
<br>
<br>
<br>Nissan 350Z
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 3.79:1 - 13.466
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 2.32:1 - 8.212
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.62:1 - 5.734
<br>4th Gear Ratio 1.27:1 - 4.486
<br>5th Gear Ratio 1.00:1 - 3.54
<br>6th Gear Ratio 0.79:1 - 2.796
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 3.54:1
<br>
<br>
<br>BMW Z4
<br>
<br>
<br>1st 4.35:1 - 13.355
<br>2nd 2.50:1 - 7.675
<br>3rd 1.67:1 - 5.1269
<br>4th 1.24:1 - 3.8068
<br>5th 1.00:1 - 3.07
<br>6th 0.85:1 - 2.6095
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 3.07:1
<br>
<br>
<br>Lotus Elise
<br>
<br>1st 3.12 - 14.137
<br>2nd 2.05 - 9.287
<br>3rd 1.72 - 7.792
<br>4th 1.17 - 5.3
<br>5th 0.92 - 4.168
<br>6th 0.82 - 3.715
<br>
<br>Final drive 4.53
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Vauxhall VX-220 Turbo
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 3.58:1 - 12.995
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 2.02:1 - 7.333
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.35:1 - 4.9
<br>4th Gear Ratio 0.98:1 - 3.557
<br>5th Gear Ratio 0.79:1 - 2.868
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 3.63:1
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>BMW M3
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 4.23:1 - 16.827
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 2.51:1 - 7.907
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.67:1 - 5.261
<br>4th Gear Ratio 1.23:1 - 3.875
<br>5th Gear Ratio 1.00:1 - 3.15
<br>6th Gear Ratio 0.83:1 - 2.615
<br>
<br>Final Drive Ratio 3.15:1
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>TVR Tamora
<br>
<br>1st Gear Ratio 2.95:1 - 11.004
<br>2nd Gear Ratio 1.95:1 - 7.274
<br>3rd Gear Ratio 1.34:1 - 4.998
<br>4th Gear Ratio 1.00:1 - 3.73
<br>5th Gear Ratio 0.80:1 - 2.984
<br> <br>Final Drive 3.73:1

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 10/07/2004

"The only rating here that means anything in the objective sense is the "expert" rating that my review has and which, last time I checked, none of the other reviews of this car had managed to earn."---------so stated jong earlier in this forum.
<br>
<br>NEXT TIME YOU DRIVE A TEST CAR, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SO WE CAN BELIEVE YOU. THAT WAY YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EXPERT STATUS, NOT HAVING TO "EARN" YOUR WAY BACK TO THE TOP.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 09/07/2004

JonG said:
<br>
<br>"Hold on a second, I *never* said that skipping gears was the way to get the best performance out of the car. It was just a way to avoid the frantic gearbox-rowing that goes on under hard acceleration."
<br>
<br>Sorry mate I just don't get what on earth your point is...... under hard acceleration surely you want to get the best out of the car?..... in which case you use all the gears. Its fine to skip a gear if you have finished accelerating eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd upto 70mph then back off and slap it into 6th for the motorway cruise..... but not if you still want "hard acceleration"
<br>
<br>"Gearbox rowing" in the S2000 is part of the cars appeal its shift is one of the best..... and besides won't most manual geared sports cars in the same class also have to change gears just as often under hard acceleration..... eg. I think you'll find that in a drag to 100mph the S2000, Boxster, Nissan 350Z, Z4, new Lotus Elise, VX220, Audi TT and BMW M3 will all be in 4th gear when they reach the ton..... so all will have changed gear three times. Gearbox rowing in the S2000 is more likely on a spirited drive down some twisty country roads where you need to work the gears to keep in the power band..... this is seen as a bad thing by some people (JonG being one of them) but to me and lots of other S2000 owners there is no better challenge and feeling than when you get a perfect heel toe downshift while braking for a tight bend and then come blasting out through the gears after the exit!..... you could probably drive the same roads in a 350Z and stay in 3rd gear the whole time..... but where's the fun in that?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 09/07/2004

ok I checked today
<br>1st at 9000 rpm gives 44mph
<br>3rd at 44 mph gives 42-4300rpm
<br>
<br>well short of the 6000rpm VTEC zone!
<br>
<br>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 08/07/2004

---
<br>Sorry JonG, you are completely talking out of your rear now!. Please don't try to tell me or any other 2.0ltr S2000 owner that we don't know what we are talking about....... you CAN NOT change from 1st to 3rd and still remain in the VTEC power band.
<br>---
<br>
<br>The VTEC power-band is just shy of 3000rpm wide - From around 6500 to the rev-limiter at 9200.
<br>
<br>I can't find the exact mph/1000rpm figures for the car, but as I said, my recollection is that shifting from 1st to 3rd will lose you about 2500rpm. In other words, you'll drop from 9200 to 6700 - still within range of the high-lift cams.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>please explain to me and anyone else that is interested how skipping a gear in ANY car is the best way to achieve maximum performance.....
<br>---
<br>
<br>Hold on a second, I *never* said that skipping gears was the way to get the best performance out of the car. It was just a way to avoid the frantic gearbox-rowing that goes on under hard acceleration.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 07/07/2004

Jon G, I have over 40,000 miles in two S2000's, they being in 00 and 02 models and you talk rubbish about skipping gears and staying in the power band (vtech right!)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 07/07/2004

Sorry JonG, you are completely talking out of your rear now!. Please don't try to tell me or any other 2.0ltr S2000 owner that we don't know what we are talking about....... you CAN NOT change from 1st to 3rd and still remain in the VTEC power band. Nore can you change from 2nd to 4th...... please explain to me and anyone else that is interested how skipping a gear in ANY car is the best way to achieve maximum performance..... under hard acceleration an S2000 driven through the gears would be way ahead of you in your incompetently driven car! (sorry but this obvious lack of understanding explains some of your previous "expert" opinions)
<br>
<br>mjirvine and my statement is FACT based on current ownership of the car in question...... is your memory failing you so much that you really believe the rubbish you are spouting on this point?...... or perhaps your "experiences" are simply taken from your dream world?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 07/07/2004

Come on guys.
<br>This is obviously a wind-up.
<br>
<br>The guys taking the micky. Just leave it.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 06/07/2004

---
<br>If you like please go ahead and tell us all of another car that when driven properly allows you to skip gears under hard acceleration and still be as quick as when using all the gears!.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Sorry, I don't know of any other car whose ratios are so ludicrously close.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 06/07/2004

---
<br>Ok 1st gear 9000 rpm is around 44mph right, 3rd gear at 44 mph is about 3500-4000rpm which is at least 2000rpm below the powerband FFS.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I don't know where you get your numbers. You don't seem to have any experience of the car in question.
<br>
<br>
<br>There is, as I recall, about a 1000rpm drop from 1st to 2nd and about 1200 from 2nd to 3rd. Bottom line is that if you rev the cars nuts off, you can drop from 1st to 3rd and still stay in the power band.
<br>
<br>The 2.2 liter car has revised ratios so that may no longer be the case. But with the 2.0 liter car it was.
<br>
<br>Under hard acceleration, there was scarcely any point to shift into 2nd because there was barely time to take your foot off the clutch before you had to shift to 3rd anyway.
<br>
<br>At least, this was my experience. Let me say it again slowly for the learning-impaired: I USED TO OWN ONE.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 06/07/2004

From a previous reply by JonG:
<br>
<br>"Why would you want to do this? If you skip gears you will merely drop out of the vtech rev band, and your acceleration will be hugely compromised...
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, actually, it wouldn't. You can go from 1st to 3rd and still stay in the power-band - or at least I can. That's what I'm talking about."
<br>
<br>Well I know you said it previously but as you repeated the statement that you sometimes skiped gears under hard acceleration I thought I'd see what happens myself.
<br>
<br>So on my drive home tonight I tried skiping a gear eg. from 1st to 3rd and 2nd to 4th...... sorry old chap but you really are talking rubbish now..... unless you are driving a different car (which may explain some of your comments) it is IMPOSSIBLE to remain in the VTEC zone if you skip a gear!, changing at redline in 1st leaves you 1500rpm short of VTEC in 3rd..... the same is true if you skip 3rd when going from 2nd to 4th. In fact even going up through the gears normally leaves you only just into the VTEC zone in the next gear up.
<br>
<br>If you really did skip gears when you had your S2000 its not surprising you didn't like the experience! Lets hope your car went to an owner that knows how to drive the car properly.
<br>
<br>If you like please go ahead and tell us all of another car that when driven properly allows you to skip gears under hard acceleration and still be as quick as when using all the gears!.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/07/2004

Ok 1st gear 9000 rpm is around 44mph right, 3rd gear at 44 mph is about 3500-4000rpm which is at least 2000rpm below the powerband FFS.
<br>
<br>How you could possibly drive your poor S2000 in this way is beyond me!!!
<br>
<br>As you keep saying, it is lacking in torque so you have to use the gears correctly or you willl not get anything like the acceleration it is capable of.
<br>
<br>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/07/2004

---
<br>Jon G it's obvious you don't know how to drive a S2000 with any kind of performance in mind.
<br>---
<br>
<br>And it is obvious that you don't know anything about actually driving the car or else you'd know that it is possible to drop from 1st to third and still stay in the power-band. The fact that you can (I've done it many times) is proof that the ratios are too close together.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/07/2004

RIGHT ON RMOTEGI!!!!!!!!!!!!
<br>
<br>Jon G it's obvious you don't know how to drive a S2000 with any kind of performance in mind. I want to get any owner's feedback on how impossible it is to stay in the powerband by shifting from 1st to 3rd. Jon G throw in the towel you just don't get it.

<br>
<br>EXAMPLE:
<br>
<br>Your Statement- "Who cares what size the engine is or if it's turbo or non turbo."

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/07/2004

---
<br>Why would you want to do this? If you skip gears you will merely drop out of the vtech rev band, and your acceleration will be hugely compromised...
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, actually, it wouldn't. You can go from 1st to 3rd and still stay in the power-band - or at least I can. That's what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>---
<br>The truth is that the ratios have been deliberately and perfectly chosen to allow vivid acceleration - shifting close to 9,000 allows the engine to pick up the vtech flood of power in the next gear, and so on.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yeah, that's fine but with six gears, how the hell do you make it all the way to sixth gear and still only manage 18mph/1000rpm? It is one thing to keep the lower gears close together (although with a powerband as big as the Honda engine has, the ratios are too close) but once you hit 5th and 6th gear, shouldn't they be a bit longer?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rmotegi's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 01/07/2004

What a Pandoras box you have opened JON G!
<br>However I am not suprised that so many have felt the motivation to open such a heated and protracted dialogue with you.
<br> One of your statements in the original review is worth recalling -
<br>
<br>"Also, for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration."
<br>
<br>Why would you want to do this? If you skip gears you will merely drop out of the vtech rev band, and your acceleration will be hugely compromised...
<br>The truth is that the ratios have been deliberately and perfectly chosen to allow vivid acceleration - shifting close to 9,000 allows the engine to pick up the vtech flood of power in the next gear, and so on.
<br>Such a fundamentally flawed comment as quoted above so reduces your credibility (in my view) that further discussion is of doubtful value.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 10/06/2004

In case anyone is still following this discussion the following Car and Driver article makes interesting reading:
<br>
<br>http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8202&page_number=1
<br>
<br>It is a group test that compares the S2000 against a Caterham Seven Superlight R, A Cobra Replica, the new US spec Lotus Elise, and the Mazdaspeed MX-5 (Miata)....... no surprise at the winner but the S2000 does well against the other more hardcore cars in the test!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 07/06/2004

---
<br>JonG you are definately clutching at straws now..... you said the Lotus M250 was a 2+2 and that they (Lotus) realised the limitations of the Elise..... absolute rubbish! The M250 was a 2 seater based on the Elise platform http://www.supercars.net/cars/2000@$Lotus@$M250%20Conceptg.html
<br>I should know as I was on the original waiting list!. The M250 was aimed at the more luxury end of the market for buyers that wanted an Elise with more creature comforts. Lotus are not currently looking at producing any cars with more than 2 seats
<br>---
<br>
<br>That's the reason they probably would have cancelled the M250 even if they hadn't run out of money... They knew that as a pure 2-seater, it wouldn't be sufficiently differentiated from the Elise. There was talk of making it a 2+2 or trying to sell it in North America as "an Elise built to American tastes", but there wasn't the budget.
<br>
<br>However, they are currently looking at developing at least one model with more than two seats.
<br>
<br>Richard Rackham, Lotus' chief vehicle architect was recently quoted in the media as steering the development of what they're calling Versatile Vehicle Architecture (VVA) to enable "models as disparate as a front-engined four-seater and a mid-engined two-seater to share high-investment parts... the process is so flexible that it will eventually be adopted for all three Lotus model: the £25,000 transverse mid-engined roadster (the Elise replacement), a £50,000 2+2 coupe and a £75,000, 200mph mid-engined supercar"

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 07/06/2004

JonG you are definately clutching at straws now..... you said the Lotus M250 was a 2+2 and that they (Lotus) realised the limitations of the Elise..... absolute rubbish! The M250 was a 2 seater based on the Elise platform http://www.supercars.net/cars/2000@$Lotus@$M250%20Conceptg.html
<br>I should know as I was on the original waiting list!. The M250 was aimed at the more luxury end of the market for buyers that wanted an Elise with more creature comforts. Lotus are not currently looking at producing any cars with more than 2 seats...... by you're definition they must be limiting their potential market but most would say that they are concentrating on what they do best..... namely 2 seater sports cars!.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/06/2004

Good Grief!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

If your argument is based on the fact that Honda could have designed a car that appeals to more buyers then I have to agree with you!!!
<br>
<br>If flexibility and practicality are the yardsticks you are judging the S2000 against,then you really have missed the point.
<br>Yes Lotus may well have been in the process of designing a 4 seater for the people who need a GT as apposed to a sportscar, but it wasn't to replace the Elise.
<br>
<br>Maybe its the size of the US that dictates the philosophy you hold, I wouldn't want to drive huge distances in an S2000 either, but nor would I want to take an SUV on a track.
<br>Specialisation is not only good for insects, but its also good for people who buy with specific wants and needs, not needing a jack of all trades...
<br>BTW I love large, torquey, big engined luxury cars because they are very good at what they are designed to do, because of this it would be unfair to criticise my Audi because it cant go around corners quick or get to 100mph in 14 seconds.
<br>
<br>The S2000 COULD have been designed to better meet YOUR needs, but then the Jaguar XJR could have been better designed to meet mine.
<br>Whos right?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

---
<br>Its a 2 seater sports car!!!! what is it about this you don't get? Maybe it's a european thing that the American market doesn't get, but bigger is not always better.....
<br>Nobody wants the S2000 as a 4 seater long legged motor. It was designed for exactly the market who buys it.
<br>---
<br>
<br>You mean for a market that is currently saturated with offerings from nearly every other performance car-maker in the world.
<br>
<br>Now, name a performance car in the price range of the S2000 with 2+2 seating. Honda could have carved out their own niche and stolen business from Porsche, BMW, etc... but they didn't.
<br>
<br>
<br>You can argue that some people actually prefer the S2000 as a strict two-seater but you can't possibly be serious when you say that they applaud its short legs.
<br>
<br>---
<br>A significant amount of potential lotus elise buyers are unable to buy one because they weigh 20 stone and are six foot 5, Should lotus have redesigned it with a V12 and 4 doors?
<br>---
<br>
<br>A significant number of potential Elise buyers are 6'5" and weight 20st? (that's 280lbs/127kg for the non-British)
<br>
<br>You're kidding, right.
<br>
<br>Still, Lotus did realize the limits of the Elise's appeal outside Britain and were in the process of designing an alternative with... wait for it, a bigger engine and 2+2 seating. It was called the M250 but was cancelled because of Lotus' perennial cash-flow problems.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Specialisation is the order of the day with the s2000 and cars like this. Nobody buys one because it can pull a caravan uphill in 6th gear or because they can fit 5 golf bags in the boot.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Specialization is good for insects but bad for mass-market retail products. At least when it takes precedence over common-sense. The market continues to say clearly that car makers who make even a token attempt to seat more than two people in a performance car are rewarded with extra sales. Look at the Porsche 911. Or the Lotus Excel. Or the Mazda RX8. Or the... The list is a long one.
<br>
<br>If you're talking about serious specialist cars like Ferraris or Lamborghinis (or GT40s) then the equation is different. Nobody buys a Murcielago as their only car.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

"Yeah, for ballot-stuffing by peevish S2000 groupies who can't stomach any criticism of their revered vehicle - most of whom have probably never driven one and couldn't afford one anyway.
<br>
<br>You'll notice that the comments from people who actually claim to own the cars tend to agree with my assessment of its shortcomings with regard to things like lack of low-down power, a rear-end that is far more skittish on wet roads than a car of moderate power has any right to be, poor rear visibility with the top up, preposterously short gearing for high-speed cruising, etc..."
<br>
<br>Jon you are quite welcome to visit me anytime you need any of these points proving wrong. I can take you out for a spin.
<br>
<br>1. The Vtec engine is not about low down power. Try launching with a few revs then you don't need low down power. Yes this can be tricky and takes practice but is rewarding like the car! (probably too much trouble for you though)
<br>
<br>2. Skittish rear end in the wet? Yes I agree but don't tell me you were running standard SO2's/S03 tyres which are dry weather tyres and pretty rubbish in the wet. TYRES NOT THE CAR. Try a set of eagle F1's or similar this will solve most of your problems (apart from the power of cause!)
<br>
<br>3. Rear vis?! So most supercars are poor then because they fall down on this point? Do you need to see out the rear of a Lambo?!! The S2000 is similar.
<br>
<br>4.High speed crusing?? I was late for the ferry last year whilst on holiday in France and spent about an hour at 130mph and 5 hours at 90mph. All comfortable.
<br>
<br>5. I think you are clutching at straws to claim that none of use own these cars now. Most comments I have seen prove they do!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

---
<br>I'd like to recommend JonG for an award..... the boy just won't give up!!!!!
<br>---
<br>
<br>Actually, I already have an award, the designation "expert". I'm still the only one in the S2000 group to get that.
<br>
<br>I'd like the thank the Academy... ;->
<br>
<br>---
<br>The fact IS that 120bhp/litre IS a record for a mass produced production car engine
<br>---
<br>
<br>And as I said, that depends on your definition of "mass produced". Honda doesn't build S2000 engines in anything approaching the numbers that it builds its other engines.
<br>
<br>---
<br>Radical have boosted their engine to remarkable levels as well but they DON'T mass produce their cars
<br>---
<br>
<br>They build them in much the same way as Honda builds their S2000. What's the difference? True, they don't sell as many by the SRs are extremely specialized vehicles so you wouldn't expect them to.
<br>
<br>---
<br>The Radical engine needs striping down every few thousand miles to stop it blowing into a million pieces
<br>---
<br>
<br>Who told you that?
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>And why you keep on about "Honda could have built and I6 2+2" is totally beyond me!..... Honda designed the S2000 as a 50th anniversary present to themselves and I'm very glad they built the S2000 rather than a lardy cruiser that you seem to want.
<br>---
<br>
<br>When did I say it had to be "lardy"? Are you saying that at I-6 powered 2+2 wouldn't have a much better power:weight ratio than the current car? It would be slightly heavier but much more powerful. That's a good thing, right?
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>You don't like the S2000..... thats fine but most of us in the real world do!
<br>---
<br>
<br>I like it fine. I did give it a 7/10. Does that suggest to you that I didn't like it? As I have repeatedly said, it is a good car.
<br>
<br>I just can't call it a great one - I can't overlook its many minor flaws.
<br>
<br>---
<br>..... now how was that respect rating doing on your review..... last time I looked it was at minus 70...... probably worthy of another award! ;-)
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yeah, for ballot-stuffing by peevish S2000 groupies who can't stomach any criticism of their revered vehicle - most of whom have probably never driven one and couldn't afford one anyway.
<br>
<br>You'll notice that the comments from people who actually claim to own the cars tend to agree with my assessment of its shortcomings with regard to things like lack of low-down power, a rear-end that is far more skittish on wet roads than a car of moderate power has any right to be, poor rear visibility with the top up, preposterously short gearing for high-speed cruising, etc...

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

---
<br>Yeah, you're right...but i'd put the 2.4 litre of the Accord (but with a 9000 redline and 120bhp/litre, so the engine would reach the Japanese power limit of 280 bhp) instead of the 2.5 I-6, because i'm sure the 4 cyl is lighter of the 6cyl.
<br>---
<br>
<br>It is going to be more difficult to get a larger-displacement I-4 to reach the same rev limit. A 2.4 liter engine is going to have a larger bore (which means heavier pistons and a reduced redline) or a longer stroke (which means more stress on the reciprocating parts and a lower redline).
<br>
<br>You're right it will produce more torque and at lower revs which would be better in some ways but the 9000rpm redline is a nice bragging point.
<br>
<br>Also, the "power limit" to which you refer isn't a legislated one. It is agreed upon by the various manufacturers and is regularly ignored. Various Japanese cars (e.g. Toyota Supra turbo, Mitsubishi Evo, Subaryu Impreza, et al. have exceeded it).
<br>
<br>An I-6 engine would naturally be heavier but it would more than make up for it with increased power output. It would make more bhp/lb of engine weight.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>But why do you think a 9500 redline is better?
<br>---
<br>
<br>Because the way horsepower is calculated, the higher the redline, the more power the engine puts out.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>but you always said that torque is very important and without desplacement/turbo/supercharger it is't possible to make a 2L with much torque.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Well, it is possible but more difficult. This is one reason why a larger-displacement I-6 would be better.
<br>
<br>---
<br>On the s2000, you prefer the 2L supercharged with the 9000 redline or the 2.4 I-4 with 9500 redline (both produce 300 bhp)?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I'm not sure you could get a 2.4 liter I-4 to rev to 9500 without either serious reliability problems or else a much bigger price-tag due to more expensive components to handle the enormous stress.
<br>
<br>Still, if they did and if both engines were the same price and equally reliable... that'd would be an interesting choice. Hard to choose. The supercharged engine would probably have more low-down torque and a more interesting noise. But the 2.4 would have the snob-appeal of the higher redline and would probably make more peak torque...
<br>
<br>Hmm... I'd probably have to test drive them both to see which engine's power-delivery suited my driving-style better. It would likely be a close call either way.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/06/2004

My understanding is that the S2000's engine was a clean-sheet design - as was the chassis and transmission. The additional cost to design the engine as an I-6 and the chassis with a 2+2 seating configuration would have been negligible.
<br>..........................
<br>Its a 2 seater sports car!!!! what is it about this you don't get? Maybe it's a european thing that the American market doesn't get, but bigger is not always better.....
<br>Nobody wants the S2000 as a 4 seater long legged motor. It was designed for exactly the market who buys it.
<br>.....................................
<br>Even if it did use an existing block, it wouldn't have been that difficult to tack an extra cylinder or two onto the design similar to what Audi did with their V-8 to turn it into the V-10 now available in the Lamborghini Gallardo.
<br>
<br>In addition, this arrangement would have made more sense from a business perspective because strict 2-seaters are punitively taxed in Japan. They rely on foreign sales to make them practical for the locals.
<br>
<br>Also, a 2+2 configuration would have dramatically increased the potential market in all parts of the world, including Japan. A significant number of potential S2000 buyers are unable to buy it because it has only two seats.
<br>......................
<br>A significant amount of potential lotus elise buyers are unable to buy one because they weigh 20 stone and are six foot 5, Should lotus have redesigned it with a V12 and 4 doors?
<br>
<br>Specialisation is the order of the day with the s2000 and cars like this. Nobody buys one because it can pull a caravan uphill in 6th gear or because they can fit 5 golf bags in the boot. Its probably why the US car market has struggled to produce a decent sports car in decades, they tend to be jack of all trades and master of none.
<br>Except of course the gorgeous GT40 - cramped, impractical, dodgy in the wet, but still one of the few american sports cars with any respect in the rest of the world......and only 2 seats!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

I'd like to recommend JonG for an award..... the boy just won't give up!!!!!
<br>
<br>Jon we have already been over the S2000 120bhp/litre discussion. I don't see why you continue to argue against something that is so clear cut?! The S2000 engine has won lots of awards since its debut.... awards in categories that Honda didn't set. The fact IS that 120bhp/litre IS a record for a mass produced production car engine..... Radical have boosted their engine to remarkable levels as well but they DON'T mass produce their cars..... it has nothing to do with being hand built but everything to do with numbers and reliability. The Radical engine needs striping down every few thousand miles to stop it blowing into a million pieces not something your average S2000 needs!
<br>
<br>And why you keep on about "Honda could have built and I6 2+2" is totally beyond me!..... Honda designed the S2000 as a 50th anniversary present to themselves and I'm very glad they built the S2000 rather than a lardy cruiser that you seem to want. You don't like the S2000..... thats fine but most of us in the real world do!..... now how was that respect rating doing on your review..... last time I looked it was at minus 70...... probably worthy of another award! ;-)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

Yeah, you're right...but i'd put the 2.4 litre of the Accord (but with a 9000 redline and 120bhp/litre, so the engine would reach the Japanese power limit of 280 bhp) instead of the 2.5 I-6, because i'm sure the 4 cyl is lighter of the 6cyl.
<br>But why do you think a 9500 redline is better? The engine will have a bit more torque than the 2L (the 2.4 will have 250-260 Nm) and more power...but you always said that torque is very important and without desplacement/turbo/supercharger it is't possible to make a 2L with much torque.
<br>On the s2000, you prefer the 2L supercharged with the 9000 redline or the 2.4 I-4 with 9500 redline (both produce 300 bhp)?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

---
<br>It [the Honda S2000 engine] has the highest output power among all naturally aspirated two liter engines ever mass-produced
<br>---
<br>
<br>Notice the extreme narrowing of the field here.
<br>
<br>First, they start with a secondary characteristic - the specific output of the engine. No engine in history has succeeded or failed based on its specific output.
<br>
<br>Second, they limit the field to 2.0 liter engines only. Knowing full well that there are engines both larger and smaller with higher specific outputs.
<br>
<br>Third, they eliminate all forced-induction engines. Yeah, turbo-lag can be annoying but unless the car is extremely light, it isn't really that big a deal - as companies like Lotus, Porsche, Subaru, Mitsubishi (and many others) have repeatedly proved with their own cars and with engines that achieve far more than 120bhp/liter.
<br>
<br>Also, turbo-lag can be eliminated by driving the air-pump directly... i.e. a supercharger.
<br>
<br>Lastly, they claim the S2000 is a mass-produced engine. I guess that depends on what you mean by "mass-produced". They're still virtually hand-assembled by the same division of the company that produces the V-6 engine for the NSX. By that argument, Radical Motorsports is a mass-producer. Guess what? They have a 1.5 liter I-4 engine that produces 250bhp. That's 167bhp/liter - normally aspirated. Their upcoming V-8 based on the same design is said to be good for more than 500bhp (though they're initially targetting 400bhp) from a 2.6 liter engine. That's closing in on 200bhp/liter.
<br>
<br>Kinda puts Honda's 120 figure in perspective. A creditable achievement but not an awe-inspiring one.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

---
<br>JonG you said that it's better to put a 2.5 L I-6 instead if the actual 2 L. I think that's better too, but there are some problems. First, a I-6 is much longer than the I-4 and much heavier (the fuel consumption is also higher, but I don't think it is very important); second, honda doesn't produce an I-6 at the moment, so they have to design and produce an all new engine, and that's very expensive...usually, they "recycle" other engines less powerful and make them more aggressive (like using lighter materials or giving a higher redline for more power) only to save money. I think (maybe I'm wrong)the s2's block is the same of the accord's one. It is the same 2 L but on the s2000 it revvs much higher.
<br>So (with a new 2.5 I-6) the performances will increase, but the price will increase too. Maybe it will have the same price of a Supra TT and no one's going to buy the Honda, because the Supra can easily gain much power and is more practical for everyday use (it's a 2+2, MUCH more torque, more luggage space, highway cruising).
<br>---
<br>
<br>My understanding is that the S2000's engine was a clean-sheet design - as was the chassis and transmission. The additional cost to design the engine as an I-6 and the chassis with a 2+2 seating configuration would have been negligible.
<br>
<br>Even if it did use an existing block, it wouldn't have been that difficult to tack an extra cylinder or two onto the design similar to what Audi did with their V-8 to turn it into the V-10 now available in the Lamborghini Gallardo.
<br>
<br>In addition, this arrangement would have made more sense from a business perspective because strict 2-seaters are punitively taxed in Japan. They rely on foreign sales to make them practical for the locals.
<br>
<br>Also, a 2+2 configuration would have dramatically increased the potential market in all parts of the world, including Japan. A significant number of potential S2000 buyers are unable to buy it because it has only two seats.
<br>
<br>The fuel consumption of the car would be improved by the longer gearing allowed by the extra torque. Look at the Corvette, it gets mileage comparable to the S2000 even though it is heavier and has a ravenous 5.7 liter V-8. Why? Because of the fact that in 6th gear the car can sustain freeway speeds at near idle.
<br>
<br>Oh yeah, here's another benefit. The I-6 configuration is inherently smoother than any other inline engine. This allows higher revs due to reduced vibration and better throttle-response due to the lighter flywheel allowed by the design. This also helps offset the extra weight of the larger block and valvetrain.
<br>
<br>Since the S2000 is about a high redline, wouldn't a few hundred extra rpm in this department be a good thing? Why settle for just 9000 when you could have 9500 with no increased engineering required?
<br>
<br>But thanks for agreeing with me. ;->

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

RB26DETT said "I think (maybe I'm wrong)the s2's block is the same of the Accord's one. It is the same 2 L but on the s2000 it revvs much higher."
<br>
<br>Yep I think you are wrong..... the S2000 was built from the ground up to celebrate Hondas 50th birthday..... very few (if any) parts in the S2000 came from other older Hondas.
<br>
<br>As far as the multi award winning (or as JonG would say gutless) engine goes it was designed for the S2000 and is not used in any other Honda. To quote Hondas own information:
<br>
<br>"With the new Honda S2000 and its two liter DOHC-VTEC engine, you can have your "rev" and clean air too. To commemorate its 50th anniversary, Honda developed and launched the Honda S2000. The Honda S2000 is a sports roadster that provides the fundamental requirement of a sports car: genuine driving pleasure. One of the many amenities that makes it special is its engine - code named "F20C."
<br>
<br>For the past several years, development efforts at Honda have been dedicated to establishing a benchmark for the 21st century sports car engine. The result is a new 2.0 liter in-line four-cylinder powerplant - the F20C.
<br>
<br>This power unit is unique because it boasts a high output power at astonishingly high engine revolutions while ensuring low levels of exhaust emission. The engine produces 179kW (240HP, which is 120HP per liter). It has the highest output power among all naturally aspirated two liter engines ever mass-produced. In addition, it achieves an exhaust emission level within National LEV standards.
<br>
<br>The new F20C engine utilises a redesigned VTEC cylinder head, in which MIM (metal injection molding) rocker arms are used. This ultimate power unit also features a new cylinder block with a ladder frame structure for its lower part, a newly developed camshaft drive chain and gear system, and a metal honeycomb catalyst with an air pump start-up system."

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/06/2004

JonG you said that it's better to put a 2.5 L I-6 instead if the actual 2 L. I think that's better too, but there are some problems. First, a I-6 is much longer than the I-4 and much heavier (the fuel consumption is also higher, but I don't think it is very important); second, honda doesn't produce an I-6 at the moment, so they have to design and produce an all new engine, and that's very expensive...usually, they "recycle" other engines less powerful and make them more aggressive (like using lighter materials or giving a higher redline for more power) only to save money. I think (maybe I'm wrong)the s2's block is the same of the accord's one. It is the same 2 L but on the s2000 it revvs much higher.
<br>So (with a new 2.5 I-6) the performances will increase, but the price will increase too. Maybe it will have the same price of a Supra TT and no one's going to buy the Honda, because the Supra can easily gain much power and is more practical for everyday use (it's a 2+2, MUCH more torque, more luggage space, highway cruising).

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/06/2004

---
<br>No jon, it [the 6-speeed gearbox] lets you stay in the powerband! as you have said many times, this is vital in the S2000
<br>---
<br>
<br>The problem is that the powerband is much wider than the ratios. What I suspect happened is that they expected the engine to deliver more torque than it ultimately did. To make up for the lack of power, they had to change the rear-end gearing as a last-minute "band-aid fix". Shortening the rear-end ratio allowed better acceleration but it had the unfortunately side-effect of reducing the car's ability to cruise on the freeway and also had the effect of shortening the six rations to the point where constant gearbox "rowing" becomes necessary.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>If it was a five speed then the ratios would be longer and you would drop out of the powerband on upshifts or lose out on top speed!!!
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, you wouldn't. You keep 1st gear the same as it is now, make 5th gear longer for cruising and space out the remaining ratios accordingly.
<br>
<br>The car has a powerband that is almost 3000rpm wide. Making the ratios the equivalent of about 800rpm apart is absurd. On the higher gears (i.e. 3rd and 4th), you should drop around 1200rpm when moving from one to the next and going from 4th to 5th should knock around 1500rpm off the tach.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>No arguements here however, the visibility with the top up is terrible!! but it is so easy to put it down...until it rains of course.
<br>---
<br>
<br>My sentiments exactly. See? We do agree on some things.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/06/2004

I said: "I found myself putting the top down just to back out of parking spots. "
<br>
<br>Edd replied:
<br>
<br>---
<br>I have a plastic rear screen and can still see through it perfectly fine after 3 years!!? Did you not clean your glass one?
<br>---
<br>
<br>If you look at the glass rear window in the later S2000s, it is significantly smaller than the plastic one in the early cars. Thus, dramatically reducing rear visibility.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>It appears Jon that everything that everyone else enjoys about this car and you hate requires effort i.e. the high reving engine the proper sports car handling which can "bite" you etc etc.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I don't hate the high-revving engine, I hate the lack of torque.
<br>
<br>I don't hate proper sports-car handling, I hate the fact that the S2000 hasn't got it.
<br>
<br>I don't hate cars that "bite" if not driven with respect, I hate cars that have to be babied by the drivers because the engineers didn't do their jobs properly when designing it.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The car just wasn't for you I guess. Maybe a German "perfect wagon" would be good for you. Efficient, Characterless enough space for your shopping and can be driven fast by a 5 year old boy. Audi TT maybe?
<br>---
<br>
<br>You've got me confused with someone else. I don't particularly like characterless German cars. If I had it to do over again, I'd have bought a Lotus Elise or a TVR. Both give much more reward and are less treacherous to drive.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 01/06/2004

Hey people I have a question. Mitsubishi Lancer evo 8= 280 bhp, 39kgm, near 1400 kg and short gear retio; Nissan Skyline r34 GTR= 280 bhp, 40 kgm, 1560 kg and "medium" long gears. in 0-100 km/h both cars have the same good start, but why after 120 km/h the GTR beats the evo? The Mitsubishi with the same power and torque, is lighter than the GTR and has shorter gears...but the stock GTR still beats it! Can anyone explain me why?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 01/06/2004

JonG said: "I agree, the S2000's shifting action is outstanding. It would have been better with a 5-speed though. Six ratios is pointless unless you have something with Lamborghini power and are hunting for a 200mph top speed. For something that tops out at only about 150mph, a six-speed gearbox is more trouble that it is worth."
<br>
<br>
<br>No jon, it lets you stay in the powerband! as you have said many times, this is vital in the S2000.
<br>
<br>If it was a five speed then the ratios would be longer and you would drop out of the powerband on upshifts or lose out on top speed!!!
<br>
<br>Why do you think they chose it, just for the hell of it?
<br>
<br>JonG said: "In addition, the glass rear window added recently (thank God) provides limited rear visibility. I found myself putting the top down just to back out of parking spots."
<br>
<br>No arguements here however, the visibility with the top up is terrible!! but it is so easy to put it down...until it rains of course. visibility with the hardtop on however is far better.
<br>
<br>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 01/06/2004

"I found myself putting the top down just to back out of parking spots. "
<br>
<br>Now this just made me laugh more. Were your mirrors broken too?
<br>I have a plastic rear screen and can still see through it perfectly fine after 3 years!!? Did you not clean your glass one?
<br>It appears Jon that everything that everyone else enjoys about this car and you hate requires effort i.e. the high reving engine the proper sports car handling which can "bite" you etc etc.
<br>It also appears that you seem to not like this effort and need a car which pretty much does everything for you with no effort. In some peoples mind the effort to drive this car to its ability is pure enjoyment. I am sure you will find the word "rewarding" in many peoples posts here.
<br>The car just wasn't for you I guess. Maybe a German "perfect wagon" would be good for you. Efficient, Characterless enough space for your shopping and can be driven fast by a 5 year old boy. Audi TT maybe?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/05/2004

---
<br>Name one non turbo ride that is 2.0 liter and produces all that torque you talk about. jonjonjon--it doesn't exist.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Typical S2000 apologist... narrow the field with arbitrary restrictions until the Honda is the only car left in the category.
<br>
<br>Who cares if there is a turbo or not? Who cares if the engine displaces more than 2.0 liters or not?
<br>
<br>It may matter in places like Italy where cars with more than 2.0 liter engines are taxed punitively but otherwise who cares? The 9000rpm red-line is an "on paper" achievement. It is great from an engineering point of view but of significantly less use in the real world.
<br>
<br>BTW, Suzuki's 1.5 liter Hyabusa engine is good for 250bhp and a 12,000rpm redline. That's almost 170bhp/liter and a redline that is 33% higher than the Honda's. Is that a better engine?
<br>
<br>At the end of the day, academic statistics like the redline and specific-output matter less than things like torque and gear ratios because the latter attributes actually affect usability.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>I'll give you this about the s2---if it needs a little improvement it would be a super charger and then bigger rubber on the tail.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yeah, a supercharger would be great, I agree. No turbo-lag and lots more torque. You could even skip the bigger rubber on the back end and gear the differential a little higher. The rear end would be more stable and the car would have longer legs - the better for highway cruising.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Hey guys---how about the best shifter in the business.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I agree, the S2000's shifting action is outstanding. It would have been better with a 5-speed though. Six ratios is pointless unless you have something with Lamborghini power and are hunting for a 200mph top speed. For something that tops out at only about 150mph, a six-speed gearbox is more trouble that it is worth.
<br>
<br>---
<br>jong---you can talk till you are blue in the face but there is no peer to this car in this price range period and it still stomps more expensive, snobby cars.
<br>---
<br>
<br>This car has several peers in the price range - and to believe otherwise is foolishness.
<br>
<br>Porsche, BMW, Lotus, TVR, Mazda and many others all have cars which surpass the S2000 in one or more areas all in the same price ballpark.
<br>
<br>---
<br>The s2 has lots of standard equipment like hid lamps, 6 speed, cd, the motorrrrrrr (sweeeet)
<br>---
<br>
<br>You're singing the praises of the headlight? Surely there are more impressive things on the car to crow about. The shift action of the 6-speed is excellent as I said before but the transmission itself has a reputation for fragility that is unworthy of Honda. The CD player and speakers are lackluster. The engine does sound great (as I have said numerous times) but ultimately lacks grunt (as I have also said numerous times).
<br>
<br>---
<br>there is no reward with this car unless you work it in the power band and then it's all joy.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yeah, that's fine on a B-road on a sunny day when no one else is around. Up to about 50mph it is a blast but after that, things start to come apart a little. As a daily-driver, this car has some warts that cannot be ignored. Accepted perhaps, but not ignored. It is tortuous at freeway cruising speeds for long distances and on wet or loose surfaces the rear end is unpredictable at best. In addition, the glass rear window added recently (thank God) provides limited rear visibility. I found myself putting the top down just to back out of parking spots.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>no work no reward. jon you constantly talk about torque. you don't need the torque if you just drive it in it's 3000 rpm margin remember 6200-9200. If you drive it like an old pick up truck you are not going to be happy. under 6200, it's like driving a 2dr civic.
<br>---
<br>
<br>So, since you think torque is unimportant, are you going to transplant the Honda engine with a Hyabusa? You like revving the engine, how does a 12,000rpm redline sound to you? Or maybe you'd prefer something a little more mainstream like the Mazda RX-8. With a couple of minor tweaks you can lift the redline of that rotary engine from 9,000 to at least 12,000.
<br>
<br>Oh yeah, and the rotary only displaces 1.3 liters so you should like it better than the Honda's engine for that reason too.
<br>
<br>Nah, you wouldn't like it, it has more torque than the Honda engine.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/05/2004

HEY JONG
<br>
<br>It seems just about everybody in this forum is making much more sense than you. When honda reduced the redline they also pulled 1000 rpm right out of the power band. you will say--no way but answer this------name one non turbo ride that is 2.0 liter and produces all that torque you talk about. jonjonjon--it doesn't exist. Your talking about a car in your little dream world. I'll give you this about the s2---if it needs a little improvement it would be a super charger and then bigger rubber on the tail. Hey guys---how about the best shifter in the business. jong---you can talk till you are blue in the face but there is no peer to this car in this price range period and it still stomps more expensive, snobby cars. Compare that shifter to a BMW and it feels like an old Ford farm tractor in comparison. Name one car at 2.0l that competes with the s2. The s2 has lots of standard equipment like hid lamps, 6 speed, cd, the motorrrrrrr (sweeeet) I put 28,0000 mi on the 00 model and 12,000 on the 02 model. It really is a drivers car. there is no reward with this car unless you work it in the power band and then it's all joy. no work no reward. jon you constantly talk about torque. you don't need the torque if you just drive it in it's 3000 rpm margin remember 6200-9200. If you drive it like an old pick up truck you are not going to be happy. under 6200, it's like driving a 2dr civic.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/05/2004

---
<br>How many times do we have to say COMPARABLE CARS TO THE S2000!! I did not narrow the catagory the market and specification has done that!
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, actually you were just getting fed up that I brought up a car whose engine displaced more than the Honda's and made some snotty remark about how people who like their engines to have a reasonable amount of torque must be compensating for something.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/05/2004

Jon G the S2000 actually has 50/50 weight distribution unlike most FR cars which have more weight in the front. Its funny that you say it handles so badly. Just because you yourself found it difficult in the rear doesn't mean it necessarily corners badly. In fact a car with a twitchy rear end is actually capable of being driven very quickly rather it needs more care. A car like the corvette or a dodge is just badly balanced and tends to understeer.
<br>The S2000 doesn't understeer.
<br>Also contrary to your belief the boxter outhandles the S2 I have read numerous reviews which state that the S2 is actually its better.
<br>
<br>And no the S2000 has a slighter faster 0-60 time than the standard boxter. Its a well known fact.The 3.6 litre boxter S has a faster 0-60 time than the S2000.
<br>Lets just say this if the 3.2 litre boxter is slightly slower than the S2000 with a larger capacity engine how can the S2000's engine be amazingly gutless?
<br>
<br>Hello dodge viper, corvette, big muscle cars. The dodge is an 8 litre V10, you would hardly expect an S2000 to compete? likewise the corvette has an amazing horsepower advantage.
<br>My point is if you put an S2000 on a track with a 350Z or an RX-8 it would leave either of them for dead.
<br>
<br>I don't agree however that they would eat the Honda's lunch at any track named, getting either one of those cars around a track such as Laguna Seca would be a real challenge.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>But my point was that a 2.5 liter I-6 based on the same design principles would have been a better engine all around. Yes it would have been slightly heavier but that would have been more than offset by the extra power which would, in turn, have allowed them to build a slightly larger chassis which means they could have kept the balance and also added rear seats or made the boot much bigger.
<br>
<br>
<br>Hello jon there were designing a 2 seater roadster they didn't want four seats, 4 seats in a roadster is just wasted space, its wasted space in most sports cars, ever tried to get into the back of a toyota soarer or a porsche?
<br>
<br>And hello the boot is larger than any of its rivals, plus it comes with air conditioners and cd player and other extras as standard while weighing less than any of its rivals which provides these, just look at the Curb weight of the Nissan 350Z 1430 kilos.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/05/2004

Anyway I am just going to let you find that production car (not including the TVR Tamora) which is 5L or more on sale in the UK and/or europe with high sales and all for 25 – 35K
<br>---
<br>
<br>"Wait a second, you asked me where the European cars with 5-8 liter engines were and I told you. Now you want to narrow the category to a ridiculous degree so you can try to pretend that you were right and I was wrong. Nice try. NOT!"
<br>
<br>
<br>Jon Jon Jon How many times do we have to say COMPARABLE CARS TO THE S2000!! I did not narrow the catagory the market and specification has done that! Face it you were proved wrong again as with most of this review.
<br>
<br>Now lets compare the Honda to a Tornado GR1 shall we........................

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

---
<br>When you talk about the S2 you are always trying to make it in to something the designers did not want to produce. It's 9200 red line is something they wanted and something every happy owner wants.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Obviously, Honda felt customer feedback indicated that their American customers wanted usable torque more than a stratospheric redline.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>How many miles did you drive the S2? did you ever get into the power band on a consistant basis or did you just flirt with it?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I forget exactly how many miles - several thousand though. I had the car for more than a year and drove it regularly.
<br>
<br>As to the powerband - the high-lift cams in my car's engine got a regular workout.
<br>
<br>---
<br>Honda couldn't have done a better job on this car.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Of course they could. They could have given it more torque, a longer top gear and better handling/traction.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>i'm over my midlife crisis but would not hesitate buy another one with a red line of 9200 but honda listened to Jon G and now they are not available.
<br>---
<br>
<br>How flattering that you think I single-handedly influenced Honda to change their marketing strategy. I didn't.
<br>
<br>---
<br>04's are 2.2l and a little more torque but only a 8200 rpm red line, so i"m no longer a buyer of this new depowered car.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Actually, the new engine is more powerful than the old one, not less. Also, since its peak power it delivered lower in the rev range, it gives an added feeling of power beyond the higher torque.
<br>
<br>---
<br>how can you ever fault the handling of this car???
<br>---
<br>
<br>Because it is faulty. As I've said numerous times, for a car this low on torque the rear engine is ridiculously easy to lose and the slightly wooly steering doesn't help when you're trying to rein it in.
<br>
<br>It might be fun on a track but through a wet roundabout with pedestrians crossing at the corners, it is a white-knuckle moment in a bad way. It isn't as if this is a Dodge Viper or something like that.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

---
<br>Jon g if the proposed changes were made to the S2000 it would be a different car probably hit the hip pocket too
<br>---
<br>
<br>Well, it would now because the S2000 already exists. And to release the car I described at the same price point would alienate every customer who bought an S2000. However, if the car I described had been released INSTEAD of the S2000, they could easily have sold it for the same price.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Also the addition of an 1-6 would seem pointless unless the capacity were upped
<br>---
<br>
<br>Of couse the capacity would be upped. It would keep the same displacement/cylinder and so the I-6 would be a 2.5 liter engine.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Seriously the engine of this car is good
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yes, it is good. It could have been great. Too bad it wasn't.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>If however the car weighed 800 kilos with the same engine it would poo all over the elise
<br>---
<br>
<br>I've read of people transplanting the S2000's engine into an Elise with excellent results. The lack of torque isn't felt as keenly in a car as light as the Lotus for the same reason that Radical gets away with using the Suzuki Hayabusa engine in their cars.
<br>
<br>---
<br>Also an MR2 the S2000's peer in performance and better handling? Smoke some lighter stuff.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yes, better handling. Thats because it is a mid-engine car with the mill sitting behind the driver. That layout does wonders for handling. There's a reason manufacturers continue to use that layout despite all the packaging and design problems it causes for them.
<br>
<br>---
<br>The S2000 outperforms and outhandles the 3.2L porsche boxter, it has a faster 0-60 time
<br>---
<br>
<br>The S2000 has equivalent 0-60 times to the Boxter but can't hold a candle to its handling. That rear-mid engine design again.
<br>
<br>---
<br>Really I think the key reason you don't like this car is because you are american, it explains a lot to me that does. Americans are all into the torquey V8's large engines that produce lots of low end power and guzzle gas.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Then why do I like the Lotus Elise, Mazda MX5 and Toyota MR2 so much?
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The S2 would leave all of them for dead on the race track.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Hahahahah! Cars like the Corvette and Viper are really awful in more ways than I can quickly list and I never thought I'd be in the position of sticking up for them... but they will both eat the Honda's lunch at any track you care to name and won't break a sweat doing it. In fact, I bet you could pull one of the plug wires on either of those cars and it would still thrash the Honda.
<br>
<br>A Corvette with an automatic transmission could make it to 60mph a full second faster than the Honda.
<br>
<br>Granted both the Viper and Corvette are even worse at going around corners than the Honda (and that's saying something) but they'll make it up in the straights with their "brute-force and ignorance" approach to performance.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

---
<br>I think Honda engineers choose the 2 litre 4cyl because it is light, so the car can easily have a 50:50 weight destribution
<br>---
<br>
<br>But my point was that a 2.5 liter I-6 based on the same design principles would have been a better engine all around. Yes it would have been slightly heavier but that would have been more than offset by the extra power which would, in turn, have allowed them to build a slightly larger chassis which means they could have kept the balance and also added rear seats or made the boot much bigger.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The car has very good corner entrance and (due to the low torque) doesn't need a traction control,
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yes, the S2000 has good turn-in. The steering is a bit numb and lacking feedback but the turn-in is good.
<br>
<br>But let's be clear about something. No car "needs" traction-control. It is a stupid gimmick to allow yuppie weasels to pretend they are F1 drivers on their way to the office. Anyone who thinks they need traction-control has no business in a performance car because that means they don't understand how a throttle works. I trust you'll agree with me that someone who doesn't understand the operation of a throttle has no business in a fast car.
<br>
<br>---
<br>so it's more "free" to slide al little bit in corners(that's funny I think :) ).
<br>---
<br>
<br>It is funny until someone who doesn't know how to correct tailslide goes through a wet roundabout.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>I agree with you when you said that some people like to drive a high revving engine. I'm one of them.
<br>---
<br>
<br>But wouldn't you prefer the engine to be more than just high-revving? The Honda's engine is like taking a bite of cake and only getting the icing.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

---
<br>Anyway I am just going to let you find that production car (not including the TVR Tamora) which is 5L or more on sale in the UK and/or europe with high sales and all for 25 – 35K
<br>---
<br>
<br>Wait a second, you asked me where the European cars with 5-8 liter engines were and I told you. Now you want to narrow the category to a ridiculous degree so you can try to pretend that you were right and I was wrong. Nice try. NOT!
<br>
<br>BTW, Bristol still builds cars for their devoted followers and still uses gigantic-displacement (7+ liter) Chrysler engines in them.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

JON G
<br>
<br>When you talk about the S2 you are always trying to make it in to something the designers did not want to produce. It's 9200 red line is something they wanted and something every happy owner wants. Your comparisons to other cars, almost reveal a lack of knowledge of the S2. How many miles did you drive the S2? did you ever get into the power band on a consistant basis or did you just flirt with it? your comparison to a MR2 or Mazda is just so totally flawed. Two years ago I was at the road America races for cart and visited a trailer devoted to the engines that power the slower indy lite cars that warm up the crowd before the actual cart race, and the s2's engine is virtually identical to the indy lite in size, hp, and torque and non turbo. You won't get the feeling if you don't have an engine that mirriors the track. Honda couldn't have done a better job on this car. Last week I sold my 2nd S2-----i'm over my midlife crisis but would not hesitate buy another one with a red line of 9200 but honda listened to Jon G and now they are not available.
<br>04's are 2.2l and a little more torque but only a 8200 rpm red line, so i"m no longer a buyer of this new depowered car. 9200 is where it's at and I loved beating this car to death only to hear it idle like a sewing machine with legendary honda reliability. I just want to finish saying to jon g, where do you buy your cars? I drive a hard bargin and can pick up a brand new S2 for 9-10% off sticker every day of the week. jon g---how can you ever fault the handling of this car???

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/05/2004

My point is only that the S2000 would be a better car with more torque and longer gearing. Honda could have achieved this without sacrificing the redline. They simply chose not to.
<br>
<br>They could have made the chassis slightly larger and made the engine an inline-6 instead of an I-4. Such an engine would had 50% higher bhp AND torque and an even higher redline because of the smoother operation of an I-6 engine. Plus, they could have made the flywheel lighter which would have improved the throttle response.
<br>
<br>The chassis could have been made slightly larger as well which would have allowed for 2+2 seating.
<br>
<br>Jon g if the proposed changes were made to the S2000 it would be a different car probably hit the hip pocket too it would shape up to be more like one of your jags, I mean honda designed it as a two seater roadster. Also the addition of an 1-6 would seem pointless unless the capacity were upped, basically it would change the car completely. Seriously the engine of this car is good, there is nothing wrong with it, the car is quick the figures speak for themselves. If however the car weighed 800 kilos with the same engine it would poo all over the elise. Your argument doesn't seem to substantiate that the S2000 is bad as it is, rather you seem to be making many judgements which reallly say it should either be a light tin can or larger car similar to a jag XKR with a turbo-charged V8.
<br>
<br>Also an MR2 the S2000's peer in performance and better handling? Smoke some lighter stuff.
<br>
<br>The S2000 outperforms and outhandles the 3.2L porsche boxter, it has a faster 0-60 time and on the race track it also proves faster.
<br>
<br>
<br> Are you suggesting that an MR2 is in the same class as the boxter?( is this the MR2 spyder? or the older MR2)The MR2 spyder does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. Whilst the MR2 targa does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds, about a second slower than the S2000.
<br>
<br>Its true the 1.8 elise can outperform the S2000 if you are looking at the 111R. The 111S however has a top speed of 212 kph so it has very little top end power.
<br> Also remembering the fact the elise weighs around 800 kg it is really more of a sardine can than a car.
<br>
<br>Really I think the key reason you don't like this car is because you are american, it explains a lot to me that does. Americans are all into the torquey V8's large engines that produce lots of low end power and guzzle gas.
<br>The S2 would leave all of them for dead on the race track.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

Jon Jon Jon......
<br>
<br>"My point is only that the S2000 would be a better car with more torque and longer gearing. Honda could have achieved this without sacrificing the redline. They simply chose not to.
<br>
<br>They could have made the chassis slightly larger and made the engine an inline-6 instead of an I-4. Such an engine would had 50% higher bhp AND torque and an even higher redline because of the smoother operation of an I-6 engine. Plus, they could have made the flywheel lighter which would have improved the throttle response.
<br>
<br>The chassis could have been made slightly larger as well which would have allowed for 2+2 seating"
<br>
<br>But wouldn't that be a completely different type of car? and as such rather pointless when discussing the S2000?.
<br>
<br>As for the 350Z droptop..... I'm 95% sure that you are wrong that it was designed as a convertible..... its just like the Audi TT.... i.e originally designed as a coupe which later had the roof chopped off. The 350Z coupe has extra struts and cross bars to stiffen the open version, thus adding around 50kg to an already heavy car (not saying its a bad car just different!)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

I think Honda engineers choose the 2 litre 4cyl because it is light, so the car can easily have a 50:50 weight destribution, the car has very good corner entrance and (due to the low torque) doesn't need a traction control, so it's more "free" to slide al little bit in corners(that's funny I think :) ). I agree with you when you said that some people like to drive a high revving engine. I'm one of them.
<br>
<br>Maybe if they put the 3 litre of the nsx (or the 3.2) in the S2000 and they put the gearbox near the rear axle (like in a new alfa romeo; I can't remeber the name) the weight ratio would be the same but it needs traction control and "stronger" brakes, chassis and I don't know what more. So it would become a car more for every day use than a sport car. And that's what Honda engineers wanted: a sport car, not a racing car like the nsx.
<br>
<br>The s2000 was a surprise for the year 2000 and also the engine is a 2000 cc. If they put the 3.2 litre (i think the best chioce) it would be the s3200...

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

---
<br>Where are all these 5 and 8 litre sports cars in europe???!!!!
<br>---
<br>
<br>"Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, Aston-Martin, Bristol, Marcos...
<br>
<br>Just to name a few. Then there are the American-made cars driven in Europe from GM and Chrysler with giant engines. It isn't just TVR dude. The majority of their engines are 4.0 liters and under - even Jaguar makes bigger engines. "
<br>
<br>Mercedes?
<br>Yes they do make some 5 litre plus cars. Please name one in the same price range and catagory as the S2000 with a 5 litre engine?
<br>
<br>BMW?
<br>Well they have the BMW Z8 yes it has a large engine and has 2 seats but thats where the similarity ends with the S2000. Hmmm they were a great car weren't they? They sold hardly any and started at 80k!!
<br>
<br>Audi?
<br>Do Audi do a 2 seater sports car? (or roadster as you like to call it)
<br>
<br>Porsche?
<br>I don't see a boxster with a 5 litre do you? Maybe 911's plus but aren't we in supercar catagory again?
<br>
<br>Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati?
<br>Point Proved............supercars
<br>
<br>Aston-Martin?
<br>Heading towards supercar level they do make some baby Astons but again you need to spend 50k plus
<br>
<br>Bristol?
<br>I am sorry but if you see Bristols daily (excuse the pun) In Europe you must be in a very strange area!! Do they still even make them? Their last noticable success was the Beaufighter which was a large powerful car which looked like a Ford Cortina!! They sell or did sell hardly any for gods sake!...............oh yeah they have 4 seats too hardly comparable are they?
<br>
<br>Marcos?
<br>Yeah here is another huge seller!! LOL Fiberglass kit cars have always been popular LOL!!! (NOT)
<br>
<br>What I was trying to explain a like for like comparison is needed here!
<br>
<br>"Just to name a few. Then there are the American-made cars driven in Europe from GM and Chrysler with giant engines. It isn't just TVR dude. The majority of their engines are 4.0 liters and under - even Jaguar makes bigger engines."
<br>
<br>Just name one car with 2 seats, a soft top with a 5 litre plus engine and in the 25-35k price range that sold 1000 or more in europe?
<br>
<br>Finally we get to some cars you could try to reasonably compare it to:
<br>
<br>MR2 and MX5 , Don’t make me laugh I have driven both, even owned one. The MX5 yes it is a very good car and I won’t hear a thing said against it ,but it really is a different class to the S2000. The MR2 is both cramped and has very poor performance (and yes that is only my opinion but the perfomance can be seen on paper too)
<br>
<br>The Elise ……..yes I like the Elise it’s a nice car but not for me ( I am not narrow minded enough not to admit there are other fine cars out there.) I find them noisy and uncomfortable. Yes they handle well and would be fine for a track day car but as a daily driver with that naff roof it would bug me.
<br>
<br>Anyway I am just going to let you find that production car (not including the TVR Tamora) which is 5L or more on sale in the UK and/or europe with high sales and all for 25 – 35K…………………………

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

---
<br>Sorry JonG my english isn't very good...anyway, I think you understood my question, but I can try to explain it better. If the Honda s2000 instead of the 2 litre has another engine which weights the same with 50% more torque but the same horsepower(240bhp) and a redline 50% lower(6000, not 9000)and all the gears 50% longer (so in every gear it would reach the same speed of the stock s2000 at the redline), would that "modified" S2000 have the same acceleration and top speed? thanks bro! if you don't understand my stupid question it doesn't matter, i'll ask you again when my english gets better!
<br>---
<br>
<br>Your question isn't a stupid one. I think I understand it now.
<br>
<br>The answer is "I don't know".
<br>
<br>It seems reasonable and even likely that a car with 50% more torque, a 50% lower redline and 50% higher gearing would accelerate at the same speed as the current car but I don't know enough about the math to be able to be certain.
<br>
<br>The thing is that even if the times were the same, I think a lot of people would say the car seems slower in a side-by-side comparison. Some people love that high red-line and are willing to put up with the shortcomings related to it. I don't think those people would be as happy in a car with a lower redline. That is certainly their choice.
<br>
<br>My point is only that the S2000 would be a better car with more torque and longer gearing. Honda could have achieved this without sacrificing the redline. They simply chose not to.
<br>
<br>They could have made the chassis slightly larger and made the engine an inline-6 instead of an I-4. Such an engine would had 50% higher bhp AND torque and an even higher redline because of the smoother operation of an I-6 engine. Plus, they could have made the flywheel lighter which would have improved the throttle response.
<br>
<br>The chassis could have been made slightly larger as well which would have allowed for 2+2 seating.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

---
<br>5 and 8 liters? I presume that is 5 and 8 litres? I am quite concerned people could take car advice from an expert with such poor command of the British language.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I don't speak (or write) British English but rather American English.
<br>
<br>But then I believe I mentioned that I am an American in the very same sentence. That doesn't say much for your reading ability now does it?
<br>
<br>---
<br>Where are all these 5 and 8 litre sports cars in europe???!!!!
<br>---
<br>
<br>Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, Aston-Martin, Bristol, Marcos...
<br>
<br>Just to name a few. Then there are the American-made cars driven in Europe from GM and Chrysler with giant engines. It isn't just TVR dude. The majority of their engines are 4.0 liters and under - even Jaguar makes bigger engines.
<br>
<br>---
<br>if you wish to resort to this class to compare against the S2000 to try to prove a point I am one happy owner of a hell of a car!
<br>---
<br>
<br>Don't have to. Even the 1.8 liter Lotus Elise or Toyota MR2 are its peers in performance and its betters in handling. An MX-5 may not be as fast in a straight line but it handles better and is a LOT cheaper.
<br>
<br>You like your S2000? Great! Enjoy it. But don't try to cover up its deficiencies. Some people will see its flaws and say "that doesn't bother me, I want the car anyway" and that's fine. But they should see those flaws before they buy. Don't you think?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 25/05/2004

---
<br>The 350Z droptop will be released in the UK fairly soon and will probably get many new fans but its even heavier than the 350 coupe.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Actually, I heard different. The 350z was reportedly designed as a convertible from the start and so the hardtop version isn't likely to be much lighter.
<br>
<br>I have't driven a 350z yet but the S2000 doesn't feel especially light so I'd be curious to see if there is a difference.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

Sorry JonG my english isn't very good...anyway, I think you understood my question, but I can try to explain it better. If the Honda s2000 instead of the 2 litre has another engine which weights the same with 50% more torque but the same horsepower(240bhp) and a redline 50% lower(6000, not 9000)and all the gears 50% longer (so in every gear it would reach the same speed of the stock s2000 at the redline), would that "modified" S2000 have the same acceleration and top speed? thanks bro! if you don't understand my stupid question it doesn't matter, i'll ask you again when my english gets better!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

Hmmm I am still keeping an eye on this isn't it great!
<br>
<br>"I'm not a Pom, I'm a Yank. Second, 3.6 liters isn't really what anyone would consider a "big" engine compared to the 5 to 8 liters you see under the bonnets of American and European performance cars. TVRs are for drivers who don't care what other people think."
<br>
<br>5 and 8 liters? I presume that is 5 and 8 litres? I am quite concerned people could take car advice from an expert with such poor command of the British language.(yes I know I know nothing to do with cars you will reply, but does suggest a general educational level as does the ability to express a clear concise argument and these posts certainly do not reflect that, you have been proved wrong time and time again)
<br>
<br>Where are all these 5 and 8 litre sports cars in europe???!!!! Because I certainly don't see many! (maybe a few TVRs, oh we are back to that again we get the message you like them!..........and you still can't name a single one in the same price bracket as the S2000 so why compare them?)
<br>
<br>If you are looking for 5 and 8 litre cars in Europe you must be refering to supercars. We all know this is an entirely different class of vehicle but if you wish to resort to this class to compare against the S2000 to try to prove a point I am one happy owner of a hell of a car!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

Yes the 350Z is also a good car and well worth checking out if you are in the market for a sub £30k two seater. I tested one recently and was fairly impressed with the extra torque and flexibility of the engine (its strong point) but it still didn't leave me feeling that it was "better" then the Honda. The biggest obvious difference when moving from the 350Z back to my S2000 was the weight the S2000 felt like a go-kart in comparison to the Nissan which is much heavier. In the end the S2000 and 350Z are both great value for money and each have their own advantages..... they both have similar performance but very different characteristics...... if you want a coupe the 350Z will win, but if you want a droptop the S2000 is still better. The 350Z droptop will be released in the UK fairly soon and will probably get many new fans but its even heavier than the 350 coupe.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

---
<br>Yes the TVR Tamora is only available in Britain so ehh doesn't help anyone outside that country.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Actually, you're wrong about that. TVRs are available just about everywhere apart from North America.
<br>
<br>They aren't just sold in Britain. They're also sold in Europe and the far east. In addition, they're available for export to most other places as well.
<br>
<br>---
<br>It costs more than the S2 as well. 36,000 pounds translates to roughly 87,000 AUD, the s2 is only 75,000 AUD which is about 29,000 british pounds.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yes, the Tamora does cost a bit more. But it is still in the same basic price range but offers performance that massively outclasses the Honda.
<br>
<br>---
<br>Oh yeah and what year model of the Tamora are you referring to?
<br>---
<br>
<br>There is only one model of the Tamora. Why did you ask about the year?
<br>
<br>---
<br>It is an impressive car i'll grant that. As caranddriver.com says in its review of the S2 "The S2000 narrowly missed the cut for last year's 10Best list, largely because it represented a level of sports-car purity that was just a little too pure"
<br>---
<br>
<br>That's pretty pathetic. The S2000 isn't a "pure sports car" by any strech of anyone's imagination. Did they confuse it with the Lotus Elise?
<br>
<br>---
<br>So basically translates to your a whiny pommy who needs a car with a big engine and phallic shape because of your overcompensation to create a penis extension. Get a porsche carrera GT, can't go wrong there. Oh yeah it also means the S2 is a good car, about as close to a race car as you can get for its price.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I'm not a Pom, I'm a Yank. Second, 3.6 liters isn't really what anyone would consider a "big" engine compared to the 5 to 8 liters you see under the bonnets of American and European performance cars. TVRs are for drivers who don't care what other people think.
<br>
<br>Oh yeah, and do you really think the Tamora looks phallic? Maybe you need to talk to someone about that.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

---
<br>I think the S2000 is a nice car and has good performance...it's a good car but it isn't special. For that price i'd take a 350z.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I haven't driven the 350 yet but I'd definitely recommend looking at one to anyone shopping for cars in that range.
<br>
<br>---
<br>JonG, I have a question. If there is a car with the same weight, horsepower, drag coefficent and weight distribution of the S2000 but with 300 Nm and a redline of 6000 and if the gears are all 50% longer than the s2000's(if s2000 in 2nd gear arrives at 100 km/h, the imaginary car's 2th arrives at 100 km/h too), does it have the same acceleration of the s2000?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether greater torque will make up for longer gearing? Certainly it will. I don't know the exact mathematical equivalences but greater torque will allow better acceleration with the same gearing or similar acceleration with longer gearing.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/05/2004

Yes the TVR tamora is only available in britain so ehh doesn't help anyone outside that country.
<br>
<br>It costs more than the S2 as well. 36,000 pounds translates to roughly 87,000 AUD, the s2 is only 75,000 AUD which is about 29,000 british pounds. oh yeah and what year model of the Tamora are you referring to?
<br>
<br>It is an impressive car i'll grant that. As caranddriver.com says in its review of the S2 "The S2000 narrowly missed the cut for last year's 10Best list, largely because it represented a level of sports-car purity that was just a little too pure" So basically translates to your a whiny pommy who needs a car with a big engine and phallic shape because of your overcompensation to create a penis extension. Get a bloody porsche carrera GT, can't go wrong there. Oh yeah it also means the S2 is a good car, bout as close to a race car as you can get for its price.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Rb26Dett's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/05/2004

I think the S2000 is a nice car and has good performance...it's a good car but it isn't special. For that price i'd take a 350z.
<br>
<br>JonG, I have a question. If there is a car with the same weight, horsepower, drag coefficent and wheight distribution of the s2000 but with 300 Nm and a redline of 6000 and if the gears are all 50% longer than the s2000's(if s2000 in 2nd gear arrives at 100 km/h, the imaginary car's 2th arrives at 100 km/h too), does it have the same acceleration of the s2000? thank you

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/05/2004

---
<br>I wonder if "expert" knows how to spool these bad boys up. Remember the fun starts at 6200 not 4000.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I wonder if you know how to read. Did you actually read the part of the review where I said I'd had the engine up to 9000 revs?
<br>
<br>How frustrating for you that my expertise contradicts your opinions.
<br>
<br>I wonder if you've ever driven a real performance car. If you had, you'd understand what I mean when I say the S2000's engine is amazingly gutless considering its 240bhp output.
<br>
<br>Try driving a TVR Tamora. Actually, on second though, that's probably not a good idea. It will ruin your S2000 for you.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/05/2004

The "expert" has said the s2000 is "amazingly gutless"... What do the rest of you owners say? Both my 2000 & 2002 s2's have excellent power above 6200 to 9200 rpm. I wonder if "expert" knows how to spool these bad boys up. Remember the fun starts at 6200 not 4000.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/05/2004

JonG said "A couple of things about your comparisons. I notice that the big-torque cars you have in there are all auto boxes. As I've pointed out here, cars with autoboxes suffer a disadvantage over those with manual transmissions due to the inefficienc of the torque converter"
<br>
<br>Fair comment for some of the cars but if you look at the list again you'll see that only about half of the cars with a torque advantage are autos...... you also cunningly avoided commenting on the cars with very similar torque/ton to the S2000:
<br>
<br>MX5 1.8i = 112ftlb/ton 0-100 25.7sec
<br>Mini Cooper S = 134ftlb/ton 0-100 21.3sec
<br>Renault Clio Williams = 128ftlb/ton 0-100 20.8sec
<br>Ford Puma 1.7 = 112ftlb/ton 0-100 27sec
<br>
<br>So how do you explain their much slower performance figures when they are all broadly similar weights to the S2000 as well (some are much lighter as well!).
<br>
<br>Torque and BHP are joined at the hip you can't have one without the other..... the difference for us drivers is the way some cars get their performance. Most big torque engines are also large capacity, these engines are usually lower revving and deliver most of their peak torque early meaning that they run out of breath higher in the rev range (350Z). Higher revving smaller capacity engines usually deliver their torque much higher up the rev range meaning that they continue to accelerate upto the redline (S2000). Both types of engines have their advantages and disadvantages but do their jobs as they were designed to do.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/05/2004

wait a minute....if I recall from earlier:
<br>
<br>"Of the 39 people that have rated your review to date...... 2 have agreed with you and 37 have disagreed...... giving a total respect rating of MINUS 55 probably one of the lowest on this website?."
<br>
<br>then Jon replied that he thought there was ballot stuffing happening:
<br>
<br>"I voted twice (just to see if I could) and had no problem doing it."
<br>
<br>So out of 2 "agrees" at that point, both were in fact JonG himself...now who was accusing who of ballot stuffing? :)
<br>
<br>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 10/05/2004

---
<br>I'm from the states and on my second s2 and just want to state--if you want to drive like you are behind the wheel of an indy lite car this is your car because the hp and torque match up perfectly, with the only problem being 2806 lbs. instead on less than 2000.
<br>---
<br>
<br>If weight is your thing, then you're better off with a Lotus Elise. By comparison, the S2000 is positively portly.
<br>
<br>---
<br>I don't know where the "expert reviewer" gets off stating the gearbox is too narrow on the ratios!!!!!!!
<br>---
<br>
<br>Because the ratios are, in fact, too close. Maybe that's one reason they've given me expert status - that I know what I'm talking about. Also, 6th gear is a bad joke. It it like 4th gear in a normal car. 18mph/1000rpm in 6th gear? That's absurd.
<br>
<br>---
<br>get out of the jag and kick it man to 9 grand.
<br>Let's see your jag do that-----------sorry -- your engine is now all over the country side.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Fortunately, my Jag doesn't need to rev to nine grand in order to keep up with the Honda. ;->
<br>
<br>---
<br>Enough already. There is not much out there that is going to make you feel like you are in a irl or cart car, sooooooo settle for an indy lite car at $30,000. If you don't like it the resale will bail you out.
<br>---
<br>
<br>You're right about that much. The limited availablility of the car does keep the resale values high. Of course, it also means that you'll get little or no discount off sticker price.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Gooot's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 09/05/2004

I'm from the states and on my second s2 and just want to state--if you want to drive like you are behind the wheel of an indy lite car this is your car because the hp and torque match up perfectly, with the only problem being 2806 lbs. instead on less than 2000. I don't know where the "expert reviewer" gets off stating the gearbox is too narrow on the ratios!!!!!!!
<br>get out of the jag and kick it man to 9 grand.
<br>Let's see your jag do that-----------sorry -- your engine is now all over the country side. Enough already. There is not much out there that is going to make you feel like you are in a irl or cart car, sooooooo settle for an indy lite car at $30,000. If you don't like it the resale will bail you out.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 05/05/2004

<<<
<br>I don't understand where 5252 comes from
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>According to James Watt...
<br>
<br>http://auto.howstuffworks.com/horsepower1.htm

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

---
<br>Well jon g the nsx actually has a torque of 224.2 lbft/ton, so i'd recheck your figure for that ( i'm talking of the nsx type R of course.)
<br>---
<br>
<br>I was talking about the original NSX with the 3.0 liter engine. It made 210/lb ft of torque or, if you normalize it for the car's weight, 156.71 lb/ft per ton.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Anyway if you are looking for cars in a similar category to the s2000 that are fair comparisons then look towards the mazda RX8 and Nissan 350 Z there is no use for you to compare them with significantly larger capacity engines produces up to and over 340 hp.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I agree, and I believe that was my original point.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>THe xjr is a V8. We are talking about an Inline 4 cylinder here.
<br>You should look towards Japanese cars as comparisons rather than large capacity european barges with low tech high horsepower engines.
<br>---
<br>
<br>A couple of points... First, Jaguar also made an I-6 version of the XJR. Second, the engine is anything but "low tech" - you have to buy American to get low-tech engines. Third, Jaguar doesn't make barges.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Also enough with this ballot stuffing rubbish, the point remains only 3 people agree with it, a lot more than 3 people have read the damn review
<br>---
<br>
<br>Maybe, but we'll never know.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>And the lotus carlton possesses 418 lbft/ton of torque not that other stupid figure you gave also it has 377 bhp
<br>---
<br>
<br>I know how much torque the Carlton made. The reason I didn't put the original figure of 419/lb ft was because we were normalizing for weight. Divide 419 by 1.655 tons and you get 253 lb/ft/ton.
<br>
<br>And regarding 0-100 times, the contemporary NSX couldn't even come close to its acceleration. Newer, more powerful version with grippier tires might do better but comparing both contemporary cars and the Lotus pimp-slaps the Honda.
<br>
<br>---
<br>and whoever said that an S2000 has 120 lbft/ton
<br>
<br>of torque is wrong, its actually 153lbft/ton.
<br>---
<br>
<br>You're having trouble with the concept of "normalizing", aren't you? The Honda S2000 makes 153 lb/ft of actual torque. But if you divide that by the weight of the car (1.25 tons), you get 122.4 lb/ft/ton.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Interesting, you have been saying that torque is key for acceleration, i'll agree to some extent. However its clear that what you should explain is that the acceleration is dependant upon the HP produced at a certain RPM and that the HP produced depends on the amount of torque being produced at that RPM. The S2000 with its relatively flat torque curve in this case shouldn't do too badly, and judging by its figures it doesn't.
<br>---
<br>
<br>You're incorrect about a couple of things here.
<br>
<br>First, a car's acceleration is dependent on the torque delivered by the engine - not horsepower (except to the extent that torque determines how much horsepower a car has).
<br>
<br>Second, the torque curve of an S2000 is not as flat as you might like to think. It doesn't start putting out anything close to peak power until after 4,000rpm and the real fireworks don't start until after the high-lift cams come online at nearly 7,000rpm. It might as well be turbocharged (badly) for the amount of lag there is.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

Jazza.... sorry you seem to have missed the point of part of the discussion..... the S2000 does have 120ft/lb/ton of torque. The figure you mention is the peak torque..... torque/ton is the peak torque/vehicle weight.
<br>
<br>We are talking torque/ton because that gives a more realistic guide to performance than peak torque..... in the same way that bhp/ton is a better guide than max bhp.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

I'm going to add this again because it was slotted in some wierd place up the list, earlier today.
<br>
<br>"You're wrong. horsepower=(torque*rpm)/5252 "
<br>
<br>I don't understand where 5252 comes from but anyway, if you use that formula with your figures of 120lb ft and 8300rpm you get 189.6hp. (is that supposed to be bhp?)
<br>
<br>...so where did the rest go? Your figures just dont add up!
<br>
<br>The other anomaly is that peak power in the S2000 is reached at 8,300rpm, but peak torque is reached at 7,500rpm!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

Well jon g the nsx actually has a torque of 224.2 lbft/ton, so i'd recheck your figure for that ( i'm talking of the nsx type R of course.) and the 0-100 time is actually 11.2 seconds so therefore it actually does make the dash in a similar time to your lotus. ( and thats the 2002 model. The NSX is a serious piece of machinery i hope i never hear it done that much injustice again.
<br> THe NSX type -R also has a similar curb weight of 1270 kg and an extra 60 hp( 300 to be correct) and all this coming from a 3.2 litre naturally aspirated V6) redline at 8000 RPM pretty impressive i'd say. But anyway we are argueing here about the S2000.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Anyway if you are looking for cars in a similar category to the s2000 that are fair comparisons then look towards the mazda RX8 and Nissan 350 Z there is no use for you to compare them with significantly larger capacity engines produces up to and over 340 hp. It seems you fairly readily compare the S2000 to the boxter S and cars such as the Jaguar XJR yet these cars have significantly larger capacity engines. THe xjr is a V8. We are talking about an Inline 4 cylinder here.
<br>You should look towards Japanese cars as comparisons rather than large capacity european barges with low tech high horsepower engines. I mean why not compare the S2000 to the modified truck engined Dodge viper, I mean sure an 8.0 litre V10 is a pretty fair comparison to a 2.0 litre inline 4.
<br>Your comparisons are not this extreme but you get the gist.
<br>Also enough with this ballot stuffing rubbish, the point remains only 3 people agree with it, a lot more than 3 people have read the damn review, obviously even if ballot stuffing did occur there is still a significantly large amount of people who disagree with you. IF your sources are so good why do you make obvious mistakes like incorrect performance specs for the NSX You can check any number of sites and get the same or similar figures to what I have found. The only way I can possibly fathom the specs for the NSX that you found is that you were looking at the 1990 model.
<br>And the lotus carlton possesses 418 lbft/ton of torque not that other stupid figure you gave also it has 377 bhp. I'd say an NSX beats it hands down, much less torque and 80 less hp, yet strangely the same 0-100 times that Lotus must be heavy, yeop 1625 kg, and a 3.6 litre I 6 as opposed to NSX 3.2 litre V6 ooo twin turbos for the lotus as well, whilst NSX is strangely naturally aspirated. And the thing is the Lotus V8 esprit strangely is very similar to the old Lotus carlton.
<br>
<br>and whoever said that an S2000 has 120 lbft/ton
<br>
<br>of torque is wrong, its actually 153lbft/ton.
<br>
<br>Anyway about your little equation HP = torque X RPM / 5252
<br>
<br>Interesting, you have been saying that torque is key for acceleration, i'll agree to some extent. However its clear that what you should explain is that the acceleration is dependant upon the HP produced at a certain RPM and that the HP produced depends on the amount of torque being produced at that RPM. The S2000 with its relatively flat torque curve in this case shouldn't do too badly, and judging by its figures it doesn't.
<br>
<br>Also may I point out to those that are confused the unit of torque is pound-foot. foot-pound is actually the unit of work. Work done = force times distance.
<br>
<br>By the way I am only 18 and still in high school, so forgive me if some of my understanding seems incorrect.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

JonG said:
<br>
<br>"Here's another puzzler for you... the Honda NSX (surely a fair comparison to the S2000 if they was one) as a specific torque figure of 157 lb/ft/ton. If the math holds up, we'd expect to see a 0-100 time of 11 seconds. Yet it takes the NSX 13.7 seconds to do the deed. So, based on specific torque only, the NSX is significantly slower than the S2000."
<br>
<br>Sorry Jon you've lost me on this one the maths only gives you an expected 0-100mph time of 11 seconds if you assume a linear relationship between lb/ft/ton and 0-100 times and you extrapolate from the S2000s 0-100 time..... this is obviously not valid as the relationship between lb/ft/ton and a 0-100 time is not linear. The NSX is actually fairly close in straight line performace to the S2000..... its longer gearing leaves it with only a slight advantage to 60mph but by 100mph its well into its stride and should have pulled away..... from experience I'd expect a well driven NSX to hit 100 in closer to 13 seconds.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

JonG said:
<br>
<br>"A couple of things about your comparisons. I notice that the big-torque cars you have in there are all auto boxes. As I've pointed out here, cars with autoboxes suffer a disadvantage over those with manual transmissions due to the inefficienc of the torque converter.
<br>
<br>They're also heavy cars. I realize that you're being fair and giving their figures in lb/ft per ton, but still a heavier cars with the same specific torque will still be slower - especially with an automatic transmission. "
<br>
<br>Sorry Jon my selection of cars was not subject to much consideration..... I simply selected cars with similar performance figures to the S2000..... you say that the big torque cars are all autos, I suspect you mean the Astons and Bentley?.... yes I guess they will be auto boxes but that doesn't explain the other cars with higher torque/ton eg the Lotus, TT and the Porsche they aren't autos are they? How does your torque arguement stack up when comparing the S2000 to the other cars that you cunningly ignored to comment on..... the Puma, Williams Clio, MX5 1.8i etc. are all manuals, they all have simialr torque/ton AND they all weight broadly the same...... yet the S2000 is much quicker then most of them.
<br>
<br>My main arguement here is that torque is not always a good guide to performance..... generally speaking a certain torque/ton or bhp/ton figure will give you an idea of what to expect performance wise but there are cars that buck the trend.... the S2000 is one that performs better than could be expected from looking purely at its torque/ton rating.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/05/2004

"You're wrong. horsepower=(torque*rpm)/5252 "
<br>
<br>I don't understand where 5252 comes from but anyway, if you use that formula with your figures of 120lb ft and 8300rpm you get 189.6hp. (is that supposed to be bhp?)
<br>
<br>...so where did the rest go? Your figures just dont add up!
<br>
<br>The other anomaly is that peak power in the S2000 is reached at 8,300rpm, but peak torque is reached at 7,500rpm!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/04/2004

<<
<br>The whole point of the S2000 if the 9000rpms!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>That would be pretty sad if it were true.
<br>
<br><<
<br>I am sure honda would disagree with your statement that it is not a sports car and so would 95% of other people!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>That doesn't make them right.
<br>
<br><<
<br>you rating surely must show you that you are in the minority.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>No, it just suggests that a couple of childish clods here enjoy stuffing the ballot box. The only rating here that means anything in the objective sense is the "expert" rating that my review has and which, last time I checked, none of the other reviews of this car had managed to earn.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/04/2004

<<
<br>JonG..... you won't wind me up..... I enjoy some good banter as well! ;)
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Good. But I do enjoy winding up those here who respond to a good windup.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>OK lets compare a few facts (or as close to fact as a magazine can get.... in this case EVOs independant measurements).
<br>---
<br>
<br>A couple of things about your comparisons. I notice that the big-torque cars you have in there are all auto boxes. As I've pointed out here, cars with autoboxes suffer a disadvantage over those with manual transmissions due to the inefficienc of the torque converter.
<br>
<br>They're also heavy cars. I realize that you're being fair and giving their figures in lb/ft per ton, but still a heavier cars with the same specific torque will still be slower - especially with an automatic transmission.
<br>
<br>For example, the Lotus Carlton, with 250 lb/ft/ton manages the 0-100 dash in 11.1 according to Autocar magazine. Not a big difference in specific torque from the Bentley Arnage but a huge difference in performance.
<br>
<br>Here's another puzzler for you... the Honda NSX (surely a fair comparison to the S2000 if they was one) as a specific torque figure of 157 lb/ft/ton. If the math holds up, we'd expect to see a 0-100 time of 11 seconds. Yet it takes the NSX 13.7 seconds to do the deed. So, based on specific torque only, the NSX is significantly slower than the S2000.
<br>
<br>But the things is that torque along doesn't tell the tale when you're comparing cars. The only way to demonstrate the value of torque effectively is to take two cars that weight the same and have the same gear ratios/final drive ratio and then put two different engines in them - one with more torque than the other.
<br>
<br>In that case, you'll see the car with lower toque accelerate more slowly.
<br>
<br><<<
<br>P.S. I left a Boxster S for dead on the way home tonight..... but before you shout foul! I was driving an Audi RS6 rather than my S.
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>So I see you do appreciate torque when accelerating.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/04/2004

<<<
<br>I'm saying Horsepower is a specific figure and not calculated from torque!!!
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>You're wrong. horsepower=(torque*rpm)/5252
<br>
<br>Thus horsepower is derived from the torque produced by the engine as well as its peak revs. Ergo, an engine with weak torque and a high rev limit can pretend it is more powerful than it really is.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mjirvine's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/04/2004

My 2p's worth is that you obviously didnt buy the right car for you but you really should have figured that out BEFORE you bought it..the whole point of the S2000 if the 9000rpms!
<br>
<br>That is of course my opinion and you are allowed yours BUT in that case you should say it is your opinion not and state it as fact. I am sure honda would disagree with your statement that it is not a sports car and so would 95% of other people! you rating surely must show you that you are in the minority.
<br>
<br>MJI

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 29/04/2004

JonG..... you won't wind me up..... I enjoy some good banter as well! ;)
<br>
<br>Now then this torque thing..... I suspect that the Autocar test was of the Boxster S rather than the normal Boxster?..... 0-100 in 13 seconds is about right although most other figures I've seen would suggest high 13s. If it was a standard Boxster I'd be very surprised (although the latest version has been given some extra go) as not one has been able to out accelerate my S on the road..... the Boxster S is much closer.
<br>
<br>OK lets compare a few facts (or as close to fact as a magazine can get.... in this case EVOs independant measurements).
<br>
<br>S2000 = 120ftlb/ton 0-100 14.4 seconds (according to EVOs own tests)
<br>Aston DB7 = 212ftlb/ton 0-100 14.4sec
<br>Aston V8 = 187ftlb/ton 0-100 15.5sec
<br>Elise S2 (standard) = 170ftlb/ton 0-100 18.9sec
<br>Porsche 968 Club Sport = 168ftlb/ton 0-100 15.7sec
<br>Audi TT Roadster 225 = 150ftlb/ton 0-100 20sec
<br>Bentley Arnage R = 238ftlb/ton 0-100 17sec
<br>
<br>Now a few other cars with similar torque/ton as the S2000.......
<br>
<br>MX5 1.8i = 112ftlb/ton 0-100 25.7sec
<br>Mini Cooper S = 134ftlb/ton 0-100 21.3sec
<br>Renault Clio Williams = 128ftlb/ton 0-100 20.8sec
<br>Ford Puma 1.7 = 112ftlb/ton 0-100 27sec
<br>
<br>You will no doubt now suggest that EVO magazines figures are wrong and their independant testing figures can't be as good as Autocar...... but if your arguement about torque was true in all cases the S2000s 120ftlb/ton would see 0-100 times closer to 20 or even 25 seconds..... please show me another magazine which claims the S2000 performs the 0-100 dash in 20 seconds plus..... I suspect you will struggle!
<br>
<br>P.S. I left a Boxster S for dead on the way home tonight..... but before you shout foul! I was driving an Audi RS6 rather than my S.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 29/04/2004

JonG said "Horsepower is the measurement of torque over time"
<br>
<br>This has been bothering me a while now. I never thought horsepower had anything to do with torque but JonG keeps saying it does? (and it bothers me) So I've done a bit of research. I always thought torque was just a measurement of a rotational force.
<br>Anyway, please allow me to state the following:
<br>
<br>Horsepower is work done over time OR
<br>Horsepower is officially defined as "the amount of energy required to lift 550 pounds, one foot, in one second" OR
<br>if you were to lift 33,000 pounds one foot over a period of one minute, you would have expended one horsepower.
<br>(1 hp = 745.69987158227022 W)
<br>
<br>I'm saying Horsepower is a specific figure and not calculated from torque!!!
<br>
<br>Torque is defined as "The measure of the force applied to produce rotational motion" usually measured in foot-pounds. Torque is determined by multiplying the applied force by the distance from the pivot point to the point where the force is applied.
<br>
<br>So for a given amount of horsepower, torque may be simply increased or decreased by 'changing the gearing' of the devices that then transfer the power to the wheels/road.
<br>
<br>In summary, horsepower is not the measurement of torque over time.
<br>
<br>Professor cerberus PHD.QED.PDQ.LOL ;O)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 29/04/2004

<<
<br>JonG..... although we are all obviously sad enough to keep this discussion going I don't believe that the voting has been fixed in the way you describe..... I could only vote once as well (after voting "Disagree" I also tried to vote "Unhelpful" but was told I'd already voted).
<br>>>
<br>
<br>All I can tell you is that I was able to vote twice. I believe I know why it happened though I can't prove it without confirming some facts with the hosts of this site.
<br>
<br>As far as sadness goes, you're right. But I just love winding up people who can't tolerate a dissenting opinion. It is one of my guilty pleasures in life.
<br>
<br><<
<br>What I do think is that the UK S2000 owners club have made a visit...... thats where your low score comes from..... lots of owners who happen to disagree with your minority opinion.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>That's a possibility I suppose. In the end I'd have to admit that I can't prove my allegation that the same people voted many times, and that is certainly a plausible explanation. Someone might indeed be pathetic enough to send out a mass e-mail with a link saying "bag on this guy's review".
<br>
<br><<
<br>I agree 100% with you that torque is important to acceleration BUT it is not the only factor, surely gearing, and transmission losses come into play?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Of course. The absurd rear-end gearing in the S2000 is a major cause of two of its greatest shortcomings: the fidgety rear end and the 18mph/1000rpm in top gear. They had to gear the rear end that way to get any sort of acceleration out of it at all.
<br>
<br>Transmission losses are reasonably consistent from one maker to another though as long as you compare manuals to manuals and autos to autos. At the end of the day, a transmission is a transmission and one company's product isn't going to be a great deal more efficient than another's.
<br>
<br><<
<br>. How else can the S2000 with its low torque out accelerate a Boxster which has around 30% more torque/ton..... in fact if torque is so important how come the S2000 can out accelerate lots of more torquey motors? Torque is key to engine flexiblity its not the be all and end all factor to judge acceleration by..... do you agree with that?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Well, first, I don't agree that it can outaccelerate a Boxter. Autocar just released a set of 0-100-0 figures for the best sports cars around (as well as some not-so-sporty cars as a basis for comparison). The Boxter did quite well, I don't remember the exact number but I think it made it to 100 in around 13 seconds. Much better than the figures I've heard for the S2000. A direct comparison wasn't possible because Autocar apparently didn't consider the S2000 worthy of testing.
<br>
<br>I'm not sure what you mean by "engine flexibility". When I hear the term, it usually seems to be describing an engine like the one in the Dodge Viper which has enough torque that it doesn't really matter what gear you're in, when you put your foot down, the car starts accelerating.
<br>
<br>However, at the end of the day if you take two identical cars (i.e. same weight, rear-end, transmission, etc.) and put two engines in it with the same horsepower rating but one is torquier than the other, the one with torque will be the faster at accelerating.
<br>
<br>Horsepower is the measurement of toque over time. The actual torque is the amount of force the engine can exert at the instant. In fact, it could be said that measuring a car's horsepower is potentially deceptive because the rating itself gives an unfair advantage to high-revving engines who are allowed to seem more powerful than they are.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 29/04/2004

<<<
<br>Thanks for all your help Jon. You are right and 60 odd people are wrong.
<br>Just off to buy myself a 10 year old auto barge..........
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Two questions,
<br>
<br>1. What "60 odd people"? Surely you're not referring to the one or two gomers who have run up all those bogus votes.
<br>
<br>2. The XJR is a lot of things but a "barge" is isn't. You've obviously never driven one. It is far tighter and more chuckable around corners than anything its size/weight has any right to be.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

JonG..... although we are all obviously sad enough to keep this discussion going I don't believe that the voting has been fixed in the way you describe..... I could only vote once as well (after voting "Disagree" I also tried to vote "Unhelpful" but was told I'd already voted).
<br>
<br>What I do think is that the UK S2000 owners club have made a visit...... thats where your low score comes from..... lots of owners who happen to disagree with your minority opinion.
<br>
<br>I agree 100% with you that torque is important to acceleration BUT it is not the only factor, surely gearing, and transmission losses come into play?. How else can the S2000 with its low torque out accelerate a Boxster which has around 30% more torque/ton..... in fact if torque is so important how come the S2000 can out accelerate lots of more torquey motors? Torque is key to engine flexiblity its not the be all and end all factor to judge acceleration by..... do you agree with that?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

Thanks for all your help Jon. You are right and 60 odd people are wrong.
<br>Just off to buy myself a 10 year old auto barge..........

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

Er... It only lets me vote the once Jon.
<br>I suppose I could clear all the history & cookies and that might let me do it again, but it's a lot of messing around for no particular reason isn't it?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>I voted twice (just to see if I could) and had no problem doing it.
<br>
<br>I didn't have to mess around with the history or cookies or anything...
<br>
<br>I think the gross disparity between the number of votes on this review and all the others is a pretty clear indication that the voting isn't representative
<br>
<br>
<br>Hmmm it only let me vote once!!!..................................Lets hope you voted your review as "useful!!"......................It sure needs the points!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

<<
<br>I find myself in agreement with Maverick's comments
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Who is "Maverick"?
<br>
<br><<
<br>although the respect score has now probably broken a new world record at -59.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>It doesn't mean anything because of the ballot-stuffing.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

<<<
<br>My apologies for not using the correct terminology, however, I couldn't have stated the disadvantages of the XJRs auto box better than you, so thanks....
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>Your terminology wasn't the problem, just the fact that you don't understand the difference between how a manual box and auto box works. But, happy to clear it up for you.
<br>
<br>For the record, *all* automatic transmissions (at least all the ones I know about) use torque converters so the problem isn't limited to ZF boxes or Jaguars.
<br>
<br>And as far as it being a disadvantage it is a reatively minor one. The reason those who prefer manuals in sports cars do so is because of the "fun" of swapping gears manually and has nothing to do with the slightly higher efficiency of the transmission.
<br>
<br><<<
<br>The S2000 has been repeatedly tested 0 - 100 at just over 14 seconds. So where is that performance advantage that all the extra torque is giving you?
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>Rounded to the nearest second, the Honda can make the ton in 15 seconds. The six-cylinder XJR in <14, the steel-bodied V8s in <13 and the aluminum-bodied cars in <12 - and all of that with the added disadvantage of an auto box and several hundred extra kg of weight.
<br>
<br>Put simply, the XJR in any incarnation is still faster to 100 than a Honda S2000.
<br>
<br><<<
<br>Its interesting that your current choice of car is almost the opposite of the S2000, a large torquey, cruiser. If thats what floats your boat then good on ya, but stay away from any real sports cars because they will probably be to much like hard work for you.
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>I love real sports cars enough to know that the S2000 isn't one. I'd love to have a Lotus Elise and TVR Tuscan (two examples of a "real sports car" - as opposed to Honda S2000s, BMW Z3s, Porsche Boxters, etc.) in my garage as well but current economic realities prevent this.
<br>
<br>The problem with the S2000 isn't that you have to work hard to drive it. Driving a Tuscan is hard work too but a job I'd happily do every day.
<br>
<br>The problem with the S2000 is that the work is harder than is reasonable for the reward you get in return. The S2000 isn't really a sports car, it is a short-legged mini-GT.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

<<
<br>Er... It only lets me vote the once Jon.
<br>I suppose I could clear all the history & cookies and that might let me do it again, but it's a lot of messing around for no particular reason isn't it?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>I voted twice (just to see if I could) and had no problem doing it.
<br>
<br>I didn't have to mess around with the history or cookies or anything...
<br>
<br>I think the gross disparity between the number of votes on this review and all the others is a pretty clear indication that the voting isn't representative.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 28/04/2004

I find myself in agreement with Maverick's comments although the respect score has now probably broken a new world record at -59.
<br>
<br>Although Maverick does have a faster colour S2000 than mine, it doesn't automatically make him a world authority on music. I disagree with him on one point; Busted ARE purveyors of fine music! ;O) lol
<br>
<br>
<br>S.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

Second, the disadvantage of an autobox has nothing to do with the ratios but with the inherent inefficiency of the torque-converters. If the car had a 4-speed manual with exactly the same ratios, it would still be faster than the auto and get better mileage as well. With a proper, 5-speed ZF manual box, it would be shatteringly fast.
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>My apologies for not using the correct terminology, however, I couldn't have stated the disadvantages of the XJRs auto box better than you, so thanks....
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>The Honda can reportedly manage 0-100 in about 15 seconds. I didn't time it in the one I owned but I'd say that was reasonably accurate.
<br>
<br>My older XJR has done the same dash in 14 seconds (on a slight uphill grade) with me at the wheel and the newer ones with the lighter body and more powerful engine will reportedly do it in 12.
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>The S2000 has been repeatedly tested 0 - 100 at just over 14 seconds. So where is that performance advantage that all the extra torque is giving you?
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>And don't even bother trying to compare in-gear acceleration. Passing on a two-lane road in the Jag is a no-brainer. You have to be careful with the Honda.
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>Admittedly if you try to overtake something at 25mph in 6th you do have to be careful, however if you actually change gear to overtake, nothing could be further from the truth.
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>Pretty rich coming from you. Were you the one who thought TVRs weighed 1500kg?
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>Er no, never mentioned anything about TVRs.....
<br>Like I said, do your research......
<br>
<br>Its interesting that your current choice of car is almost the opposite of the S2000, a large torquey, cruiser. If thats what floats your boat then good on ya, but stay away from any real sports cars because they will probably be to much like hard work for you.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

Er... It only lets me vote the once Jon.
<br>I suppose I could clear all the history & cookies and that might let me do it again, but it's a lot of messing around for no particular reason isn't it?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

<<
<br>Yes jon the same people keep stuffing up the ballot? could you think of a more pitiful excuse, also note there are only 3 who agree, I doubt very much anyone would bother voting 9 or ten times against your review
<br>>>
<br>
<br>I think they're just being picky because mine is the only review of the car with "expert" status and it happens to disagree with their deeply-held views. Many people get bitter and resentful when their cherished opinions are contradicted and want to undermine those who disagree with them.
<br>
<br>Still, it is the only review here with "expert status" and one of two reviews I've written on this site, the other one is dubbed "expert" as well. So I don't pay much attention to the dweebs who vote over and over again.
<br>
<br>Don't you think it is unusual that this review has so much more feedback than all of the others and all the same? Sure sounds like ballot-box-stuffing to me.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

>>
<br>You dont mention how the effectiveness of the torque curve is effected by the gear ratios that drive it. The 4 speed auto box will never exploit the torque advantage of the XKR.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>What on earth are you talking about? First, there is barely what you'd even call a torque curve on the XJR. Unlike the S2000 with its miniscule power band, something like 80% of the Jag's peak power is available at 2000rpm through to the redline.
<br>
<br>Second, the disadvantage of an autobox has nothing to do with the ratios but with the inherent inefficiency of the torque-converters. If the car had a 4-speed manual with exactly the same ratios, it would still be faster than the auto and get better mileage as well. With a proper, 5-speed ZF manual box, it would be shatteringly fast.
<br>
<br>
<br><<
<br>What exactly do you think the 0-100 time for each of these cars is?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>The Honda can reportedly manage 0-100 in about 15 seconds. I didn't time it in the one I owned but I'd say that was reasonably accurate.
<br>
<br>My older XJR has done the same dash in 14 seconds (on a slight uphill grade) with me at the wheel and the newer ones with the lighter body and more powerful engine will reportedly do it in 12.
<br>
<br>And don't even bother trying to compare in-gear acceleration. Passing on a two-lane road in the Jag is a no-brainer. You have to be careful with the Honda.
<br>
<br>You were saying?
<br>
<br><<
<br>Do your research before you come back to me....
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Pretty rich coming from you. Were you the one who thought TVRs weighed 1500kg? Or do you just misunderstand torque and the behavioral traits of an automatic transmission?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

Yes jon the same people keep stuffing up the ballot? could you think of a more pitiful excuse, also note there are only 3 who agree, I doubt very much anyone would bother voting 9 or ten times against your review> You should just face the fact that you are in the minority group and that most people are going to disagree with you.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/04/2004

>>>>Horsepower is a measurement of torque over time. The torque itself is a measurement of how much rotational force is applied to the wheels. Ergo, a car with higher torque will accelerate faster.
<br><<<<
<br>You dont mention how the effectiveness of the torque curve is effected by the gear ratios that drive it. The 4 speed auto box will never exploit the torque advantage of the XKR.
<br>
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<br>Only if you focus on the 0-60 to the excusion of all else and even then the Jaguar is slightly faster. The XJR has a higher top speed, faster 0-100, faster in-gear acceleration... the list goes on.
<br><<<<<<<<<<<
<br>What exactly do you think the 0-100 time for each of these cars is?
<br>Do your research before you come back to me....

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

---
<br>or do some people like a nice engine noise
<br>---
<br>
<br>Problem is that at 4000rpm, the S2000's engine doesn't make a nice noise. At 8000rpm it is awesome and at 2000rpm it is refined. But in the middle it is just plain wearisome.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The boot dimensions are ample on the S2000 and can infact fit 2 sets of golf clubs in.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Hahahahaha, miniature golf clubs maybe. You couldn't fit a single regular golf bag in the S2000's boot, much less two.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Handle well? Have you driven it?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I owned one for more than a year.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>You mention power here but no power to weight ratio
<br>---
<br>
<br>Power:weight ratios...
<br>
<br>Honda S2000: 240bhp/1250kg = 190bhp/ton
<br>TVR Tamora: 350bhp/1080kg = 324bhp/ton
<br>
<br>
<br>The TVR is a sports car (albiet the most mild of the line, the 4.5 liter Cerbera makes 400bhp/ton)and the Honda... isn't. It is a mini-GT with very short legs.
<br>
<br>And one whose handling isn't as predictable in the wet as a TVR.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The S2000 is a good car and will suit many people
<br>---
<br>
<br>I believe I said exactly that. I said it is a good car that should have been a great car.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>The single reason I post here is because I would HATE anyone to deny themselves the unlimited pleasure I have gained from owning this motor vehicle by considering your comments to be the pinnacle of motoring correspondence.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Hmmm, how many other reviews here have been given the title of "expert"?
<br>
<br>For the record, I have nothing against people who buy and legitimately enjoy the S2000. They may read my comments, then go test drive it and say to themselves "It doesn't bother me that it only makes 18mph/1000rpm in top gear" or "I don't care about the wayward back end on wet roundabouts". I'd just hate for them not to address these issues in the test drive.
<br>
<br>If they do and buy the car anyway, then good for them and I hope they enjoy it. But it would be a shame for them to buy into the hype and look past its shortcomings only to be dogged by them later.
<br>
<br>Don't you agree?
<br>
<br>Look at it another way. I like TVRs but I don't blind myself to the fact that they need more TLC than most mass-produced cars. If someone who was used to the S2000 told me they were looking at a TVR, I would tell them to be very careful before buying. TVR's build-quality and reliability aren't at Honda's level, just as the S2000's power and handling aren't at TVR's level.
<br>
<br>Every car is a trade-off. Those who know where the weaknesses of a car are can make a more informed buying decision.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

---
<br>Jon by all means have the last word on this but I think the rating attached to the review says it all...... you are entitled to your opinion but its obviously in the minority.
<br>
<br>Of the 39 people that have rated your review to date...... 2 have agreed with you and 37 have disagreed...... giving a total respect rating of MINUS 55 probably one of the lowest on this website?.
<br>---
<br>
<br>That's only because the same one or two people keep "stuffing the ballot box".

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

>>
<br>
<br>With the top down, the road and wind noise almost drown out the engine noise. Just out of curiosity, do you wear ear-protection when you drive? I ask because 5.5 hours of constant exposure that those levels of noise will cause permanent hearing damage unless you wear protection.
<br>
<br>Hmmm hearing damage? I thought you said you had drive lots of TVRs?..or do some people like a nice engine noise.............case closed.
<br>
<br>
<br>I notice that you can't fit all this kit in the boot, but you have to make a special rack to hold it. What was it you were saying about storage space?
<br>
<br>I think if you read my comment carefully you will notice that it was infact 2 body boards on the bootrack and nothing else. Can you name a roadster or 2 seater sports car which you can fit these in without a bootrack?. The boot dimensions are ample on the S2000 and can infact fit 2 sets of golf clubs in.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Not really, it doesn't handle well enough and it is a bit underpowered to be considered a proper sports car.
<br>
<br>Not really? wow I am really impressed now that you know better than most car manufactures and indeed all car magazines reviews etc etc Handle well? Have you driven it?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Speaking as someone who has driven several different models of TVR and who knows what it means to have to reaspect a car, the S2000 demands far more respect that it has any right to, given its power.
<br>
<br>You mention power here but no power to weight ratio.............suprise suprise.
<br>
<br>I will not argue with you as you are entitled to your opinion but to see it expressed in such a narrow minded way does annoy me. The S2000 is a good car and will suit many people. However there will be people like you who are very single minded and only like certain things which they percieve or expect from a car.
<br>
<br>The single reason I post here is because I would HATE anyone to deny themselves the unlimited pleasure I have gained from owning this motor vehicle by considering your comments to be the pinnacle of motoring correspondence.
<br>
<br>Face it people have opinions lets respect each others (although admittedly I find it difficult to respect many of yours)
<br>
<br>As for the Jag keep it ...............it obviously suits you. Not my choice but hey.............................

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

---
<br>I said: Torque is a more meaningful measure of engine power on roadcars than bhp when it comes to acceleration.
<br>
<br>You replied: Says who? somebody who can't be bothered changing gear to extract the maximum power out of their engine?
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, says any engineer you want to ask who understands the difference between horsepower and torque.
<br>
<br>Horsepower is a measurement of torque over time. The torque itself is a measurement of how much rotational force is applied to the wheels. Ergo, a car with higher torque will accelerate faster.
<br>
<br>This is while diesel cars "feel faster" than petrol powered cars with the same bhp figures. The higher compression of the diesel engines results in much higher torque levels.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>95 XJR has a better balanced chassis LOL!!!- Have you taken one on a track?
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, but I've had a couple of "opposite lock" moments in both the S2000 and XJR. I found the XJR easier to control and, therefore, less frightening when it starts to slide.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Hell of a lot faster in a straight line - very similar straight line performance actually.
<br>---
<br>
<br>Only if you focus on the 0-60 to the excusion of all else and even then the Jaguar is slightly faster. The XJR has a higher top speed, faster 0-100, faster in-gear acceleration... the list goes on.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Do yourself a favour, stick with the auto XJR it sounds like you are in the car that suits you best.
<br>---
<br>
<br>How snooty... in a feeble sort of way. Actually, for the record, I'd have preferred my XJR to have had a manual transmission, but they aren't offered that way - at least not that I've ever seen. It would be good with a five-speed and even faster than it is now.
<br>
<br>Actually, the car that suits me best is a 4.0 liter TVR Tuscan. Not only would the TVR pimp-slap the S2000 in acceleration and braking, it is easier to drive on wet roads in spite of all that extra power and being 200kg lighter than the smaller S2000. Oh yeah, and it is more practical as well. You could practically fit the entire S2000 into the Tuscan's boot.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

---
<br>But the TVR costs much more, doesn't it? And then there is the possible question of reliability. I can see some of the points you make, JonG, and I can see that some replies are not always on the mark, but I think that overall you overemphasize some of the limitations of the S2000, and don't acknowledge that IT IS OK for many others to find excitement in what this car has to offer. You must have had some excitement yourself, at some point, driving this car! Or are you saying that you never liked it from day one?
<br>---
<br>
<br>Yes, TVRs cost more new (and less when used) but I wasn't talking about relative price, I was talking about handling in a powerful car. All modern (i.e. last 10 years) TVRs are far more powerful than the S2000 is and while they have a reputation for being tricky and even scary when driven carelessly, none of them are as bad as the Honda.
<br>
<br>For a company with Honda's financial and engineering resources to turn out a car so inferior to a "Blackpool rocket" in this regard is simply inexcusible.
<br>
<br>But yes, the Honda has some fine points. For someone who is looking for a 2nd or 3rd car for sunny-weekend blasts around B-roads, it is a lovely prospect. This is a car which, unlike many sports cars (including TVRs), would easily tolerate occasional use. For someone who lives in the country and/or doesn't do much motorway driving (or is partially deaf) it would be a decent daily-driver as well.
<br>
<br>I think it is great that many people are willing to look past its shortcomings and enjoy the car.
<br>
<br>Also, for the yuppie types who concern themselves with resale value as much as any mechanical aspect of the vehicle, the S2000 makes excellent sense.
<br>
<br>However, it simply isn't a great driver's car.
<br>
<br>To answer your other question, when I test drove it (on a sunny day), there wasn't a motorway very near the dealership and so I didn't find out how "shortlegged" the S2000 was until after I bought it. It was a mistake I won't repeat when buying a car. Also, the problem is exaggerated for me because my other car is a Jaguar XJR which will do 30mph/1000rpm in top gear so the 18mph/1000 of the Honda was emphasized every time I drove it.
<br>
<br>Its two main vices didn't become apparent until after I'd owned the car for a while.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/04/2004

>>
<br> Torque is a more meaningful measure of engine power on roadcars than bhp when it comes to acceleration.
<br>
<br><<
<br>Says who? somebody who can't be bothered changing gear to extract the maximum power out of their engine?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>But we're not talking about F1 cars, are we? We're talking about roadcars which are very different from F1 cars in every way that matters.
<br>
<br><<
<br>In every way that matters? like what? Were not comparing the F1 car to a people carrier here, were comparing it to a focused sports car.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Why? The chassis is better balanced and the car is far more powerful. It is also a hell of a lot faster in a straight line
<br>
<br><<
<br>Are we both talking abut the same car here? and have you actually driven both cars? 95 XJR has a better balanced chassis LOL!!!- Have you taken one on a track?
<br>Hell of a lot faster in a straight line - very similar straight line performance actually.
<br>
<br>Get over the torque thing, torque does not make a car faster it just makes it more flexible.
<br>Do yourself a favour, stick with the auto XJR it sounds like you are in the car that suits you best.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/04/2004

But the TVR costs much more, doesn't it? And then there is the possible question of reliability. I can see some of the points you make, JonG, and I can see that some replies are not always on the mark, but I think that overall you overemphasize some of the limitations of the S2000, and don't acknowledge that IT IS OK for many others to find excitement in what this car has to offer. You must have had some excitement yourself, at some point, driving this car! Or are you saying that you never liked it from day one?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/04/2004

Jon by all means have the last word on this but I think the rating attached to the review says it all...... you are entitled to your opinion but its obviously in the minority.
<br>
<br>Of the 39 people that have rated your review to date...... 2 have agreed with you and 37 have disagreed...... giving a total respect rating of MINUS 55 probably one of the lowest on this website?.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/04/2004

<<
<br>600 miles in 5 and a half hours cruising if thats not a good cruiser I don't know what is!?? Oh yeah and thats with the top down
<br>>>
<br>
<br>With the top down, the road and wind noise almost drown out the engine noise. Just out of curiosity, do you wear ear-protection when you drive? I ask because 5.5 hours of constant exposure that those levels of noise will cause permanent hearing damage unless you wear protection.
<br>
<br><<
<br>Oh yeah I can comment on the luggage space with this one too............I camp in France with enough kit for 3 weeks including tent stove clothes small table, stools etc etc and 2 bodyboards on the bootrack!!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>I notice that you can't fit all this kit in the boot, but you have to make a special rack to hold it. What was it you were saying about storage space?
<br>
<br>
<br><<
<br>The S2000 is a sports car!!!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Not really, it doesn't handle well enough and it is a bit underpowered to be considered a proper sports car.
<br>
<br>
<br><<
<br>As for the car being tricky with the rear end.............of course it is its 240bhp with no trickery to save you if you get it wrong. Surely thats what its all about? A sports car demands a certain amount of respect!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Speaking as someone who has driven several different models of TVR and who knows what it means to have to reaspect a car, the S2000 demands far more respect that it has any right to, given its power.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/04/2004

<<
<br>Rifle bolt accurate gearbox and 240bhp says it all.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>No, it doesn't. Torque is a more meaningful measure of engine power on roadcars than bhp when it comes to acceleration.
<br>
<br><<
<br> If you think you need torque to go fast then just check out the torque levels on an F1 engine.
<br>>>
<br>
<br>But we're not talking about F1 cars, are we? We're talking about roadcars which are very different from F1 cars in every way that matters.
<br>
<br><<
<br>BTW if you can go around corners faster in a 95 XJR then you really are talking rubbish!
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Why? The chassis is better balanced and the car is far more powerful. It is also a hell of a lot faster in a straight line.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Edd26's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 22/04/2004

I feel I have to add something here..........
<br>
<br>Owning an S2000 we commute 60 miles per day..............everyday................its a pleasure!
<br>
<br>As for storage space..........hmmm every summer we drive 800 miles yes 800 miles to France every summer.........another pleasure no "droning or unplesantless" 600 miles in 5 and a half hours cruising if thats not a good cruiser I don't know what is!?? Oh yeah and thats with the top down S2000 drivers don't tend to bother about their hair!! (unlike some other makes) Oh yeah I can comment on the luggage space with this one too............I camp in France with enough kit for 3 weeks including tent stove clothes small table, stools etc etc and 2 bodyboards on the bootrack!!
<br>
<br>Comparing the S2000 to an MX5 ..............don't make me laugh! I have owned both. MX5/MGF/MR2 are roadsters for gods sake. The S2000 is a sports car!!!
<br>
<br>
<br>I am not denying that there are cars better than the S2000 (or percieved better for a certain purpose afterall you buy a car for certain and personal reasons)
<br>
<br>As for the car being tricky with the rear end.............of course it is its 240bhp with no trickery to save you if you get it wrong. Surely thats what its all about? A sports car demands a certain amount of respect!
<br>
<br>As far as I am concerned there is no better value sports car on the market at present that matches the S2000 and for me it is a thoroughly addictive experience everytime I drive it.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jaeger's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

>> Because I know what I'm talking about.>
<br>
<br>Yeah! So do the weather men?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

M A V E R I C K's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

I was going to comment on this review with regard to the S2000, its handling, its perfomance etc etc etc however its becoming too tedious and clearly the opinions of the masses dont match yours ("total respect for this review -38", being something of an achievement I suspect). Personally I disagree completely with nearly everything you say, and ive been an S2000 owner for two years through rain, snow, sunshine, and track days.
<br>
<br>I suspect its not the car for you, but that doesnt mean its not a very very good car. Im sure there are people out there that think Kylie Minogue doesnt possess a very fine bottom, or that Busted are purveyors of fine music but that certainly doesnt make those things *facts*. Comes down to opinions really - mine being that you arent really qualified to offer a review of the S2000, yours being that you dont really like the car. Shall we call it a draw ?.
<br>
<br>Happy Motoring.
<br>
<br>R.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Andy1234's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

<br>Poor gearbox and gutless engine in relation to the S is just nonsense.
<br>Rifle bolt accurate gearbox and 240bhp says it all. If you think you need torque to go fast then just check out the torque levels on an F1 engine. Expert opinion? very unlikely
<br>BTW if you can go around corners faster in a 95 XJR then you really are talking rubbish!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Sqatters Rights's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

Why can't more people be objective when analysing their cars? No car is perfect and inevitably has it's shortcomings but to spout some of the crud about how wonderful the S2000 is beggars belief.
<br>
<br>It is a good car but it is tail happy in the wet and as JonG has pointed out, no matter how much power it has torque is what matters.
<br>
<br>As for it outperforming Boxters, how do you define outperform? The 0-60 drag race is such a meaningless comparison I'm surprised people actually take it seriously. For me to get the quoted time with my car involves dropping the clutch at 5000rpm and basically being brutal with it all the way up Santa Pod - I'm not doing that in the real world, no way.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

Because I know what I'm talking about.
<br>...
<br>
<br>lol.
<br>
<br>Thanks for brightening an otherwise dull day. :)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 21/04/2004

<br>Out of all the dozens of other reviews (many of which are 10/10), what makes this one worthy of the "Expert Review" stamp?
<br>>>
<br>
<br>Because I know what I'm talking about.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

151401_Sportyking's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/04/2004

Jon G, you keep buying them XJR's, whatever the age.
<br>New hovering around 60k, five years later, can be had for 4 figures. Why? Simple answer is enthusiasts want exciting, fun cars. Jag were ten years too late getting to the power/handling that Vauxhall paved the way for with the Lotus Carlton. You mentioned S2000 residuals were really good didn't you? Must be a highly sought after motor then. The S2000 is a fantastic car full stop. I am on my second and the only car currently on the planet that I would replace it with is a Noble GTO3/3R. Say what you like about the S2000, we can always use it on the roses!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Toplad72's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/04/2004

The S2000 is really good value. What else costs this much and out performs the 2.7 Boxster??????????

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Fletch69's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/04/2004

Do you know what I find most annoying about this review?
<br>The fact that the comments are not displayed in chronological order. It's a right pain trying to decipher who's replying to what.
<br>
<br>Anyway. One question...
<br>Out of all the dozzens of other reviews (many of which are 10/10), what makes this one worthy of the "Expert Review" stamp?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Richr's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/04/2004

I find your comments totally subjective, and with no reference to the car. This reaches it's peak with your comparison to the Z3, and how the Mazda handles better !

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 02/04/2004

JonG.....
<br>
<br>I still don't understand peoples problems with the S2000s wet handling...... I drive mine hard in the dry and find it nearly impossible to loose traction..... in the wet I'm more cautious but still don't have any problems with traction!. The Bridgestone S02 tyres are not designed for wet handling but as far as I'm concerned they still provide plenty of wet grip unless you are being silly!
<br>
<br>Re. VXT in the wet.... I agree an Elise would have an easier time cornering and putting down its power. However I'm not convinced that an Elise would have been any faster. The Elise is a great little car..... but at my last dry track day at Bedford Autodrome I was lapping faster than the Elises there on the day (and no there weren't any 111S or Rs there!)..... the standard Elise is no faster in a straight line and actually looses out on long high speed sections (backed up by typical 0-100 times of 18 seconds 3-4 seconds slower than the S2000). The Elise is fantastic in the corners but again not to the extent that they could pull away by much. The real difference was in braking, while chasing down an Elise I seemed to be able to brake latter and harder than the non ABS equiped Lotus and thereby cut heavily into any lead they had.
<br>
<br>Having recently had a 111R on test for a few days I can confirm its a great car..... its just a damn shame its not quite as practical as my S2000 as a daily drive...... otherwise I'd be tempted to get one as my next company car.
<br>
<br>"Then, they could have made a Porsche/BMW-killer version of the car with an 3.0 liter, inline-six version of the engine with not only a 9000rpm redline but 360bhp on tap and much more usable torque."
<br>
<br>Mabye they will next time.... if they do I'd buy one!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 01/04/2004

----
<br>JonG..... Ok.... as an S2000 owner you are obviously in the small 3% of owners that the S didn't live up to expectations..... each to their own!.
<br>----
<br>
<br>Ah, the curse of high expectations. ;->
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>However on the day (which couldn't have been wetter) my S (on a brand new set of S02s) had no problem pulling on the VXT in the corners..... the S2000 was getting twitchy while the VXT was all over the place.....
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Probably because of the latter's turbocharged engine and the fact that it is much lighter and more powerful at the same time. Those three factors don't bode well for traction in the wet. I bet a normally-aspirated Elise would have done much better than either of them.
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>Don't get me wrong the S2000 needs to be treated with respect in the wet but probably no more so than any other powerful RWD sportscar.
<br>-----
<br>
<br>But that's my point. The S2000's trickiness in the wet is far out of proportion to its power. As I've said on several occasions, I've driven TVRs with more confidence through wet roundabouts. Blackpool's rockets are not only a good 150kg lighter than the S2000 but have vastly more powerful engines - particularly when it comes to low-down torque.
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>but hey if high revs are good enough for a Formula 1 car who am I to argue!
<br>-----
<br>
<br>High revs make sense in an F1 car because that's how you get the most specific power from an engine. In a road car, it makes less sense. As an engineering feat, Honda's engine is an impressive achievement. But it was a bit of a marketing blunder on their part. The S2000 would have been a better car if they'd put a normal Honda engine in it, mass-produced it and knocked £5k-£8k off the price.
<br>
<br>Then, they could have made a Porsche/BMW-killer version of the car with an 3.0 liter, inline-six version of the engine with not only a 9000rpm redline but 360bhp on tap and much more usable torque.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 31/03/2004

JonG..... Ok.... as an S2000 owner you are obviously in the small 3% of owners that the S didn't live up to expectations..... each to their own!.
<br>
<br>I also accept your surprise that an S2000 could be faster than a VXT or S4 on a wet track..... so was I!. Maybe the VXT and S4 drivers were being more cautious than me..... I also have little doubt that the with three equal drivers getting the most from all three cars there would be a different result. However on the day (which couldn't have been wetter) my S (on a brand new set of S02s) had no problem pulling on the VXT in the corners..... the S2000 was getting twitchy while the VXT was all over the place..... on the straights there was little in it (probably as I had faster exit speeds from most corners), when a VXT puled over I could then (gradually) pull away. The S4 was obviously driven by somebody less confident. Don't get me wrong the S2000 needs to be treated with respect in the wet but probably no more so than any other powerful RWD sportscar. Most magazines pick on the S2000s lack of torque..... but hey if high revs are good enough for a Formula 1 car who am I to argue!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 30/03/2004

I do disagree with being able to outhandle the VX and the S2000 definitely should be driven with caution in the wet!!
<br>Having owned mine for nearly 3 years now, I would agree with all those people that said they would buy another one. My plans are exactly that.
<br>(yep, I'm still here)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 29/03/2004

-----
<br>To JonG I would say that I'm not convinced he has ever driven an S2000 let alone owned one......
<br>-----
<br>
<br>If you give me your e-mail address, I can send you some photos I took of it.
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>his comments seem rather magazine led. If you did buy one and disliked it so much maybe you'll be more careful choosing your next car?.
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Yes, I will. It was the first new car I ever bought having always had a yen for the classics. In future I will be more careful.
<br>
<br>As to my comments being "magazine led", I assume you mean that they agree with the published views of many automotive journalists who have also driven the car. Hmmm, perhaps there's a reason for that.
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>Any comments about wet handling should be taken with a pinch of salt...... I have never had any trouble in the wet and a at recent drenched Brands Hatch track day my S saw off older M3s, VX220 Turbos, standard Elises, and an Audi S4!
<br>------
<br>
<br>Speaking of taking things with a pinch of salt... The idea that an S2000 could see off a properly driven VX220 turbo, Elise - both of which are not only designed for the track but have better power:weight ratios - or most ludicrous of all, an Audi S4 with its 340bhp suggests a rather lurid imagination or else you expect us to believe that none of the other people driving that day knew how to get the best from their cars.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the S2000's notorious trickiness in the wet has been well documented.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 27/03/2004

To show that JonG is perhaps in the minority in his views this weeks Auto Express Magazine Driver Power 2004 results have some interesting things to say on the Honda S2000. Driver Power 2004 took 40,000 owners reviews into account with all cars rated in ten categories. The S2000 was rated the 3rd best car overall while winning the Best Sports Car section (with Porsche Boxster and 996 2nd and 3rd). In the individual categories the S2000 was rated number one in both the performance (winning for the second year running) and braking areas!.
<br>
<br>And as for JonGs assertion that the S2000 is merely good "...my opinion (and the opinion of most of the people who drive it) is that it is merely good." the Driver Power results seem to disagree somewhat!. According to the survey "An AMAZING 97% of drivers said that the S2000 had met all expectations" and "81% said they wouldn't hesitate to order another!" Only one other car (Honda Jazz) in the top 100 received such praise from its owners.
<br>
<br>I rest my case.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Wadswoaj's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 20/03/2004

All the above comments are very amusing..... each to his own I guess.
<br>
<br>To JonG I would say that I'm not convinced he has ever driven an S2000 let alone owned one...... his comments seem rather magazine led. If you did buy one and disliked it so much maybe you'll be more careful choosing your next car?.
<br>
<br>I have owned my S for over two years now and have never met a fellow owner that doesn't love it!. We have a very generous company car scheme at work (we are the biggest buyers of Boxsters in the country) and a Boxster owning friend of mine was so smitten with my S after driving it he traded his Porsche in for the Honda as soon as he could.
<br>
<br>Any comments about wet handling should be taken with a pinch of salt...... I have never had any trouble in the wet and a at recent drenched Brands Hatch track day my S saw off older M3s, VX220 Turbos, standard Elises, and an Audi S4!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Sqatters Rights's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 14/03/2004

I largely agree with the reviewer\'s comments having driven and compared the S2000 with a Z4 today and I can also understand how annoying it can be for owners to see a bad review of their car.
<br>
<br>Personally, neither the badge nor the looks put me off and technologically I wanted to like the engine but having to rev the nuts off it to get any performance out of it is frustrating to say the least. As has already been said, it\'s tail happy in the wet as I discovered today on a roundabout with the merest hint of throttle and for normal driving (admit it, most of us have to tootle around for most of our journeys) the lack of bottom end power is frustrating.
<br>
<br>The Z4 on the other hand has the power where you need it (lower down) and has the advantage of DSC so bearing in mind this car is for my wife I\'d rather have safety features such as this rather than her visiting the hedge sooner than she needs to.
<br>
<br>The Beemer also had better manners (it was still pouring down) and it felt like the more complete car - so that\'s what she\'s getting.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/03/2004

-----
<br>The TVR\\\'s all weigh in excess of 1530 kgs. How could a car of this weight outhandle or outrace a honda S2000? with nearly a 300 of extra weight?
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Well, they probably couldn\'t if that\'s how much they weighed. But they don\'t. I don\'t know who told you they weighed so much. All the fiberglass TVRs now in production weigh approximately 1100kg - that\'s about 150kg less than the S2000. The TVR Sagaris, T440R and Typhon are clad in carbon fiber so they weigh close to 1000kg.
<br>
<br>Because TVRs are physically larger than the S2000, they have a longer and wider wheelbase which increases cornering ability - and makes for a more roomy interior with more storage space. TVR\'s chassis has also been fine-tuned over the past ten years or so it is impeccably balanced. The latest incarnation, the T350c handles so well it was able to be chucked around the Rockingham test track faster than considerably more powerful (and more espensive) hardware like the Porsche 911GT3, Pagani Zonda and Lamborghini Murcielago and was able to corner faster and harder than any of them.
<br>
<br>-----
<br>Torque is not key to good acceleration in a car
<br>-----
<br>
<br>I beg to differ but it IS the key to acceleration. Horsepower is simply the measure of torque available over time which allows high-revving engines like the S2000\'s to pretend they\'re more powerful than they are.
<br>
<br>But the ability to deliver power on the instant (i.e. torque) is what makes a car lunge from a standing start to 60mph - that and an efficient transmission.
<br>
<br>Because the S2000\'s engine has such a steep torque curve, the full power of the engine is only delivered after it reached high revs.
<br>
<br>This is why turbocharged and supercharged engines \"feel\" more powerful even when the horsepower output is the same: they deliver more torque at lower revs than their normally aspirated bretheren.
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>I guarantee the drag coefficient of the S2000 is far less.
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Far less? Far less than what? How much less is \"far less\"?
<br>
<br>
<br>-----
<br>Also the honda S2000\\\'s performance specs speak for themselves, with a 0- 100 time of 5.7 seconds this beats the boxter outright
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Yeah, 0-100 in 5.7 also beats the McLaren F1 outright. I think you meant to say 5.7 was its 0-60 time. The Honda\'s 0-100 time is 14 seconds.
<br>
<br>The regular Porsche Boxter makes the run in 6.1 seconds which is slower than the Honda but only fractionally. The S version makes it in 5.5 which is only fractionally faster than the S2000.
<br>
<br>The Boxter also corners better, is better built and, for those who care about such things, carries a far more prestigious pedigree.
<br>
<br>Personally, I think it is a hairdressers car, but there you go. ;->
<br>
<br>BTW, if you think 5.7 is a good 0-60 time, think about the lowly TVR Tamora - the baby of the line, that makes the dash in 4.2. And you can pick up a slightly used one for the price of a new S2000.
<br>
<br>-----
<br>Once again in reference to TVR ask yourself, has a successful race version of a TVR been made that corners without agressive understeer?
<br>-----
<br>
<br>I\'ve never driven a V-8 Tuscan Racer or a Cerbera Speed-12 so I can\'t comment on the racing versions. The current roadcars are set up for mild understeer with power oversteer available by simply flexing your right foot slightly.
<br>
<br>Traditionally, the main handling complaint about TVRs has been sudden oversteer when they\'re driven by people not paying close enough attention. This was more noticeable in the large-displacement V-8 powered cars like the 5.0 liter Griffiths that would suddenly send their drivers backwards through a hedge because they sneezed and accidentally stomped on the gas.
<br>
<br>So, I suggest that it is you who need to do a little more research. You might start by double-checking your source for TVR\'s weight.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jazza5002's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/03/2004

Your so called TVR comparisons are rubbish in my opinion. The TVR\'s all weigh in excess of 1530 kgs. How could a car of this weight outhandle or outrace a honda S2000? with nearly a 300 of extra weight?
<br>Torque is not key to good acceleration in a car, torque is more crucial at high speeds, when a car is pushing against the wind, also aerodynamics play and important role here and I guarantee the drag coefficient of the S2000 is far less.
<br>Also the honda S2000\'s performance specs speak for themselves, with a 0- 100 time of 5.7 seconds this beats the boxter outright, the only boxter that is faster than an s2000 is the larger capacity version which as I remember is something like 1.3 litres larger.
<br>The S2000 has a top speed of 250 ( lectronically limited to this ) so I suggest you get your facts right and do a bit more research.
<br>Once again in reference to TVR ask yourself, has a successful race version of a TVR been made that corners without agressive understeer?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 24/02/2004

---
<br>cerberus264 asked: So ...if you "looked deeply enough into it to buy one" why did you end up choosing it above the Mazda MX5/Boxter/Elise etc.? (When you have so much praise for these other cars in comparison)
<br>---
<br>
<br>That's a fair question. The answer is a bit complicated. The short version is that for what I wanted, the Honda APPEARED to stack up better against the competition of the time...
<br>
<br>I don't buy German sports cars so the Boxter and Z3 were out (even if they weren't girl's cars). I looked at the MR2 Spider and found it unsuitable for someone with legs as long as mine. I thought about the MX5 but for all its unquestioned value and prowess, it is simply too common. For me, it is a victim of its own perfection. I prefer something that one doesn't see dozens of on the road every day.
<br>
<br>The 350Z and RX-8 hadn't been released yet and as sublime as the Lotus Elise was, the 111S hadn't been released yet and the basic S2 was just a touch too raw for me. Honestly, if I had started car shopping about a month later, I probably would have bought the Elise 111S instead.
<br>
<br>BTW, I came across a couple more ~2 liter, normally-aspirated engines that are more powerful than the S2000's... The newly bored-out 2.0 liter version of the Rover K to debut in the new Caterham R600 makes 250bhp and 190lb/ft of torque. Significantly more power than the Honda engine and at lower revs as well so it will not only be more unstable but will give a stronger feeling of subjective power due to the lower and wider powerband.
<br>
<br>But, if you like your engines peaky, Radical are reputedly working on a 2.6 liter V-8 which is essentially two Suzuki Hyabusa engines joined to a common crankshaft. They're looking at 320+bhp at upwards of 10,000rpm with nary a turbo in sight.
<br>
<br>Actually, if they're going to go and build their own engine block, I wish they'd turn the Hyabusa engine into a straight-six. Using the same bore and stroke, they could get it to 1.95 liters (or join them for a 3.9 liter V-12) and get some real power out of it.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/02/2004

So ...if you "looked deeply enough into it to buy one" why did you end up choosing it above the Mazda MX5/Boxter/Elise etc.? (When you have so much praise for these other cars in comparison)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 20/02/2004

---
<br>cerberus said: it sounds like you've probably never met anyone else who drives one on a regular basis
<br>---
<br>
<br>Do the other S2000 owners I used to run into at the local Honda dealer count? Most of them bought it as an occasional weekend car for sunny-day trips down B-roads. For this application, it is an excellent car.
<br>
<br>As a daily-driver, it leaves several things to be desired. Its legs are way too short for comfortable motorway cruising. 18mph/1000 rpm in top gear is a joke - my grandmother's Hyundai does better. Wind/engine noise at motorway speeds is wearying.
<br>
<br>Both the BMW Z4 and Nissan 350Z are better choices for daily-drivers if you're shopping in the same price range and if you're willing to trade the soft top for rear seats, the Mazda RX-8 is a better choice as well.
<br>
<br>---
<br>cerberus said: Have you ever been to an S2000 supermeet
<br>---
<br>
<br>You mean attended a fawning session with a bunch of people who actually care more about arbitrary measurements like the engine's specific output or 9000rpm redline than they do about a car's real-world usability? No, I haven't.
<br>
<br>---
<br>cerberus said: discussed this car with anyone who knows about it, in detail?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I owned one for a year and a half and drove it on a regular basis.
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>cerberus said: Do you know ALL the Technical Service Bulletin info and recall information, tyre options, faults, modifications, model differences etc.?
<br>---
<br>
<br>No, I leave that to the mechanics and sales people.
<br>
<br>---
<br>cerberus said: I don't think you've looked as deep into this car as your Jag perhaps.
<br>---
<br>
<br>I looked deeply enough into it to buy one.
<br>
<br>---
<br>cerberus said: It IS great
<br>---
<br>
<br>Like I said... we all know this is your opinion. But fact of the matter is that it has more and better competition not only in its own price range but well below.
<br>
<br>The Mazda MX5 didn't become the world's best-selling sports car by accident. Mazda simply did the obvious: they took the best sports car ever made, the Lotus Elan, and build a carbon-copy of it. Thus, the perfect sports car was born; the dynamic talent of the original Lotus Elan with the faultless build-quality of the Japanese and the affordability that mass-production brings.
<br>
<br>Honda, in the meantime, somehow failed to capture the lightning in their own bottle. Twice. The NSX tried to be as good as a Ferrari 355 but wasn't. Now the S2000 is trying to be as good as a Porsche Boxter, BMW Z4 or Nissan 350Z but isn't.
<br>
<br>Like I said, it is a good car, but not a great one. If it was $20,000, it would be a great car... or if it had more power for its current price.
<br>
<br>As it stands, it just isn't good value for money.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 20/02/2004

JonG said: "...my opinion (and the opinion of most of the people who drive it) is that it is merely good."
<br>- "most people" Thats a very rash & daring statement! I think "most people" would disagree and it sounds like you've probably never met anyone else who drives one on a regular basis. Have you ever been to an S2000 supermeet or discussed this car with anyone who knows about it, in detail? Do you know ALL the Technical Service Bulletin info and recall information, tyre options, faults, modifications, model differences etc.? I don't think you've looked as deep into this car as your Jag perhaps.
<br>In fact, do you own an S2000?
<br>
<br>JonG said: "It could have been great... it SHOULD have been great, but it wasn't."
<br>- It IS great, but as with ANY car, it could have been even better but you never get a 'perfect car' to suit everyone.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 19/02/2004

---
<br>cerberus said: These comments are out of sync. My comment of 17th Feb has been slotted in between comments from the 4th Feb and 13th Feb?
<br>---
<br>
<br>I reply: That's probably just as well, it wasn't worth responding to anyway.
<br>
<br>So you think the S2000 is great? We already know that. You're welcome to your opinion. But my opinion (and the opinion of most of the people who drive it) is that it is merely good.
<br>
<br>It could have been great... it SHOULD have been great, but it wasn't.
<br>
<br>It is neither a great car, nor great value for money. All the indignant protests to the contrary will not change that fact.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 18/02/2004

FYI: These comments are out of sync. My comment of 17th Feb has been slotted in between comments from the 4th Feb and 13th Feb?

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 18/02/2004

moff said: The 03 S2000 launched last month has the same 2 litre F20C engine that was launched in 1999. The 2.2 is for the (F22C) is for the US market only, the European and Japanese markets have retained the 2.0 litre, so the rev limit is still 9200rpm.
<br>---
<br>-
<br>-
<br>Thus demonstrating that the US is the primary market for this car.
<br>-
<br>---
<br>Nissan and Porsche DO NOT have a more powerful production n/a 2.0 engine and never have.
<br>---
<br>-
<br>-
<br>I never said they did. Your obsession with limiting the discussion of four-cylinder engines to only those that displace 2.0 liters allows you to ignore other very good engines...
<br>-
<br>Your also limit your definition of "power" solely to brake horsepower. Anyone who knows the first thing about sports cars will tell you that torque is arguably more important than bhp in determining a car's performance.
<br>-
<br>Honda's S2000 only puts out 153 lb/ft or 207nm of torque while the Mazda (after they revised their power ratings downward) delivers 220nm.
<br>-
<br>Both Nissan and Porsche have delivered normally-aspirated four-cylinder engines with in excess of 153lb/ft - the Porsche 944 and Nissan 240SX to name just two cars that had them.
<br>-
<br>Admittedly, their peak bhp ratings were lower but, as I said before, torque is more important for things like acceleration and is just as valid a measurement of an engine's power as bhp.
<br>-
<br>But if it is bhp you want - look no farther than Radical Motorsport's SR3 whose 1.5 liter four-cylinder Suzuki engine puts out 252 bhp.
<br>-
<br>So Honda's claim of having the most powerful normally-aspirated four-cylinder engine doesn't really hold much water.
<br>-
<br>-
<br>---
<br>moff said: The RX8 engine is a very good engine in its own right, but is categorised in the 2.5 - 3.0 bracket - which it won(I know it is a 1.3 wankel).
<br>---
<br>-
<br>It is placed in that bracket so piston engines can begin to compete with it.
<br>The Mazda engine has a smaller bhp output than the S2000, with only 231bhp in the most powerful RX8.
<br>-
<br>When designed, the engine was rated at 247bhp. During production, Mazda had manufacturing problems which caused the power on many of the engines to be slightly lower than that. Rather than repairing/replacing the engines, they chose to revise their power ratings downward and to offer people who'd already bought RX-8s the option of returning their car or getting some free goodies.
<br>-
<br>http://www.rx7city.com/images/mazdaletter_new.pdf
<br>-
<br>-
<br>---
<br>moff said: Honda's achievement has been fantastic with the F20C.
<br>---
<br>-
<br>Yes, it is very clever... on paper. In the real world, they should have built it as a 2.5 liter I-6 so it would could have had the 9000rpm redline AND made decent power. Sorry, but 153lb/ft of torque just isn't a lot in a sports car that weighs 1250kg. That's 122.5 lb/ft per ton. Compare that with the identically-priced, Rover-engined Lotus Elise at 174 lb/ft per ton. That's a BIG difference in power.
<br>-
<br>-
<br>---
<br>moff said: Other manufacturers require a turbo or supercharger to match or better the power output.
<br>---
<br>-
<br>Yes, other manufactures have drastically exceeded the S2000's bhp and torque figures using forced induction - and have been doing so for many years. Lotus, Nissan, Porsche, GM, Mitsubishi, Lancia... just to name a few.
<br>-
<br>Personally, I prefer superchargers because of complete absense of turbo-lag. I might make an exception for the Lotus Esprit S4s though. With a simple aftermarket re-mapping of the ECU, you can get an extra 100bhp and 50 lb/ft of torque over the Honda S2000 without compromising reliability or drivability and used ones are a bit cheaper than a new Honda.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 17/02/2004

JonG said: "Yes, I know, the MX5 is much better value for money and it seriously out-handles the S2000."
<br>
<br>Now you ARE having a laugh!!! LMAO at that one.
<br>The MX5 is NOT a "performance car"!
<br>None of what you say is serious.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 17/02/2004

moff said: The S2000 has a fantastic engine,which has won the prestigous engine of the year award for the last 4 years IIRC. It is the most powerful normally aspirated 2 litre engine in the world.
<br>--
<br>
<br>That's a pointless statement. You've so narrowed the category that Honda's supremacy in it means very little.
<br>
<br>The Mazda rotary engine in the RX-7 and RX-8 has a vastly higher specific output than Honda's engine. Several other companies make or have made more powerful NA 4-pots (Nissan and Porsche just to name two).
<br>
<br>People like to crow about the lack of forced-induction in the engine but there are at least two reasons why in the S2000's case it doesn't matter.
<br>
<br>1. The S2000 isn't light enough for the driver to really benefit from the lack of turbo-lag
<br>
<br>2. The engine doesn't really start delivering any meaningful power until the high-lift cams kick in at almost 7000rpm. Even the laggiest turbocharger is delivering full boost by 4000rpm.
<br>
<br>Even Honda has tactily admitted that while the S2000 engine looks good on paper, it is more of a gimmick in the real world. That's the main reason why they're bringing out a stroked version of the engine that displaces 2.2 liters and delivers more torque but has a lower red-line.
<br>
<br>The 03 S2000 launched last month has the same 2 litre F20C engine that was launched in 1999. The 2.2 is for the (F22C) is for the US market only, the European and Japanese markets have retained the 2.0 litre, so the rev limit is still 9200rpm.
<br>
<br>The engine is the most powerful n/a 2.0 litre in the world, have completely discredited your own comments. Nissan and Porsche DO NOT have a more powerful production n/a 2.0 engine and never have. The RX8 engine is a very good engine in its own right, but is categorised in the 2.5 - 3.0 bracket - which it won(I know it is a 1.3 wankel). The Mazda engine has a smaller bhp output than the S2000, with only 231bhp in the most powerful RX8. On paper the RX8 is also slower 0-60 and 0-100. http://www.mazdarx8.co.uk/upclose/specs/default.asp
<br>
<br>Honda's achievement has been fantastic with the F20C. Other manufacturers require a turbo or supercharger to match or better the power output. If you can prove me wrong please provide specific examples of cars and engines. Otherwise please stop trolling.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 16/02/2004

---
<br>moff said: your most recent comments have really shown your general lack of knowledge with cars and more importantly the S2000.
<br>
<br>1. The S2000 is not mass produced, there are only 4000 on the UK's roads.
<br>---
<br>
<br>The S2000 is primarily targetted at the US market. Thus, there are a limited number of them sold in the UK - one of the reasons they hold their value so well.
<br>
<br>You're not seriously trying to tell me that Honda hand-builds each S2000 like TVR or Aston-Martin do, are you?
<br>
<br>----
<br>moff said: 2. Don't try and compare the S with the MX5, chalk and cheese (yawn).
<br>----
<br>
<br>Yes, I know, the MX5 is much better value for money and it seriously out-handles the S2000. Still, they are comparable vehicles in many ways... they're both affordable Japanese roadsters appeal to very similar segments of the car market. Honda's big mistake is that they're trying to substitute the snob appeal of the limited UK distribution and meaningless "on-paper" statistics like the 9000rpm redline for actual usability.
<br>
<br>-----
<br>moff said:
<br>
<br>3. The only decent Elise is the forthcoming 111R. I am very interested in this car, but no storage space, not usable as an everyday car and its more expensive than the S2000.
<br>-----
<br>
<br>I beg your pardon? I'll grant you that the Elise has improved with age but no one could seriously claim that the only decent model is the latest one.
<br>
<br>You've obviously never driven one (I had one on loan for a week - the Rover-engined S2) because it is not only usable as a daily driver but it has more and better storage space than some comparable vehicles like the MGF and MR2 Spider. Obviously it doesn't have quite as much boot space as the S2000 but it is close enough that I doubt many people would sweat the difference. Besides, if you want a sports car with a big boot, TVR is the only game in town.
<br>
<br>Also, I think you'll find that the 111R is only £2,000 more than the *base model* S2000. And given the Honda's Group 20 rating (compared to Group 17 for the Elise), the savings will quickly be consumed by your insurance company.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 16/02/2004

I'd like you to try really hard to understand that your opinion is in a minoriy. I accept that no car is ever perfect, including the S2000, but its good bits FAR outweigh any bad bits compared to so many other cars. Anyway, I won't be drawn on this any longer. You just can't help some people. Enjoy your Jag, pipe and slippers old boy! Adios.
<br>
<br>If anyone has any doubts about the S2000 please visit www.s2ki.com for "the truth" from the people that know.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/02/2004

--
<br>moff said: I struggle to even imagine that you have ever owned an S2000, if you did it must have been a real turkey!
<br>--
<br>-
<br>I said: No, it was everything it should have been. I bought it because I was nervous about the reliability of comparably-priced options with Lotus or TVR badges (the only German cars I want are ones I can't afford (e.g. Porsche GT, BMW M1) and I find Italian cars to be more style than substance). I knew I'd have to sacrifice some excitement and competence for the Japanese build-quality but only after I'd owned it for several months and the honeymoon was over did I realize the extent of my sacrifice. I eventually sold it back to the dealer. One thing I'll say for it, it holds on to its value!
<br>
<br>--
<br>moff said: The S2000 can be compared to a Boxster S on performance alone. I am not saying that the S2000 is a better car, just better value for ££££
<br>--
<br>
<br>I reply: Sorry, I just don't agree. For those willing to be seen in a Boxter (I'm not one of them), it offers much better handling, better build-quality and more accessible performance. The S2000 sells for less because it can't compete.
<br>
<br>--
<br>moff said: The S2000 has a fantastic engine,which has won the prestigous engine of the year award for the last 4 years IIRC. It is the most powerful normally aspirated 2 litre engine in the world.
<br>--
<br>
<br>That's a pointless statement. You've so narrowed the category that Honda's supremacy in it means very little.
<br>
<br>The Mazda rotary engine in the RX-7 and RX-8 has a vastly higher specific output than Honda's engine. Several other companies make or have made more powerful NA 4-pots (Nissan and Porsche just to name two).
<br>
<br>People like to crow about the lack of forced-induction in the engine but there are at least two reasons why in the S2000's case it doesn't matter.
<br>
<br>1. The S2000 isn't light enough for the driver to really benefit from the lack of turbo-lag
<br>
<br>2. The engine doesn't really start delivering any meaningful power until the high-lift cams kick in at almost 7000rpm. Even the laggiest turbocharger is delivering full boost by 4000rpm.
<br>
<br>Even Honda has tactily admitted that while the S2000 engine looks good on paper, it is more of a gimmick in the real world. That's the main reason why they're bringing out a stroked version of the engine that displaces 2.2 liters and delivers more torque but has a lower red-line.
<br>
<br>If they had simply made a 2.5 liter I-6 instead of a 2.0 liter I-4, they could have had both: high red-line and better low-end torque. Plus, they could have made the car a little bigger and made it a 2+2. It could have been a Japanese interpretation of the E-type Jaguar.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/02/2004

cerberus264 said: "but [a Jaguar XJR is] just BORING! Your next step is to get yourself a chauffeur.
<br>-
<br>-
<br>I say: Spoken like someone who has never driven one. Did I mention that it is not only faster than the S2000 but it goes around corners better as well?
<br>-
<br>-
<br>cerberus264 said: "erm, no [a 10 grand cheaper MX5] won't! [do everything an S2000 will do]"
<br>-
<br>-
<br>I say: OK, the Mazda hasn't got an electric roof or a 9000rpm redline but neither of those things is worth ten grand. BTW, the MX5 handles better than the S2k as well.
<br>-
<br>-
<br>cerberus264 said of the Lotus Elise: "what! ...that noisy little go-cart ...with less pockets than a kangaroo!"
<br>-
<br>-
<br>I say: Wait a minute, you're ragging on the Lotus for noise and lack of storage space? Compared to the S2000? Isn't that a case of arguing about the relative blackness of pots and kettles?
<br>
<br>Yes, they're both relatively noisy and impractical vehicles but the Lotus shows Honda the way in terms of acceleration, handling and braking.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/02/2004

your most recent comments have really shown your general lack of knowledge with cars and more importantly the S2000.
<br>
<br>1. The S2000 is not mass produced, there are only 4000 on the UK's roads.
<br>
<br>2. Don't try and compare the S with the MX5, chalk and cheese (yawn).
<br>
<br>3. The only decent Elise is the forthcoming 111R. I am very interested in this car, but no storage space, not usable as an everyday car and its more expensive than the S2000.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 13/02/2004

"You'd like the Jag... It (95 XJR) accelerates faster than the Honda, has a higher top speed and it will seat five" - but thats just BORING! Your next step is to get yourself a chauffeur.
<br>
<br>"If you want some top-down fun, the Mazda MX5 will do everything the Honda will and for around ten grand less" - erm, no it won't!
<br>
<br>"For the price of the Honda, you could get a Lotus Elise that outdoes the Honda in every way" - what! ...that noisy little go-cart ...with less pockets than a kangaroo!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/02/2004

<br>You'd like the Jag... It (95 XJR) accelerates faster than the Honda, has a higher top speed and it will seat five.
<br>
<br>If you want some top-down fun, the Mazda MX5 will do everything the Honda will and for around ten grand less. For the price of the Honda, you could get a Lotus Elise that outdoes the Honda in every way. For a little more money, the TVR Tamora will deliver near-supercar performance.
<br>
<br>The S2000 is just another mass-produced Japanese roadster and for what it does, it is overpriced.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/02/2004

Oh, and I drove for 7.5 hours, from Nottingham to Chelmsford to Horsham to Nottingham in one day, no aches no pains, just a big fat smile on my face, and satisfaction that I own such an amazing car.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/02/2004

JonG, I struggle to even imagine that you have ever owned an S2000, if you did it must have been a real turkey!
<br>
<br>The S2000 is a drivers car, the TT is not. It could be argued that the Z4 is, but running on the current run-flat tyres, I would have to disagree. The Z3.... are you having a larf, its rubbish, it drives like a dog and goes like a dog, every automotive publication has this view.
<br>
<br>The S2000 can be compared to a Boxster S on performance alone. I am not saying that the S2000 is a better car, just better value for ££££.
<br>
<br>The S2000 has a fantastic engine,which has won the prestigous engine of the year award for the last 4 years IIRC. It is the most powerful normally aspirated 2 litre engine in the world. If you don't like the engine, you just don't get it. Fair enough, horses for courses and all that. We can't all like the same things.
<br>
<br>For lots of good info on the S2000 goto www.s2ki.com

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 12/02/2004

If 155mph and 0-60 in around 6 seconds isn't on the fast side of life, I'm a martian.
<br>On the rest: just assume I disagree with 95% of what you just said.
<br>
<br>I think, maybe you should stick to your comfy Jag as the S2000 really doesn't agree with you. A car says a lot about a person and a Jag just sums you up. :O)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 11/02/2004

<br>I said: It's a Honda (slightly boring, bland looks)
You replied: You have neither taste nor style!
<br>Well, compared to a Honda Civic it could be considered dramatic and exciting. Next to a Porsche Boxter or BMW Z3/Z4 it is about even and next to something like a Toyota MR2 Spider, Lotus Esprit or TVR Tamora, it is boring and conventional.
<br>It isn't the worst looking or most boring sports car ever made, but neither is it the best looking or most exciting - by a long shot.
<br>The simple fact that the front wheels are larger than the rear throws off the proportions immediately.
<br>I said: The engine (amazingly gutless)
<br>You replied: It does everthing very well at both low and high speeds but if you want it to go "learn to drive it properly". This car relies on sheer RPM and Vtec to get it going fast.
<br>It does everything well except generating torque.
<br>I am well acquainted with the ultra-peaky nature of this engine and have had it bouncing off the limiter on more than one occasion. Bottom line is that it is gutless compared to engines with more displacement and/or cylinders available in other sports cars and (apart from the stratospheric redline) unremarkable compared to other manufacturer's engines of similar displacement. Toyota's 1.8 VVTI engine now available in both the MR2 Spider and Lotus Elise puts out comparable torque in a wider and more accessible power band.
<br>I said: The Transmission (ratios way too close together)
<br>You replied: Complete rubbish!!
<br>I guess you like "gearbox rowing". Most people don't.
<br>I said: Rear end very tricky in the wet
<br>You replied: I agree with this one. The car is twitchy anyway but wet bends are another story.
<br>Considering Honda's engineering expertise and development budget, this is unforgivable.
<br>The last thing this car is, is tiring. Its great fun and both engaging and addictive to drive.
<br>Until you have to drive from Manchester to Bristol on the M6 at motorway speeds... What a chore! I'll take my old Jaguar anyday for long-distance drives.
<br>I said: "Driving any distance with the engine droning at 4000rpm gets old very quickly"
<br>You replied: get a life. It sounds to me like you've hardly driven this car and you're generally adverse to changing the rules. Ahem ..."ITS A SPORTS CAR" ...get it?
<br>Well, actually, it isn't really a "sports car". It is more like a "mini GT". It isn't fast, light or agile enough to properly be considered a sports car.
<br>To answer your first question, I owned mine for about 16 months and put almost 10,000 miles on it.
<br>For the price, I could have gotten a new Lotus Elise or a used TVR Tuscan and had a lot more fun driving them.
<br>I said: Also, for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration" -
<br>You replied: too exciting for you was it?
<br>No, too annoying. 18mph/1000rpm in top gear is a joke - and not a very good one.
<br>The S2000 is better than a Boxter on price/value for money, driver engagement/fun to drive, servicing costs, reliability, looks, street cred, rarity.
<br>If I saw these two cars parked side by side in a car park, I wouldn't be looking at the Boxter!!(we've seen them all before and everyones got one) [yawn]
<br>I agree with you on this. A Boxter is a hairdresser's car. But there are more than just the Boxter and S2000 out there.
<br>In that price range you have the MR2, Tamora, Miata, Z4, Elise, MGF and a few others.
<br>In terms of value or fun for money, the Honda really isn't anything special.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

I'm compelled to comment on this:
<br>
<br>It's a Honda (slightly boring, bland looks) - You have neither taste nor style!
<br>The engine (amazingly gutless) - It does everthing very well at both low and high speeds but if you want it to go "learn to drive it properly". This car relies on sheer RPM and Vtec to get it going fast.
<br>The Transmission (ratios way too close together) - Complete rubbish!!
<br>Rear end very tricky in the wet - I agree with this one. The car is twitchy anyway but wet bends are another story.
<br>
<br>The last thing this car is, is tiring. Its great fun and both engaging and addictive to drive.
<br>
<br>"Driving any distance with the engine droning at 4000rpm gets old very quickly" - get a life. It sounds to me like you've hardly driven this car and you're generally adverse to changing the rules. Ahem ..."ITS A SPORTS CAR" ...get it?
<br>
<br>"Also, for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration" - too exciting for you was it?
<br>
<br>"Bottom line: If you're looking for a daily-driver, look hard at the Mazda MX-5. It may not have the flash appeal of the Honda's engine but is an easier car to live with for regular driving and is considerably cheaper without sacrificing build-quality or reliability" - boring [yawn].
<br>
<br>The S2000 is better than a Boxter on price/value for money, driver engagement/fun to drive, servicing costs, reliability, looks, street cred, rarity.
<br>If I saw these two cars parked side by side in a car park, I wouldn't be looking at the Boxter!!(we've seen them all before and everyones got one) [yawn]

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/02/2004

But my point was that this car's handling is far twitchier that it should be.
<br>
<br>First off, horsepower isn't what causes a car's tires to break traction but torque and the S2000 is notoriously low on torque.
<br>
<br>I'll say it again, I've driven TVRs with more confidence through wet roundabouts. If you're familiar with the TVR brand, you'll know that these cars are (or at least should be) the scariest things to drive on wet roads due to their light weight and extremely high power along with the company's deeply-held view that electronic driver's aids like ABS and traction-control have no place on proper sports cars.
<br>
<br>There is no excuse for a company with development resources like Honda to build a car that goes sideways this easily when the road gets wet.
<br>
<br>Also, I don't think you can seriously compare the S2000 to a Boxter S. Maybe the BMW Z3...

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Moff's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 04/02/2004

For £26k you get a car with the same peformance as a Porsche Boxster S (0-60 5.6 0-100 14.5), a saving of £20k (with the standard extras).
<br>
<br>The car is obviously going to be twitchy at the rear! It has 240bhp, no traction control, and runs on summer / dry weather tyres. Drive sensibly in the wet and the car is fine. If you want the car to do the driving for you buy a Z4 or TT.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 26/01/2004

Ah, comments on my review... How nice!
<br>To address some of the points raised:
<br>The model I owned was a 2003. They may indeed have tweaked the handling since then. I sure hope so.
<br>re: Mr. shoot2kill bristling at my comparison to a Ferrari... I don't think I did compare it to a Ferrari, I just stated that the model I drove was much trickier in the wet than a car of its weight and power should be. I've driven much lighter, much more powerful TVRs with more confidence in the wet. I've driven a Lotus Elise (cheaper and similar power:weight ratio) with more confidence in the wet than the Honda gives in the dry.
<br>It isn't impossible to make a modestly-priced sports-car drivable on wet roads. It is just that Honda failed to do it.
<br>And, I think I have a lot of experience with "lower" cars but, at the end of the day, the Honda just doesn't feel as fast as its specs (and price) would suggest.
<br>re: Torque and skipping gears... Yes, I realize the Honda hasn't got a large-displacement V8 but it is still low on torque even at peak and especially at lower revs. The S2000's engine has one of the steepest torque curves in automotive history and even at its best, doesn't put out a lot. The rear-end gearing and close-spaced ratios make "rowing" the gear-box a necessity under hard acceleration and that gets tedious after a while. As does the cars utter inability to function as a highway-cruiser.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Antonino Carnevali's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 23/01/2004

One more comment: I don't quite understand how you can complain that the car doesn't have enough torque and at the same time state that under hard acceleration you find yourself skipping gears. That brings the RPM and torque down, and evidently you don't mind driving it like that, so the "lack of torque" cannot be that bad. In fact, it isn't! Clearly this car doesn't respond like a big size V8 at low RPM, but it's not as bad as you make it sound. In my experience, I agree 100% with the reviewer who said "you could drive the S2000 below 6000 RPM for years, and feel that it's a fast car." But if you want to "race", then by all means keep the RPM up, don't skip gears, and there are few things out there that can compete, particularly on a winding road. One final thought: I personally LIKE to hear the sound of the engine while cruising at 4000 RPM in sixth gear, yes, even on a long stretch. I did like some of your comments, especially the "you have got to drive it as if you had just stolen it". I know, it's a put down, but it also tells you in a funny and clever way what you have to do if you really want to enjoy it!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Mr Shoot2Kill's Response to JonG's Review

Written on: 22/01/2004

Hey man Of course you can't go and compare a Honda S2000 to the Ferrari. It's a Honda. The only thing I agree with is that it does fish tail on wet pavement, but that is going to be obvious. Due to its light weight and its torque isn't going to be able to keep up in the rain. Oh and another thing. What does a double edge sword have to do with anything. For your info a double edge sword has no flaws. The only problem it may have is the size of the blade is to much for an amateur such as you. I am also a sword collector. Your comments about the car is of course going to be inaccurate. Of course you drive a Ferrari but I on the other hand drive a Acura RSX and am quite fond of the S2000. Your review is inadequate do to your lack of knowledge and experience of lower level cars.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 168 Comments
★★★★★

“I suppose this is as close as you can get to driving...”

Written on: 29/06/2003 by JBim. (1 review written)

I suppose this is as close as you can get to driving F1 car with the tight cockpit and noisy revving engine. All the pure driving features of this car are pure fun. For me, all the cons stated by others are actually pros: noisy, not roomy, Seats are fabulous. Trunk is surprisingly spacious: enough space for two golf bags and a weekend luggage. Try it. If it's for you, you will love it right away… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“A wicked sports car, handles like a dream. The first...”

Written on: 20/06/2003 by Merlinuk. (1 review written)

A wicked sports car, handles like a dream. The first car i've ever driven that can handle a roundabout at 70mph… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Jong's Response to Merlinuk.'s Review

Written on: 17/11/2003

I've driven this car through roundabouts and to do it at 70mph would be, at best, suicidal.
<br>
<br>If you want something to fly through roundabouts, get a Lotus Elise.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to Merlinuk.'s Review

Written on: 24/08/2004

I think he was joking ....I'm sure it was a nice noise

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

163692_Rtone's Response to Merlinuk.'s Review

Written on: 26/07/2004

Lighten up guys. Although not in the same league, my V5 Golf is a bit noisy at 130mph too ;)

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

A10Enw's Response to Merlinuk.'s Review

Written on: 02/03/2004

Rather depends on the size of the roundabout, though anyone approaching one at anywhere near that sort of speed on a public road fully deserves to tangle with a juggernaut!

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to Merlinuk.'s Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

This is the last car you'd want to do that in! Get yourself a scooby if you want to do 70 round a roundabout.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 5 Comments
★★★★★

“I've had my S2000 for three years, bought after...”

Written on: 13/04/2003 by Terry Wall (aka Chocice or S2000RW). (1 review written)

I've had my S2000 for three years, bought after rejecting more boring roadsters like the Z3 and SLK. It's docile as an automatic crawling along at 2 mph in a jam, fits like a glove, is very snug and comfortable, and howls with joyous noise when accelerating past almost anything else on the road at up to 9000rpm. The boot is surprisingly deep and wide (golf clubs fit), the colours now available are stunning, it's rare enough to make peoples' heads turn and to make you feel part of a special… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

112782_Wilks.'s Response to Terry Wall (aka Chocice or S2000RW).'s Review

Written on: 03/07/2003

JUST READ REVEIW OF S2000,HAD MINE 18MTHS AND THINK ITS EXELLENT.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

Cerberus264's Response to Terry Wall (aka Chocice or S2000RW).'s Review

Written on: 10/02/2004

I have an 00 in Silverstone/Red and agree with everything said here, although don't be put off about driving in bad weather ...the car is waterproof! Just be careful on bends in the wet. To find out everything you need to know about this car visit the s2k owners at www.s2ki.com.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review Read 2 Comments
★★★★★

“This car is the best thing I ever bought. It has...”

Written on: 11/04/2003 by AquilaEagle. (1 review written)

This car is the best thing I ever bought. It has absolutely stunning looks, turns every single head in the street (well almost). Nearly everyone who looks at it when I am next to it passes comment.

The ride is another story too!! Totally awesome handling, speed and feel to the car. Hitting the 9000rpm spot is a dream come true every time it happens.

The build quality is also good, and have had no problems with the car in the 6 months I have owned it and in the 18months it has been on the… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“For someone who is an enthusiast there is no other...”

Written on: 11/04/2003 by SilverShark. (1 review written)

For someone who is an enthusiast there is no other option for the money. The engine is fantastic, the gears are the best you'll shift anywhere, the looks are stunning. I am into my 3rd year of ownership.....would I get another one ?.....you'd better believe it… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“I first saw an S2000 in car show room, and I have to...”

Written on: 11/04/2003 by MLC-PM. (1 review written)

I first saw an S2000 in car show room, and I have to say that it's looks just took my breath away. I knew there & then I had to have one. Then I drove it. The kick from the VTEC is something else, and then it revs all the way to 9000 rpm.....

It is simply the best car I have ever owned. It's fun, it's a serious drive, and it's practical. It turns heads everywhere I go, & I am always finding excuses to take it for a spin.

Forget Boxsters, Z3's & TT's. This is what you really want. Trust me ;-)… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“A car that can be driven sedately and enjoy the...”

Written on: 11/04/2003 by davemac. (1 review written)

A car that can be driven sedately and enjoy the admiring looks from other drivers and pedestrians, but when you go over 6000rpm into vetec land you get awesome performance and handling. Doing any mod's and upgrades just are not neccasary… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
★★★★★

“Still turning heads after 3.5 years of ownership. ”

Written on: 10/04/2003 by PaulB. (1 review written)

Still turning heads after 3.5 years of ownership.
A very easy car to live with. Dependable, reasonably practical (for a sports car) and fun to drive.
Wonderfully quick, although has a tendancy for oversteer which less enthusiastic drivers may find a little concerning. Later models have revised suspension geometry designed to reduce the oversteer.
Engine improves with miles. Starts very tight but really matures.
Needs revs for best performance. Lazy drivers should look elsewhere.
Low running… Read Full Review

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review
See next 10 reviews Showing 41 - 50 of 68 Reviews
overview