Im sure everyone has noticed this. there are not many S2000 trolls around here, that cant be said for various domestic enthusiasts. but its nice that this thread has remained friendly and informative. S vs Z is a race that is probably too close to call, it would most likely depend on the track(straight aways or not) and the drivers.

almost like the old pairing of RX7 and Supra. both a little watered down, but they have the same distinct areas of performance.

 

Have any 350Z owners tracked their cars yet?

I've very intrested in their perceptions, especially if they have any track experience in other cars. I'd also like to hear what is on their "list" for desired upgrades...

...and if any are around Colorado, there will be a few S2000's at Second Creek this Sunday to compare notes with!

 

I have to say I love the hard top. I got the car about a month ago and since then the weather has not been great. I have the hardtop on for the past 2 weeks. It really has a different feel than with the soft top up. The rear visibility is 100% better than with the tiny rear window on the soft top. Also it is a lot more airy and I like the looks with the hard top. It really feels like a coupe.

The point that a lot of S2000 owners have stated is that some extra credit should have been given to the S2000 + hard top combo to reflect the fact that it can be a coupe as well as a convertible or like 2 cars in one so this should have shown up in the VALUE rating instead of being counted against it for having a high "price as tested".

 

Yeah, im like that "beautiful mind" guy, except with cars, and only half as crazy

 

I have also heard about the S2K engine problems. Of course the majority of them work great yeah, but I remember a big thread going on about it in my old Z3 forum. Yes yes, I probably should have gotten a S2K over a Z3 but the S2k came out right when I purchased mine so the prices were jacked. But I did read a lot about those engines simply getting blown valves or something due to people driving them too hard before break-in or something.
You could be right about there being similar probs with the 350z, but it's unlikely since it's a tested engine already and doesnt operate in the same rev-band as the S2k. You have to admit, the engine in the S2k is a very unique motor. It's like putting a steroid-enhanced motorcycle engine in a sportscar.

And since I used the word sports car, I have a real off topic statement to make. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Mazda tries to claim that the Miata is a sportscar in their ads? Roadster.. Yes. Sportscar... not by a longshot.

 

Since when does adding a hardtop to a convertible make it a coupe? The point I'm trying to make is that C&D was making comparisons of Sport Coupes under $35K... The S2000 should have been excluded, since its not a coupe, even with the hardtop on. What they should have done is make a comparison of Sport Cars under $35K, in which case, include the S2000, without the hardtop.

As far as the engine problems are concerned... many people do not state this but some of it is due to driver error. Going at 80MPH in 3rd Gear, wanting to upshift to 4th but mistakingly downshifting to 2nd and overreving the engine will cause failure. The two local cases that I've seen S2000 engine failures have been a result of overreving and driver error.

 

You have to talk about engine failure rate in perspective. What is a high failure rate? I have seen engine failure rates as high as 2% over the 3 years the car has been out. Doesn't sound like much, you still have a 98% likelihood of not having a failure, but when you consider that a Civic is in the .02% range, then that number become meaningful. A 1/50 chance for many people is still too high.

As far as blaming it on user error, that doesn't add up. Zinged downshifts cause valve float and with the valves smacking the pistons at 13K RPM's you damage all cylinders. The number 4 cylinder problem doesn't fall into a user error class because it is isolated to a single cylinder.

That being said; what is faster around the track; S2k or 350Z. IMHO it would 100% depend on the driver.

 

Funny that you mention that - in fact, there is such a thread.
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...threadid=19490

 

Then again, the S2000 would be modified, and not stock form. Are they comparing stock vs stock or coupe vs coupe now?

 

LOL, that's funny. We might need a thread like that here.

 

You are wrong to say that there aren't many trolls on this forum.

There are many, in particular those eyeing our new Zs

I think we should be flattered that the Z has become the benchmark for so many auto companies. I'm glad that Nissan had finally relived the Z legacy with yet another winner (maybe for the next 5-6 years?).

This is a remake of the 1989-1990s when Nissan first released the Z (and Mazda, Toyota following). I know Nissan puts itself at a disadvantage by starting out early, but for those who has been driving Zs its hard to change

I would like to know whether people consider the Z a sports car.

In my opinion, as long as I can step out of a van, station wagon, bus, 4WD and feel a BIG BIG difference (speed, handling and character) in my Z, its a sports car

 

The MIATA is a sports car, otherwise how would you classify the S2K?

In a way, I kind of agree that these cars are not true sports cars. They are convertible sports cars, convertibles first, sports cars second.

When the 350z convertible comes out, I'm sure it will lose a little of its coupe character instead placing more emphasis on the open top concept. Some people get a big kick out of driving convertibles.

 

Although I have not seen the article yet, this sounds like a great comparo test. As a current Mustang owner (2000 GT), I can tell you this is the exact comparison that I have going on right now because of the car pricing - Mustang Mach 1 and 350Z. I realize the heritage is different and the platform designs are, but there are several price/performance indicators I have been looking at for these cars -

acceleration (0-60mph, 1/4 mile)
handling (lateral G)
curb weight

The Mach 1 (a limited edition Mustang) has a fairly powerful DOHC V8 that is supposed to crank out around 330hp/330ft-lb torque. Ford is purposely underrating the outputs to avoid a repeat of past problems with not making the advertised amount. It weighs 3465 lbs according to the specs. The handling, while not in the same league as the 350Z, is respectable for an old platform. There are special shocks and springs to enhance the handling over the GT. The SOTP feel with lots of low-end torque makes for a powerful feeling car.

The 350Z, on the other hand, has a lower power output but is over 200lb lighter. That is a big advantange in the acceleration department. Of course, the suspension sophistication is fabulous as compared to the live axle arrangement.

Since both of these cars can be optioned to be similarly priced (around $30,000), it makes sense they might be compared. Both are muscular in their own classes. Both have the basic performance credentials that are close.

That said, I honestly would like to have them BOTH!

 

One thing to remember about lateral G numbers is that it is a static, one dimensional test, meaning you can load the weight up on a set of fat outside tires and get great numbers all day in a circle, unless your racing NASCAR, this is of no use. Try to use the slalom speed when available as a more realistic, dynamic test since it covers nearly all aspects of handling, such as camber change, toe transition, steering sharpness, wieght transfer/body roll, etc.

 

By the time people like you found out the cobra plant was shut down, it was already opened up again. new cobras are being shipped out as we speak, so how can you say the Cobra isn't made anymore?

No need to bash any cars, guys. Congrats on the win, however. Its just a magazine and an opinion, remember. What were the prices of each of the cars??? If the Z topped 33k or so, the Cobra SHOULD have been used.. just as it would have been unfair to test the 03 Mach 1 ( what did they say that cost, btw? ) vs the cheapest 350Z.. having not driven a Mach 1 yet, I cant make my own opinion.. but Id take a base 350Z ( 28k, right? ) over a base GT ( 22k ), no doubt. Z is more of a car.

Until I read the magazine, I wont be able to comment more. I read that the Mach 1 was the cheapest, while the Z was the most expensive.... ( from that S2000 forum ) Thats alright, because I truly dont think someone who was going to buy a Mach 1 read it and said oh wait! I better buy a Z! Or the guy who was heading to the Honda dealer to pick up his S2000 cancelled and ordered a Mach 1..... you get the drift. Either way, I hope to pick up the magazine and see how the Mach 1 faired against the 350Z. After having so much experiance with the 350Z ( my friends ) I can imagine how good the Mach 1 really is to beat out the S2000 and come second to teh 350Z ( not bad at all )

Keep Zing, guys. More backing that you made the right choice in your automobile!

btw, could someone post up some times?

-Ryan

 

Troll,

I don't know what you're complaining about. If you read my post carefully, its says

"The MIATA is a sports car, otherwise how would you classify the S2K?"

Translation, If the MIATA is not a sports car then what kind of car is the S2K since they are both similarly designed cars. Need I say more.

Instead you freaked out and started getting defensive, and gone on to say that the S2K is far better than the MIATA without giving any respects to the drivers, publishers and companies out there that had been giving credit to the MIATA for so many years before S2K came out.

Enough Honda troll, stop trying to pick fights by visiting every car forums out there.