rai

If you asked me of all the cars currently available the one that is the closest to the 350Z is theS2000. I know the convertible thing is a big difference, but as far as price, performance, trunk space, good looks and fun to drive the two are very close.

I know the S2000 has a tiny 4 banger with no torque, but a first to second shift at 9,000 rpm was strong enough to chirp the tires. The lack of torque could be a problem, but if you can find the right gear this is not a big issue. Also I was under the impression the S2000 would be dead in the wrong gear but this is not the case. I was driving along at 50 in 5th gear say 3000 RPM (5th is good for 136 MPH) and I was able to accelerate, not like a titan rocket, but I did not feel the engine was straining.

silverstone_350z

it blows my mind how a car with 150 lb of tq can hit 0-60 ion 5.2 secs (according to car-stats.com)
thats faster then the Z.

knowing that, the s2000 will beat the z off the line?
ouch, that hurts.

but then again, at high speeds, the Z will eat it for dinner.

3rdpower

Mindless clutch dump? Yes... I don't think many S2000 drivers will be willing to rev there engine to insane RPMs just to dump the clutch. BTW, the 350Z chirped the tires in first to second as well as second to third... the 350Z will have a different kind of acceleration more inline with linear power. No need to rev the engine and dump the clutch. You should get response right off the line - clean, clear, response at that.

S2000 can out handle just about any car because of it's stiff suspension and made-for-track feel. No, I have never driven a S2000 but I notice a lot of people who have state that the car is not the most fun car to drive as a day to day. Extremely uncomfortable and not suited for long drives. For feel I think the 350Z can be converted to feel more like an S2000 by stiffening up the suspension (sway bars) and stiffening up the suspension. When you do these kinds of things of course you take a hit in ride feel and comfort. The 350Z will be more of a street car with track capabilities versus the S2000 which is a autocross car with street capabilities. This is just my opinion of course .

All out speed the 350Z will eat a S2000 for lunch, no question about it. With gobs more hp and torque the Z should ravish the S2000 in highway driving. Off the line I think the benefit will go to the Z as well... it'd be a relatively close call, however, with even matched drivers the Z would benefit.

When analyzing both these cars we need to understand each ones strengthens and weaknesses. While I have never driven either one (yet) I'll take the 350Z for everyday driver and the S2000 for track warrior out of the box. With modifcations I am willing to bet, however, that it'd be easier to turn the Z into a track monster then to make the S2000 an everyday street pleaser

My 2 cents

FstQban

I currently drive an RSX Type-S so I understand very well, the characteristics of the S2000. While the enigine doesn't produce much torque it is still a fast car! However, in an old report Road&Track did a road test on it. In this test they did an experiment to see what the car would drive like under "normal driving conditions". They started from a stand still and shifted at an aggresive yet still "normal" 4,000 RPM or so at each shift. It might of even been higher than that, but who pushes their car to redline each and every time, and every day?! Anyway, the car ended up running somewhere in the ballpark of a 10.5 0-60! Not only was it a 10.5 but they reported that the car was struggling to accomplish that! With the V-Tech technology in it, the S200 does not offer every day performance anywhere close to what the Z does. I do hope however that the shifter is as precise and short as the Honda masterpiece. Drivingwise I think they are both close, though the Z will offer the same heavy solid feel of the last gen., not the light twitchy feel of the S200!

rai

Twice it was said the Z would eat the S2000 for lunch at high speed or on the highway. The S2000 can do 150 mph in 6th gear. As far as I can tell the s2000 is as quick to any speed as the Boxster S and therefore the Z.

True the Z might have a higher top speed but I would never take either car over 150 so it's a moot point. Also the idea of shifting the S2000 at 4000 rpm and measuring the 0-60 is assinine. Why not remove the turbo from the WRX and test that 0-60. And BTW when I said the s2000 chirped the tires shifting to 2nd I wasn't putting the Z down or trying to be in compitition, I was just stating an impression, and I never tried shifting 2-3 at redline so I can't say if the S2000 could chirp the tires.

BTW I found the first drive of the S2000 in C&D and it is the slowest example I've ever seen. 0-60 in 6.8 sec 1/4 mile 15.1 sec. Hopefully when production versions of the Z are tested we will have even better results.

R&T got 5.5 and 14.1. Car-stats.com got 5.2 and 13.8 sec so I assume the C&D first test was a poor example.

I'm not putting the 350Z down in any way, I'm just saying that for the same money the S2000 is putting up the same acceleration times. I don't think we have to put other cars down to make the Z look better. I think we all win by having several choices available.

azjimbo

I think to compare the S2000 to the Z is a great compliment to the Z.I feel the S2000 is a great car and seriously thought of buying one.The biggest problem is that dealerships are charging nearly 39K for a car that lists for nearly 33K.I also believe the Z has a much more macho look to it while the S2000 is more sedate.

3rdpower

Rai:

Hope you didn't precieve it as an attack on my part by noting the chirps hehe Just wanted to point it out that's all. No pun intended - I was trying to highlight.

I totally agree with you on the high speed thingy... I'm not planning on taking my Z to 156... soon at least hehe...
I think were you'd see the Z shine is in its ability to really cook from 60-80 and 80-100. The torque really comes into play and that's where the Z would have a S2000 for lunch *munch-munch*

It's the American way to compare! It seems like your post wasn't intended to compare but when I read "350Z vs. S2000" I start to think "Thrilla in Manilla!" hehehe

Thanks for your post and your opinion.

ITZBITZ

S2000 - no torque
350Z - torque

The only thing keeping the S2000 alive is the stratospheric 9000 RPM redline.

As far as comparing acceleration at low RPM's, what do you think normal every day driving involves? I roll along with several S2000's and they don't beat their cars on the street. They shift at around 5500 for daily driving just because they don't like shifting from 1st to 4th in traffic.

The 3.5L motor from Nissan has very strong torque but a limited power band up to 6000 RPM. The red-line is at 6600, but the HP peak is at 6200 so you might as well shift soon after that.

That being said -- S2000 is a great track car if you enjoy 9000 RPM's. The 350Z is a great overall car and has yet to be proven on the track. If the torque is flat as it seems, it will likely be more comparable to a regular C5 vette with only 50 less HP at the crank.

silverstone_350z

i think the Z, with its amazing engine (torque to be specific) is going to rip the tracks.

going back to the C&D issue, and looking at all of the C&D road tests, it seems like they are always getting the WORST times.

i mean, like some1 else posted already, the they got the S2000 in 6.8 SECS, while car-stats got it in 5.2. thats an UNBELIEVABLE difference. imagine what car-stats would get with this car, even R&D when they get their hands on the Z.

i cant wait to see more tests from more mags. this thing is gonna be SWEET!!

Peregrine

I drive a 2001 Prelude, which has a similar torque curve to the S2000, but a lower redline. And "normal driving" on my daily commute usually involves a few runs up to the 7400 RPM redline. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in buying a Prelude, S2000, or RSX-S unless you're going to rev it high and push it hard, and these are all fun cars to push hard.

That having been said, VTEC engines are a lot less exciting at low revs (below 5500), and that's one of the reasons why I'm looking at a 350Z for my next car. I certainly wouldn't mind having more push-you-back-into-your-seat torque off the line, and the 350Z torque curve looks amazingly flat. The Z has more torque at 1000 RPMs than most VTEC engines have at their peak. That's also one of the reasons why the Z is more appealing to me than the RX-8. Rotaries tend to be similar to VTEC engines -- lots of high-end power, but very little low-end torque.

rai

the only reason I was looking at the S2000 was B/C my wife wants a convertible. She dosen't care about torque. A few more points.

1) the S2000 interior is snug for me, I think the Z will be more comfortable. The S2000's interior is spartin, but this does not mean cheap. I hope the Z turns out as nice, spartin is OK with me as long as it's not cheap.

2) the s2000 develops 120 HP/liter. I don't think modding is an option, I mean what are we hoping for? I can see adding 20-30 HP to the Z (without FI) as not out of the question, the S2000 20-30HP sounds like it's not gonna be easy. I'm no expert so I might be wrong about this.

3) I don't think C&D doesn't know how to drive. I think the S2000 they tested was not a good example, or was not properly broken in. They usually are close to other magazines sometimes getting better times, I mean they got a WRX at 5.4 an 14.1 sec. Let's not judge C&D or the only 350Z ever tested too hard.

ZZtopp

iTrader: (1)

The problem with the S2000 is that to get any real power or fun out of it, you have to drive it like you hate it. That gets old real quick.

The Apple

I don't trust the information that comes from car-stats personaly. They have a lot of... questionable information.

mav

I had an 01 S2000 that was wrecked two months ago when someone rear ended me. I had it for 10 months. I have an 02 S2000 on order, to be delivered this month.

I love the car. There's a lot of mistruths and myths concerning the S2000. Mainly the lack of torque issue. To me, torque is all relative. One must consider the weight and hp into the equation. Under 6500RPM's (pre-VTEC), the S has plenty of power for normal driving in the city or highway. Of course when the VTEC engages at 6500RPMs all the way to the 9000RPM redline, the car really opens up and its really nothing you have ever felt.

Personally, for me, the S is quite comfortable for daily driving. The Recaro seats are perfect. The layout of the cockpit is perfect. Everything is just perfect, minus the $2 stereo system Honda decided to put in a $33K sports car but oh well.

Although I haven't seen nor driven the new Z yet, I'm not able to compare the two. On paper, the Z and the S2000 seem very comparable but I would give the upper hand to the Z in overall performance. The new Z has great potential!

BTW, I'm considering getting one, as a second car. I'm looking at the touring or the track model. Any advice as to which one to get? I love features from both! Maybe Nissan can make a model with EVERYTHING!

FstQban

Some people seem to be thinking that I am bashing the S2000. I am not. I bought a similar car because I thought it would be fun to drive. But like one person pointed out, I do not want to stay at 8,000 RPM all day long. I also have a hard time believing that the engine will hold up as well constantly turning those numbers.

RAI: It is not the same as taking out the WRX's turbo. What they were able to show is the apparent lack of middle ground in the S2000's abilities. While I agree that the car handles very well, and accelerates very well, it doesn't have a proportional(?) decrease in performance for everyday conditions. It is all or nothing as it is in my RSX Type-S. I have driven a S2000 shortly and was impressed, but not in the same way I was by the several 300ZXTT that I drove.

It is obvious that both are very nice cars, and very similar in a lot of ways. It is also obvious that people are very divided on their views. I hope all enjoy their choice as much as I will mine!

rai

one more point I'm 6'2" and while the seat was excellent better than the boxster where my head rested against the roll hoop but the windshield is very short and I had to look over it to see the traffic lights when the top was down, or bend down if the top was up.

john0213

actually i'm more in the price issue side~ personally i think the S2k is over price, maybe it's not overprice in US but in Canada it is. I went to the honda dealer a few months back when I ordered the Z and when i saw the price of the S2k, i was like...i was stunned by the price, it's CDN$50k!!! if there is no Z and i have to think of other car, i might take a second thought on the S2k cuz it's too expensive, honestly i don't have a lot of chance on track cuz it's canada, and there aren't many people who like to go to track regularly in Canada too, so if i have 50k to choose a car i would rather chooose the SLK or add a few $$ to go for the boxster, well now don't diss me on driving a SLK as a lady car but c'mon, it's benz, my face will be a lot better when I drive the Benz than a honda(since I don't always go to track, performance is not a big issue), or if i 'm a person that i think performance is important i'll go for a boxster(it's 10k more but i can pay for that), so i really think the S2k is overprice in Canada cuz i still assume it's a honda~

Jim Reichard

I have an S2000 almost 3 years old and love it.

I have pre ordered a performance 350Z

I guess I want the Z to try something different.

Unfortunately the majority of people on car forums are anywhere from somewhat to totally biased about their car.

I think I have an open mind about this and atleast have actual input on the S2000.

The S2000 is a hard car to launch period. The big sticky tires in the back make you rev to 6 - 6500 and side slip the clutch to spin the tires and get a decent start. Not something the average person paying over 30K would want to do on a regular basis me included. A non racer driver would beat the S2000 with the Z by .5 to l second in the 1/4 mile.


The S2000 is not hard to drive as a daily driver if you like to drive and don't expect results from punching the throttle in the wrong gear and then complaining no torque. I'm sure a Z06 driver could say the same thing about the 350Z - so what.

I have driven "The Dragon" with the S2000 and can say I feel it is where the car shines. Over 300 curves in 11 miles. At over 3200# I doubt the Z would even stay close. I was in 1st gear once and 3rd gear twice with the rest in 2nd at 5-9 rpm.

Summary -

If you want 0-60 and 1/4 times buy a Corvette
If you want a track car buy an S2000
If you want a car for the average enthusiast buy a 350Z.

john0213

i think both car has it's pros/cons, it always comes to a point that u concern about certain point than the other and choose the car over the other.

S2kRob

Six months ago, I would have said the 350Z would be the faster car. Now, I'm not so sure. The issue isn't horsepower or torque, but rather weight. An S2000 with all fluids and a half tank of gas tips the scales at 2800lb. The dry weight of the base 350Z is 3180lb. Add in about 100lb for fluids and a half tank of gas and you come out to 3280lb, nearly 500lb heavier than the S2000. That extra weight isn't good for anything. Considering that the S2000 and 350Z share similar tire sizes, the S2000 will probably ultimately outgrip the 350Z, given its lighter weight.

As for the torque issue, what you guys are forgetting is that the 350Z redlines at 6600rpm, and the S2000 redlines at 9000rpm, so you can run 36% lower gearing on the S2000 to match the 350Z's speed in gears. 36% lower gearing = 36% torque multiplication at the wheels, which narrows the torque gap considerably.

Still, I know what the VQ is capable of, and it will be much more effortless to go fast in the Z.

Anyways, in terms of an all rounder, 350Z is probably the better car - I for one love it.

For that perfect road, though, you'd be hard pressed to find anything better than an S2000 this side of a Ferrari F360 Spyder.