350z or s2000?
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: south cali
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S might be alittle more quik, maybe a motorcycle on four wheels and I personally think the S looks weird without a hardtop and I wouldn't spend 3 grand on one. Not only that the biggest thing for me is 30+grand on a four banger? I'm a big Honda Acura fan but maybe 5 year ago before all these v6 vehicles started coming out then a S would be nice. So if your a big Honda fan, get a S. Bt if not, still get an S. Why you ask? I don't want to cruise down the blocked knowing that theirs 10 other Z owners here. GET A S2000!!
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously considered the S2000, BMW Z4, 350Z Coupe and G35 Coupe before settling on the G. In short, it was the right car for me. That's what's important. Asking others on a public forum what car you should get is a little silly. Bottom line, go drive it if you think you want it.
I found the S2K was great fun, but less refined than the Z4 on the inside and the ride was more jarring (but also responsive) in the S2K.
The G was simply a refined Z with 2 extra seats.
For me, I was looking for a nicer car with some serious fun, so it came down to the Z4 or the G35. I decided I didn't want a convertible, so I went with the G35.
If I were to buy another car just for fun and not daily driving, the S2000 would top the list. I think they are great cars and more than capable around a track.
I found the S2K was great fun, but less refined than the Z4 on the inside and the ride was more jarring (but also responsive) in the S2K.
The G was simply a refined Z with 2 extra seats.
For me, I was looking for a nicer car with some serious fun, so it came down to the Z4 or the G35. I decided I didn't want a convertible, so I went with the G35.
If I were to buy another car just for fun and not daily driving, the S2000 would top the list. I think they are great cars and more than capable around a track.
#66
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Z-land, New York
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I leased the s2k back in 1999 when it first came out, it was a funny car and had that "push button" start which was cool showing off to your friends but it dies out quickly. I had numerous problems with mine, had the tranny replaced twice because of the 2nd gear grind, couple of friends got 01 and 02 and they also had the problem. Handling wise it is a amazing car that takes corners at great speeds, light and nimble like the 3rd gen rx7(which I sold to get the Z). Car is very twitchy if tires are not warm, also the low end torque is disapointing and is the main reason why I did not keep the car. Overall, I would choose the Z from my experiences with both cars, just waiting until the warrenty expires so I can go FI miss the FD single turbo power
#67
Originally Posted by Rexy7
I leased the s2k back in 1999 when it first came out, it was a funny car and had that "push button" start which was cool showing off to your friends but it dies out quickly. I had numerous problems with mine, had the tranny replaced twice because of the 2nd gear grind, couple of friends got 01 and 02 and they also had the problem. Handling wise it is a amazing car that takes corners at great speeds, light and nimble like the 3rd gen rx7(which I sold to get the Z). Car is very twitchy if tires are not warm, also the low end torque is disapointing and is the main reason why I did not keep the car. Overall, I would choose the Z from my experiences with both cars, just waiting until the warrenty expires so I can go FI miss the FD single turbo power
As far as tranny probs compared to the Z it is no where near as bad. Just look at s2ki.com and you'll see that the amount of problems requiring lots of down time are few and far between.
#68
Originally Posted by lxlHoTsAuSelxl
S might be alittle more quik, maybe a motorcycle on four wheels and I personally think the S looks weird without a hardtop and I wouldn't spend 3 grand on one. Not only that the biggest thing for me is 30+grand on a four banger? I'm a big Honda Acura fan but maybe 5 year ago before all these v6 vehicles started coming out then a S would be nice. So if your a big Honda fan, get a S. Bt if not, still get an S. Why you ask? I don't want to cruise down the blocked knowing that theirs 10 other Z owners here. GET A S2000!!
The fact that its just as ridgid, handles better, is a drop top and is lighter make it a well engineered and well thought out car.
The Z is nice but to get a convertible and a sports car the roadster simply isn't in the same league. Its even heavier, slower and ugly with the top up.
#70
Originally Posted by danielwebb
the z is deffinitely faster than the s2000
It is a drivers race. I have raced a few Z's in my S and won and lost some.
I can also tell you that if you go to a track an S in the hands of an average driver will probably outperform a Z due to its lighter weight and being that you'll stay in 2cnd most of the time on an autocross track you'll be right in the S's powerband
#74
Originally Posted by iceagetlc
I have video from two nights ago on my cam-corder of me walking an S2000 by 3 cars in only 1 1/2 gears, with only bolt ons.
Not a driver's race. Slow.
Not a driver's race. Slow.
Of course the 07 Z is a different story. It will walk any of ya'll 06 and below Z's as well. Too bad the hoods ugly as sin
#75
Registered User
iTrader: (29)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Get out my way pimpin, LA
Posts: 33,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Combat350z
Obviously due to the difference in torque you'll take a lead in 1-3rd but if you take it up to highway speeds he will catch back up. If you take it from a roll like 25-30 it will be a different story.
Of course the 07 Z is a different story. It will walk any of ya'll 06 and below Z's as well. Too bad the hoods ugly as sin
Of course the 07 Z is a different story. It will walk any of ya'll 06 and below Z's as well. Too bad the hoods ugly as sin
I've raced a few S2k's and have yet to lose and these were from rolls. The higher the speed, the more cars I pulled. I do want to run the 2.2L just to see the outcome.
But I definitely respect the S2k's because I've always been a fan and thought about getting one before the Z but decided I didn't want a convertible and it wouldn't be a great daily driver for me at this time.
The 07's hood, ummm... I'd have to see it in person I guess... But if the 07 is capable of trapping 105 stock, it would make me happy
Last edited by blasian; 12-18-2006 at 07:18 AM.
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just sold my S2000 a few months ago. I will tell you that they are GREAT cars. They are agile, and very fun to drive. They certainly are not considered "slow," especially when compared to the Z. Numerous owners have hit 13.6XX at the tracks, and with only upgraded gears, low 13's have achieved.
I was looking into getting an 07 S2000, but the only reason why I am not is everyday practicality. The S2000 has almost no cargo space. The cabin itself is pretty small. I am 5'11" and 160 lbs, and my seat is scooted all the way back, and actually needs to go back one click, for me to be comfortable. Plus no auto-climate control or NAV option? C'mon Honda.
This is why I am looking into a Z now. I will miss the 2800lb, rigid chassis of the S2000, though. I feel the Z could lose a couple hundred pounds, at least (I'm sure most will agree). Although the Z has more amenities, the fit and finish of the S2000 was better, I felt. But I will look forward to the 300hp, heated seats and NAV.
I was looking into getting an 07 S2000, but the only reason why I am not is everyday practicality. The S2000 has almost no cargo space. The cabin itself is pretty small. I am 5'11" and 160 lbs, and my seat is scooted all the way back, and actually needs to go back one click, for me to be comfortable. Plus no auto-climate control or NAV option? C'mon Honda.
This is why I am looking into a Z now. I will miss the 2800lb, rigid chassis of the S2000, though. I feel the Z could lose a couple hundred pounds, at least (I'm sure most will agree). Although the Z has more amenities, the fit and finish of the S2000 was better, I felt. But I will look forward to the 300hp, heated seats and NAV.
#77
Originally Posted by blasian
Are you talking about a ZR? I'm pretty sure an S would beat a ZR, its massive and damn near everywhere category.
I've raced a few S2k's and have yet to lose and these were from rolls. The higher the speed, the more cars I pulled. I do want to run the 2.2L just to see the outcome.
But I definitely respect the S2k's because I've always been a fan and thought about getting one before the Z but decided I didn't want a convertible and it wouldn't be a great daily driver for me at this time.
The 07's hood, ummm... I'd have to see it in person I guess... But if the 07 is capable of trapping 105 stock, it would make me happy
I've raced a few S2k's and have yet to lose and these were from rolls. The higher the speed, the more cars I pulled. I do want to run the 2.2L just to see the outcome.
But I definitely respect the S2k's because I've always been a fan and thought about getting one before the Z but decided I didn't want a convertible and it wouldn't be a great daily driver for me at this time.
The 07's hood, ummm... I'd have to see it in person I guess... But if the 07 is capable of trapping 105 stock, it would make me happy
#78
Originally Posted by Paul55100
I just sold my S2000 a few months ago. I will tell you that they are GREAT cars. They are agile, and very fun to drive. They certainly are not considered "slow," especially when compared to the Z. Numerous owners have hit 13.6XX at the tracks, and with only upgraded gears, low 13's have achieved.
I was looking into getting an 07 S2000, but the only reason why I am not is everyday practicality. The S2000 has almost no cargo space. The cabin itself is pretty small. I am 5'11" and 160 lbs, and my seat is scooted all the way back, and actually needs to go back one click, for me to be comfortable. Plus no auto-climate control or NAV option? C'mon Honda.
This is why I am looking into a Z now. I will miss the 2800lb, rigid chassis of the S2000, though. I feel the Z could lose a couple hundred pounds, at least (I'm sure most will agree). Although the Z has more amenities, the fit and finish of the S2000 was better, I felt. But I will look forward to the 300hp, heated seats and NAV.
I was looking into getting an 07 S2000, but the only reason why I am not is everyday practicality. The S2000 has almost no cargo space. The cabin itself is pretty small. I am 5'11" and 160 lbs, and my seat is scooted all the way back, and actually needs to go back one click, for me to be comfortable. Plus no auto-climate control or NAV option? C'mon Honda.
This is why I am looking into a Z now. I will miss the 2800lb, rigid chassis of the S2000, though. I feel the Z could lose a couple hundred pounds, at least (I'm sure most will agree). Although the Z has more amenities, the fit and finish of the S2000 was better, I felt. But I will look forward to the 300hp, heated seats and NAV.
Plus the interior of the S is focused on the driver.
The main difference between the S and the Z is that the Z was made to appeal to everyone and be suitable for most people.
THe S was not. Its only offered in a 6sp, its cramped has almost no options and has the harshest ride save for the eliese that I have ever been in.
The fact that you see lots of old people who don't complain about it proves while it is a capable sports car it is far from a pure sports car in the truest sense.
The S is as close as you will get for under 45k
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Combat350z
Eh the trunk if you remove the spare and just wrap the tools in tape is pretty big. I was able to pack my pack, and get a laptop bag in the trunk. Why it doesn't have auto climate and nav well its a purebread roadster. It was never meant to be a mass market sports car like the Z. The Z while I still love it is by no means a pure sports car. It comes with leather seats,nav, and a host of other things. The elise is a perfect example of what a true streetable sports car would have. Almost nothing. The S is made for people who are looking for one thing. A fast, agile, ridgid, lightweight roadster. This car should cost way more seeing how it is handmade and was R&D to death.
Plus the interior of the S is focused on the driver.
The main difference between the S and the Z is that the Z was made to appeal to everyone and be suitable for most people.
THe S was not. Its only offered in a 6sp, its cramped has almost no options and has the harshest ride save for the eliese that I have ever been in.
The fact that you see lots of old people who don't complain about it proves while it is a capable sports car it is far from a pure sports car in the truest sense.
The S is as close as you will get for under 45k
Plus the interior of the S is focused on the driver.
The main difference between the S and the Z is that the Z was made to appeal to everyone and be suitable for most people.
THe S was not. Its only offered in a 6sp, its cramped has almost no options and has the harshest ride save for the eliese that I have ever been in.
The fact that you see lots of old people who don't complain about it proves while it is a capable sports car it is far from a pure sports car in the truest sense.
The S is as close as you will get for under 45k
Since I do not track my cars that much, I'd rather compromise a little "pureness" for comfort. But I will say that if a hardtop coupe version comes out for the S2000, hopefully with a little more cargo room and sporting a 2+2 seating (or at least a little more legroom), I'll be jumping the Nissan ship in a heartbeat. I'm a true Honda guy at heart. (I've had 2 Integras, one being a 98 ITR, S2000, and currently ride an 2001 F4i, when I can).