just took a test drive of the S2000
07-30-2002, 12:47 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PhantomRacer
A real profound statement.
We have a TT (225 Quattro Roadster). Wouldn't trade it for the world. The S2K is a great car. We didn't get it because it was smaller inside. The TT is a far more drivable car for daily use, IMO.
I'm considering a second sports car (since my wife drives the TT daily). Thinking about a second TT, S2K, or 350Z. Probably get second TT.
I have nothing bad to say about the 350Z, S2k, etc. They are both fine cars. They, perhaps can be called 'Better' if you look at the stats on the cars. But you drive a car, you don't drive stats.
'Better' (vs S2K) to us was: Quattro. More room inside. Seat comfort. Creature comforts. Stereo. Factory installed alarm. High quality materials, inside and out -no chrome plated plastic-metal is metal. Leather is leather. These may not be important to everyone, but it was to us. 0-60 times are not everything. Not everyone lives at a racetrack.
The TT isn't for everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Making fun of someone else's choice, well, just isn't nice.
Paul S
A real profound statement.
We have a TT (225 Quattro Roadster). Wouldn't trade it for the world. The S2K is a great car. We didn't get it because it was smaller inside. The TT is a far more drivable car for daily use, IMO.
I'm considering a second sports car (since my wife drives the TT daily). Thinking about a second TT, S2K, or 350Z. Probably get second TT.
I have nothing bad to say about the 350Z, S2k, etc. They are both fine cars. They, perhaps can be called 'Better' if you look at the stats on the cars. But you drive a car, you don't drive stats.
'Better' (vs S2K) to us was: Quattro. More room inside. Seat comfort. Creature comforts. Stereo. Factory installed alarm. High quality materials, inside and out -no chrome plated plastic-metal is metal. Leather is leather. These may not be important to everyone, but it was to us. 0-60 times are not everything. Not everyone lives at a racetrack.
The TT isn't for everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Making fun of someone else's choice, well, just isn't nice.
Paul S
We just recently had a thread talking about TT's and how the owner of the TT described his car as being "cute." I think it was an inside joke... He wasn't trying to be rude.
I must admit though... The TT is for women! J/K
09-29-2002, 09:08 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Daytona
According to my friend (owns a silverstone S2000), they change paint every year, so while they may always have silver, it's a different shade or type of silver every year. So each particular color has only one year of production. And according to Honda.com, they still have the yellow version available.
According to my friend (owns a silverstone S2000), they change paint every year, so while they may always have silver, it's a different shade or type of silver every year. So each particular color has only one year of production. And according to Honda.com, they still have the yellow version available.
09-29-2002, 10:10 PM
#24
Registered User
Here's a quick comparison from a 350Z owner who's driven a friend's S2000 on some well known mountain roads. Keep in mind that I do not have any track experience and therefore was probably driving both cars at 8/10.
I found the S2000 to be more skittish than the Z, especially when switching between brakes and throttle. I when braking, the front would turn in steadily, but as I applied the throttle, the car seemed to shift towards slight understeer (parhaps because I was not ready to drive a friends car above 7K RPM). This skittishness was slightly unsettling at first, but after I got used to it it made the car feel a little more responsive and communicative.
I think I am driving the Z at about the same speeds as I was driving the S2000, and it feels quite a bit smoother through the corners and the transition between brake and throttle. At the same time, the extra weight is apparent but so is extra solidity. Plus, the engine is so sweet, and I haven't even passed the break in period yet. The Z is also much quieter and roomier, and therfore perhaps, a better daily driver, although the road noise is very apparent. I love both cars, and if I liked the convertable as much as you, I would probably own an S2000 instead of the Z (well, the decision would have been more difficult at least). Like S2KRob, I am a huge Nissan fan, so the Z was a no brainer for me. The S2000 is awesome too though, and (at least until next year) I can't think of any other convertible with more sports car value.
-D'oh!
I found the S2000 to be more skittish than the Z, especially when switching between brakes and throttle. I when braking, the front would turn in steadily, but as I applied the throttle, the car seemed to shift towards slight understeer (parhaps because I was not ready to drive a friends car above 7K RPM). This skittishness was slightly unsettling at first, but after I got used to it it made the car feel a little more responsive and communicative.
I think I am driving the Z at about the same speeds as I was driving the S2000, and it feels quite a bit smoother through the corners and the transition between brake and throttle. At the same time, the extra weight is apparent but so is extra solidity. Plus, the engine is so sweet, and I haven't even passed the break in period yet. The Z is also much quieter and roomier, and therfore perhaps, a better daily driver, although the road noise is very apparent. I love both cars, and if I liked the convertable as much as you, I would probably own an S2000 instead of the Z (well, the decision would have been more difficult at least). Like S2KRob, I am a huge Nissan fan, so the Z was a no brainer for me. The S2000 is awesome too though, and (at least until next year) I can't think of any other convertible with more sports car value.
-D'oh!
09-29-2002, 10:49 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by D'oh
. The Z is also much quieter and roomier, and therfore perhaps, a better daily driver, although the road noise is very apparent. I love both cars, and if I liked the convertable as much as you, I would probably own an S2000 instead of the Z (well, the decision would have been more difficult at least). Like S2KRob, I am a huge Nissan fan, so the Z was a no brainer for me. The S2000 is awesome too though, and (at least until next year) I can't think of any other convertible with more sports car value.
-D'oh!
. The Z is also much quieter and roomier, and therfore perhaps, a better daily driver, although the road noise is very apparent. I love both cars, and if I liked the convertable as much as you, I would probably own an S2000 instead of the Z (well, the decision would have been more difficult at least). Like S2KRob, I am a huge Nissan fan, so the Z was a no brainer for me. The S2000 is awesome too though, and (at least until next year) I can't think of any other convertible with more sports car value.
-D'oh!
My 2 cents. Saw 2 Zs this week. First time. None up close though. First impression: Overall nice. Front good. Back bad. Tail lights bother me. Undecided about the door handles though. Then again. I hated the TT when it came out. But grew to love it.
Nice looking specs on the Z. Would like to see one up close one of these days. Not going to trade the Audi though. Have to say it will be my last Audi. Audi service sucks more than u can imagine.
Nothing compares to Honda service. Never had a Nissan though. Wife had a Maxima. Had good luck with it. No problems. Great car. But Audi is a disappointment (service related, not car).
Be curious to see how the Z does in autocross. I autocross my Honda (92 Accord). Would like to upgrade sometime. Was going to get a S2k. But the Z is a contender now.
http://home.attbi.com/~phantomracer/...c_2002_046.jpg
http://home.attbi.com/~phantomracer/
Paul
09-30-2002, 12:57 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had 2 TTs, a '00 180 FWD and then a '01 225 Quattro, both coupes. Lovely cars but lots of problems (faulty diverter valves, grinding FWD tranny, annoying rattles and creaks...) and BAD service.
Then got a '01 S2000. No problems and great service, open on Saturdays too! Got a house though so had to sell
Currently driving a '02 RSX-S. Anyway, rented a Z for a day to check it out and fell in love! Great engine, design, driving appeal! A lot of car for the money! As soon as I can I'll try to own one! The only thing I would miss from the S2000 would be the tighter suspension but the 3.5 V6 will make me forget that!
Best part of all these cars is the fact that we enjoy a renaissance of sports automobiles!
Then got a '01 S2000. No problems and great service, open on Saturdays too! Got a house though so had to sell
Currently driving a '02 RSX-S. Anyway, rented a Z for a day to check it out and fell in love! Great engine, design, driving appeal! A lot of car for the money! As soon as I can I'll try to own one! The only thing I would miss from the S2000 would be the tighter suspension but the 3.5 V6 will make me forget that!
Best part of all these cars is the fact that we enjoy a renaissance of sports automobiles!
09-30-2002, 08:02 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think that if you're really want a convertible, the stook is definitely the way to go. At 3200lbs the 350z coupe is pretty heavy to begin with (the car's only real liability IMO). The convertible will be about 3400-3500lbs which is definitely WAY too heavy to feel nimble and sporty. That's fine if you want a crusier like a Lexus SC430, but it's not really a sports car.
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
09-30-2002, 08:43 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had my heart set on the S2000. I had checked it out for months, test driven it, monitored the community. I still think it's an amazing car with a great online community and good aftermarket products. I'm also 6'4" and although it was a tight fit as soon as you start operating the controls it was fine. Maybe I'm to used to squeezing into formula cars on the weekends though, shoeboxes have more room sometimes.
The main factors for me deciding to get the 350Z are 1) price. I would have gotten the hard top for the S2000 because of weather here, and the track option for the 350Z is still $10,000CDN cheaper then an S with hardtop. 2) potential. The S2000 is an amazingly fun and spectacular car, but is tunned so well from the factory that you would have to spend lots of dough for little gain. I love the aftermarket and see more potential in the 350Z package. 3) Honda dealers. B.C. car dealers are the worst in Canada and probably all of NA. On most indexes B.C.'s new car dealers rate lower then other provinces used car lots. So when a Honda dealers get a car that is $20,000CDN more expensive then anything else in the show room they tend to power trip a little too much for my liking. 4) color. It's bad enough that Honda doesn't offer NA dealers the same colors as the Japanese or European models but to shaft Canada into only 4 colors for the S, WTF! The two colors I would have liked are yellow and white, nither of which are available in Canada but are in the US. Those cars probably land in our ports before they are trainned or trucked to the various dealers in the US, so why don't they let us have the same ones.
So when the 350 came along I didn't much care for the styling or size but could pass up the price/performance prediction. Whe the actual numbers came out I was impressed and began looking more and more into the car and as soon as I got to see the car in person I put my order in. I've grown fond of the car now and can't wait for mine to come in. Props to the S drivers, great car but I can't wait to get my 350Z!
The main factors for me deciding to get the 350Z are 1) price. I would have gotten the hard top for the S2000 because of weather here, and the track option for the 350Z is still $10,000CDN cheaper then an S with hardtop. 2) potential. The S2000 is an amazingly fun and spectacular car, but is tunned so well from the factory that you would have to spend lots of dough for little gain. I love the aftermarket and see more potential in the 350Z package. 3) Honda dealers. B.C. car dealers are the worst in Canada and probably all of NA. On most indexes B.C.'s new car dealers rate lower then other provinces used car lots. So when a Honda dealers get a car that is $20,000CDN more expensive then anything else in the show room they tend to power trip a little too much for my liking. 4) color. It's bad enough that Honda doesn't offer NA dealers the same colors as the Japanese or European models but to shaft Canada into only 4 colors for the S, WTF! The two colors I would have liked are yellow and white, nither of which are available in Canada but are in the US. Those cars probably land in our ports before they are trainned or trucked to the various dealers in the US, so why don't they let us have the same ones.
So when the 350 came along I didn't much care for the styling or size but could pass up the price/performance prediction. Whe the actual numbers came out I was impressed and began looking more and more into the car and as soon as I got to see the car in person I put my order in. I've grown fond of the car now and can't wait for mine to come in. Props to the S drivers, great car but I can't wait to get my 350Z!
09-30-2002, 09:45 AM
#30
Charter Member #13
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by m477
Personally, I think that if you're really want a convertible, the stook is definitely the way to go. At 3200lbs the 350z coupe is pretty heavy to begin with (the car's only real liability IMO). The convertible will be about 3400-3500lbs which is definitely WAY too heavy to feel nimble and sporty. That's fine if you want a crusier like a Lexus SC430, but it's not really a sports car.
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
Personally, I think that if you're really want a convertible, the stook is definitely the way to go. At 3200lbs the 350z coupe is pretty heavy to begin with (the car's only real liability IMO). The convertible will be about 3400-3500lbs which is definitely WAY too heavy to feel nimble and sporty. That's fine if you want a crusier like a Lexus SC430, but it's not really a sports car.
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
09-30-2002, 09:49 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ToddLuc
Are you just making this up or did you get this from somewhere?
Are you just making this up or did you get this from somewhere?
09-30-2002, 09:51 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by z350z
Look at the weight of cars by Ferrari, Lamborghini, and even some Porsches: are they not sports cars?
Look at the weight of cars by Ferrari, Lamborghini, and even some Porsches: are they not sports cars?
09-30-2002, 09:55 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by m477
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
As for the TT, the interior is really nice, but it's $40k+ for a rebaged VW Golf that weighs 3500lbs, has an outdated strut suspension, and is built in Turkey. Not a flame, just the truth.
Car drives great. Looks good. Fit and finish is flawless. High quality materials inside and out. There is no cleap details on the car.
Sure it is not cutting edge in performance. It is a bit chunky for a roadster 3100#/3400# (180 hp/225hp). 97% of the owners never take it to the track anyway. It can hold its own quite well on the street.
I can not think of a more perfect daily commuter car than the TT 225 quattro roadster. Sometimes you want to enjoy the ride. Not try to get somewhere as quickly as possible.
For the few days a year a driver will take it to Lime Rock, or wherever, it is more than good enough. There are no public roads that you can push any car too 100% of it's potential anyways (legally or safely). If you have, say, 10 race events a year, there are still 355 days a year you won't be racing.
Not to mention the Quattro. Quattro is great. Love it. Never had a car before with it. Worth the extra $ and weight.
The only downside to owning it is that it is an Audi. Service practice and policies suck.
Not saying the TT is 'better' than a Z, S2k, etc. There is no such thing a 'Better' car. Better is what the owner decides is better. My wife would have purchased the TT even if it had a briggs and strattton pull start engine. (wish it were as reliable as a B+S engine). She just liked the looks of the car.
It is assembled in Gyor, Hungary by the way.
Paul S
09-30-2002, 10:17 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PhantomRacer
That is not quite the case. Calling it a Golf is like calling a Cadillac a Geo Metro. Not quite the same. Sure there are similarities since they are the same company, but that is where the similarities end. I thought the TT was based on the A3, but I could be wrong.
That is not quite the case. Calling it a Golf is like calling a Cadillac a Geo Metro. Not quite the same. Sure there are similarities since they are the same company, but that is where the similarities end. I thought the TT was based on the A3, but I could be wrong.
But then again, I don't really care. Why does it matter anyway? The Cadillac EXT is based on the Chevy Avalanche. Does that make the Caddy a piece of **** cuz it is based on a Chevy?
It is assembled in Gyor, Hungary by the way.
09-30-2002, 11:47 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ll throw in my $.02 that the S2000 is a great alternative. After 1 ½ year/nearly 18K miles of ownership, I love mine more than the day I got it. More than any other car that comes to mind, getting one is like building a relationship. It’s so different from most cars that I’d suspect very few people know how to get optimal performance from it in the beginning. Learn to take advantage of its nuances (6-9K rpm power hit, balanced handling attitude easily adjusted w/ the throttle, etc.), however, and it’s a wonderfully fun and fast sports car.
I have yellow, and love it…shy people need not apply. Silverstone is back for ’03, and this is the color I’d prob. pick if I were to buy another one.
W/o knowing much if anything about the Z convertible, I’m guessing the sporting experience will be significantly diminished vs. the coupe. More weight, more body flex, and I doubt the Track package will be offered in the conv.
Here’s how I would choose:
Best daily driver: 350Z coupe
Best weekend/after work play toy: S2000
Best daily driver if it has to be a conv.: 350Z conv.
I have yellow, and love it…shy people need not apply. Silverstone is back for ’03, and this is the color I’d prob. pick if I were to buy another one.
W/o knowing much if anything about the Z convertible, I’m guessing the sporting experience will be significantly diminished vs. the coupe. More weight, more body flex, and I doubt the Track package will be offered in the conv.
Here’s how I would choose:
Best daily driver: 350Z coupe
Best weekend/after work play toy: S2000
Best daily driver if it has to be a conv.: 350Z conv.
09-30-2002, 12:15 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't say I've driven a new S2000, but if they're anything like
my friend's (two years old?) you have to REALLY wind up the
tach to get any real torque. Now the Z, on the other hand,
gives you great torque across a very wide range -- you don't
have to sound like you're on a racing bike when you leave
everybody behind at a light (and the Z is much easier to launch without destroying your clutch!)
Just wish I had mine...
my friend's (two years old?) you have to REALLY wind up the
tach to get any real torque. Now the Z, on the other hand,
gives you great torque across a very wide range -- you don't
have to sound like you're on a racing bike when you leave
everybody behind at a light (and the Z is much easier to launch without destroying your clutch!)
Just wish I had mine...
10-02-2002, 03:02 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by john0213
the yellow version is still avalible!? i thought honda discontinue it? anyways, i'm happy if honda didn't close that colour cuz it's the best colour for the s2k in my opinion, and i'm already a bit angry on the 2000 model when stupid honda discontinued the silverstone. so hope honda does something smarter next time
the yellow version is still avalible!? i thought honda discontinue it? anyways, i'm happy if honda didn't close that colour cuz it's the best colour for the s2k in my opinion, and i'm already a bit angry on the 2000 model when stupid honda discontinued the silverstone. so hope honda does something smarter next time
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ars88
Zs & Gs For Sale
18
04-04-2016 07:52 AM