your time doesn't count because you can drive and its not fair for the s2k DUH .

 

he wants to start an e-muscle struggle like the one we have here...

 

But it is faster...

 

i can't say which is faster, but i know for a fact that the s2k is alot harder to get a good/perfect launch

 

uh.... can't you guys see that the OP could just be another noob troll that joined the forum and started a highly debatable topic? I bet he's a S2000 owner who already posted a link of this thread in some S2000 forum and they're laughing about it.

 

So what you're saying is the average of the S2k drivers were better than the Z drivers?

Makes sense.

 

Uhhh, I had borrowed the setup, but never installed it.

 

It does lack oomph. ****, a type-S with i/e/h/k-pro beats an S while it keeps up with a Z. Thus Z > S.

And the best time from an S was a 13.8 that day. The best time from a Z was also a 13.8 (excluding mine). Last time I checked, those were the same numbers.

I truly love the S, for its looks, handling, driveability, its high revs, but NOT its power.

I'm really tempted to challenge any NA S2000 to race me to see if they can beat me on the track.

 

wouldn't be a bad idea unless you miss a gear

 

So if someone had a turboed S that ran 13's you'd say it lacks oomph.

Thats just a feeling. Just because you don't FEEL the power doesn't mean it isn't there.

Of course a Z will feel like it is faster since its got a lot of low end torque but the fact is they are comparable cars.

I'm not so much at odds with what you are saying since you are saying it doesn't feel as powerful but for everyone who just in general wants to bash the S is retarded.

I have both and still love the Z but when I drove my Z recently it definately isn't as connected or race car like.

I think that the Z is a lot easier to get good numbers since even if you don't shift perfectly you always have low end torque where as the S you need to keep the revs up to stay in the peak of the powerband.

Either way they are both great cars for different types of people.

Hell I still flash my lights at Z's yet never get anything back

 

I guess you've never driven a turbo'd car. They don't lack the oomph. You feel the most in them due to the turbo power peak.

And yes, they are comparable. But the fact is, the Z is faster.

Just because the S2000 that had lots of mods got a 13.8 while the other less modded Z's didn't, it doesn't mean the S is faster than the Z. And he still lost to me.

So you still haven't proven to me that an S is faster than the Z. Show me.

 

ok...this is getting old.

first off, you don't FEEL horsepower. you feel torque. a car can be just as fast as another and might FEEL half as fast. this is the case with the s2000 vs. the Z.

as far as numbers are concerned, they are VERY comparable cars. even more so, neither car was made for straight line performance. if you want to argue 1/4 miles times, go buy a mustang.

0-60 / 1/4 mile
2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2
2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2 (MT Mar '04)
2006 Honda S2000 5.5 14.0 (C&D May '06)

03 Nissan 350z 5.4 14.1
2004 Nissan 350Z 5.3 13.77 (M.T. Mar '04)
2005 Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv Ed 6 Spd 5.8 14.3 (C&D Apr '05)

Nurburgring Track Times
8:26 --- 146.561 km/h -- Nissan 350Z, 280 PS/1526 kg (sport auto 10/03)
8:39 --- 142.890 km/h -- Honda S2000, 240 PS/1275 kg (sport auto 01/00)

from the numbers, the most you can say is the Z is BARELY faster in a straight line. it's negligible really. on a high speed track like the Nurburgring, the Z has more of an advantage. granted, i doubt one would disagree that the S has a significant advantage on a low-speed, tight course such as autocross

trying to say one is better than the other just doesn't make sense really. it's a matter of preference.

 

Thats what i have been trying to get people to understand the whole time. I kept saying that the S is just as fast and maybe faster sometimes. Yet everyone wants to just say that the Z is obviously faster. Fact is they are almost the same.

Like you said on a long track with lots of straightaways the Z has an advantage due to its better highend power but on a lowerspeed course or one with lots of turns the S will have the advantage.

Finally someone who got what I was trying to say.

I will say this the s2k guys are a lot more willing to listen to facts and admit the Z and S are almost dead even in most aspect unlike here sometimes

 

Uhh, no. You argued that the S was faster. You did not say that it was just as fast and "maybe faster sometimes."

 

Dude go with the Z. I have blown plenty s2000s on the street here in dallas. plus it looks better, safer, and women love the Z over that car. S2000 looks like some old fart trying to relive his younger days, car.

 

^^here we go again

 

Actually I did that.

 

highway speeds is about 60-80mph? well, since you say that it is just as fast up until to highway speeds, and these cars trap above 100mph, you are saying the Z will take the S in the end? so why don't you just say the Z is faster in the 1/4mile, and same in the 1/8mile?

 

I had to make the same difficult decision of S2K vs 350Z. The S2K is a technical car and tough to drive well. But in its powerband, it is an exhilarating ride. Imagine the top down on a twisty road with the S2K's light weight, crazy handling, slick shifter and its motor wailing. However a couple of reasons why I ultimately chose the Z are: her looks, because I don't really fancy convertibles, and because of the kinds of roads I would be driving on most of the time.

 

this is still goin huh? IMO u should get what u want not what others think you should get...

but u should've known 99% of everyone on here will say Z, i mean this is MY350Z.com right