Car&Driver mag: S2000 in “10 Best Cars”-list
Discussion
www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/Honda/1090586521/
Robert
buy another exhaust. And look ahead instead around in the cockpit . . . it's a drivers car.
Robert
buy another exhaust. And look ahead instead around in the cockpit . . . it's a drivers car.
Review said:
My God, is the S2000’s cockpit a nasty place to spend your time. I’m not against-- nor a stranger to-- cheap and cheerful car interiors. The S2000 is neither. Admission starts at $32k, and the cockpit is an ergonomic and aesthetic disaster zone.
The S2000’s cabin is small in every conceivable direction. Pop the top and you trade one problem for another; the catches that secured the roof to the windscreen rattle incessantly, just inches behind your head. Of course, that’s after you press the starter button. A starter button? On a four-cylinder engine? If only the rest of the controls lived up to the supercar pretensions. Suffice it to say, the S2000’s rotary HVAC dials and cheap plastic switchgear wouldn’t seem out of place in a ’78 Toyota Corolla.
Some points, my latches don't rattle, and I have plenty of room despite being 6"2, but then I'm not a fat bastard either. It's a sportscar, what do you expect? Has this guy ever been in an Elise?
Cheap switchgear? Matter of opinion but WGAF anyway? It does the job and is solid enough not to snap off in your hand.
Review said:
The sound system is particularly lame. Buyers intent on stunting and flossing, or determined to listen to a CD at highway speeds, will note that the S2000’s four-speaker ICE has all the fidelity and bass response of a shower radio. Sensibly enough, Honda decided to hide the head unit behind a piece of metal effect plastic (a substance about as convincing as wood-grained polymer). Why they decided to mount a duplicate set of audio controls on the dash is anybody’s guess-- unless it was an insidious plot to thwart audio retrofitters.
I'd agree here, the stereo isn't great but I didn't buy my car for listening to music. I can do that at home. They mounted a duplicate set of audio controls so that one can operate the stereo while the door is closed, and without removing one's hands from the wheel. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this concept, it's perfectly logical.
Review said:
, we’re not talking about a nitrous-injection power boost. The additional hearing damage yields roughly 10% more go. So why bother? Shift at five and change and you’re straight back into the meat of the powerband. Excluding a reverse gear that likes to play hide-and-seek, the S2000’s six-speed gearbox offers nothing but quick slick shifts.
I can't comment on the USDM 2.2l engine, but on the original engine changing up at 9,000rpm is well worth it. I like the noise too, noise is good. It means Honda have been stingy with the heavy soundproofing. I've never had any problems finding reverse either, this is just plain confusing
An interesting review that offers more insight into the reviewers ignorance than the car, congratulations Robert, you missed the point.
The S2000 is a deeply puzzling car. When it was launched I figured that here was a car that could have been built for motoring journalists. Sideways everywhere with a ridiculous engine note, perfect gearchange, monster brakes etc etc but it ended up getting a real slagging.
The later models feel a bit less special than the early cars but an S2000 is still a lot of fun. It's deeply flawed though, as anyone who has ever tried to drive one up a hill will attest. If I had to nominate a modern car that I'd least like to drive around a damp Nurburgring, an early S2000 would probably take the biscuit.
Duff stuff: The stereo flap that jabs you in the MCL, the starter button, the burning hot gearknob on early cars, the world's weediest horn, the tinny clang of the bootlid, the weird centre of gravity.
Top Ten car? No way.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Monday 2nd August 17:30
The later models feel a bit less special than the early cars but an S2000 is still a lot of fun. It's deeply flawed though, as anyone who has ever tried to drive one up a hill will attest. If I had to nominate a modern car that I'd least like to drive around a damp Nurburgring, an early S2000 would probably take the biscuit.
Duff stuff: The stereo flap that jabs you in the MCL, the starter button, the burning hot gearknob on early cars, the world's weediest horn, the tinny clang of the bootlid, the weird centre of gravity.
Top Ten car? No way.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Monday 2nd August 17:30
bad_roo said:
It's deeply flawed though, as anyone who has ever tried to drive one up a hill will attest. If I had to nominate a modern car that I'd least like to drive around a damp Nurburgring, an early S2000 would probably take the biscuit.
Utter rubbish, the problem is people try and drive the car the same as they drive other cars,
it's not like other cars you have to actually use the gears..... It can be a handful in the wet, but this is easily solved by changing the tyres, which are maximised for dry grip. Try driving a TVR hard in the wet. bad_roo said:
Duff stuff: The stereo flap that jabs you in the MCL, the starter button, the burning hot gearknob on early cars, the world's weediest horn, the tinny clang of the bootlid, the weird centre of gravity.
The boot is made of aluminium to save weight, hence it's 'tinny clang'. The stereo flap stays closed, the starter button
I like it, weedy horn WGAF?, weird centre of gravity sorry you lost me. It's not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but when people start spouting nonsense it gets on my t*ts.
It may not have the aural pleasure of a TVR but its bags more fun, and that gearchange 
Neil_H said:
Utter rubbish, the problem is people try and drive the car the same as they drive other cars,
A few points:
a). Why should you have to change the tyres to get decent wet grip? We live in Britain FFS.
b). Yes the gearchange is a lot of fun but no amount of stirring the stick is going to overcome the S2000's pathetic torque. You do adapt your driving style to it but with a better engine you just plain wouldn't have to.
c). Swaps ends - WGAF? Lousy interior - WGAF? No guts - WGAF? Well, me actually. And whoever is interested in compiling a credible list of Top 10 cars.
d). You don't sound particularly rational so I'm not going to bother arguing any further.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Monday 2nd August 20:22
Profile Bad Roo says: Member For: 1 months
He'll learn . . . different strokes for different blokes (is there a female version?)
Why is it that S2000s and CTRs give so much fuss everytime? And Yes, I think a driver adapts driving style to the car he / she's driving. Thats the way to get the max out of it! The metal does not adept to you. Maybe in the future. Only the chairs and mirrors in some luxury cars do . . .
Driving a Renault Kangoo for 2 more weeks . . . So I know what it's like to adapt.
The 2.2 is US only. Due to US emmission-regs? Well, maybe we get the bigger S2000 (S2200) lump over here soon then?
He'll learn . . . different strokes for different blokes (is there a female version?)
Why is it that S2000s and CTRs give so much fuss everytime? And Yes, I think a driver adapts driving style to the car he / she's driving. Thats the way to get the max out of it! The metal does not adept to you. Maybe in the future. Only the chairs and mirrors in some luxury cars do . . .
Driving a Renault Kangoo for 2 more weeks . . . So I know what it's like to adapt.
The 2.2 is US only. Due to US emmission-regs? Well, maybe we get the bigger S2000 (S2200) lump over here soon then?
As regards adaptation, we're talking about matters of degrees here. Of course you need to adapt your driving style to the car in question, but at some point adapting to a 'quirk' or a 'characteristic' transcends a boundary and becomes an unsatisfying work around. Better drivers than me may derive some sort of enjoyment from mastering these quirks, but I'm never going to have Walter Rohrl's car control skills so I'd rather have something that worked with me. Just my .02c
bad_roo said:
A few points:
a). Why should you have to change the tyres to get decent wet grip? We live in Britain FFS.
b). Yes the gearchange is a lot of fun but no amount of stirring the stick is going to overcome the S2000's pathetic torque. You do adapt your driving style to it but with a better engine you just plain wouldn't have to.
c). Swaps ends - WGAF? Lousy interior - WGAF? No guts - WGAF? Well, me actually. And whoever is interested in compiling a credible list of Top 10 cars.
d). You don't sound particularly rational so I'm not going to bother arguing any further.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Monday 2nd August 20:22
a) Well you don't have to, if you saw the Top Gear group test with the S2000, Z4 and Boxster the Stig managed a wet lap in the S and was only marginally (tenths of a second IIRC) slower than the other 2 cars, despite having no driver aids. If you drive like a spanner in the wet you will come unstuck in any RWD car. The S is just slightly less forgiving than most.
b) We'll have to disagree here, I don't find the lack of torque an issue in a car with 9,000 revs and 6 gears.
c) I only said I don't care about the weedy horn, and I genuinely like the interior. Mine is red
d) No offence intended. Yesterday was a bad day.
Chrissy has the right idea!
bad_roo said:
A few points:
a). Why should you have to change the tyres to get decent wet grip? We live in Britain FFS.
b). Yes the gearchange is a lot of fun but no amount of stirring the stick is going to overcome the S2000's pathetic torque. You do adapt your driving style to it but with a better engine you just plain wouldn't have to.
c). Swaps ends - WGAF? Lousy interior - WGAF? No guts - WGAF? Well, me actually. And whoever is interested in compiling a credible list of Top 10 cars.
d). You don't sound particularly rational so I'm not going to bother arguing any further.
a) Because the OEM tyres are optimised for dry, warm weather grip and are very good at it, but in the colder, wetter months a different compound and tread pattern are better. And the S2000 is certainly not undriveable in the wet and cold, I use the OEM tyres all year round, but for even better grip for those who are a bit unsure of the car as it has no electronic gizmos for getting you out of trouble, there is an alternative.
b) Now you're talking out of your chuff, what you mean by a better engine is one with more torque, that's not necessarily better, just easier for you to drive. And stick stirring is precisely what overcomes the S2000s pathetic torque, the gearing and light flywheel mean that the car still delivers excellent accelleration so long as you know how to drive it.
c) Swaps ends - doesn't unless you do something stupid when driving a car with 240bhp and no driver aids. losy interior - not IMO, I've seen better but I have seen a lot worse (the last MR2 I looked in looked pretty lousy to me.....but that's just my opinion
). No guts - see above. d) No comment.
>> Edited by Mark Benson on Tuesday 3rd August 12:22
What does "swap ends" mean?
I thought it was an alright car. Not comparable to a TVR really though but certainly one of the best in its market place.
Id have one.
Arent the standard tyres S02's?
They are Ok(ish) in the wet. If 350lb-ft torque and 1060KGs says they are Ok then surely they cant be so bad on the S2000.
Anyway, who wants to go hacking around in the wet, its not worth the hassle. (unless on a track, then you dont get much choice other than to lose your money for the trackday).
>> Edited by DustyC on Thursday 26th August 21:39
I thought it was an alright car. Not comparable to a TVR really though but certainly one of the best in its market place.
Id have one.
Arent the standard tyres S02's?
They are Ok(ish) in the wet. If 350lb-ft torque and 1060KGs says they are Ok then surely they cant be so bad on the S2000.
Anyway, who wants to go hacking around in the wet, its not worth the hassle. (unless on a track, then you dont get much choice other than to lose your money for the trackday).
>> Edited by DustyC on Thursday 26th August 21:39
Gazboy said:
Car was about before Y2k
Vtec was used in the prelude in the 80's, the bike didn't get it till 2000 iirc. Surely this is the point of vtec?
Correct was introduced in 1999 as it was Hondas 50th Anniversary present to itself
The other point your incorrect on. VTEC was first introduced in the EF Civic and CRX SiR in 1989. Then later in 89 made it to the DA integra, then 91 made it to NSX then later in 91 Prelude then 92-93ish Accord. Right concept anyway.
I never understood the complaints about the lack of torque. Like has been said many times its got 9000rpm and 6 gears, use them.
Sure its not a TVR but its alot cheaper and IMO a better daily driver
Mark Benson said:
A few points:
b). Yes the gearchange is a lot of fun but no amount of stirring the stick is going to overcome the S2000's pathetic torque. You do adapt your driving style to it but with a better engine you just plain wouldn't have to.
b) Now you're talking out of your chuff, what you mean by a better engine is one with more torque, that's not necessarily better, just easier for you to drive. And stick stirring is precisely what overcomes the S2000s pathetic torque, the gearing and light flywheel mean that the car still delivers excellent accelleration so long as you know how to drive it.
>> Edited by Mark Benson on Tuesday 3rd August 12:22
OK. Just how little torque would it take before you admitted defeat or would you continue to blather blindly? A fundamental lack of torque is a glaring issue, no matter how much power you have. Try accelerating an S2000 up Kesselchen at the 'Ring and watch a Bora TDI150 pull away from it. All your stick stirring isn't going to change the fact that an S2000 generates less torque than a Hyundai Elantra CRTD.
Yes, an engine with plenty of torque is easier to drive, but a better blend of torque and power would make the S2000 a better car.
Ask Steve Sutcliffe about the S2000's handling. I'm sure he knows a bit more than you do.
Mark Benson said:
( . . . )
b). Yes the gearchange is a lot of fun but no amount of stirring the stick is going to overcome the S2000's pathetic torque. You do adapt your driving style to it but with a better engine you just plain wouldn't have to.
( . . . )
( . . . )
b) Now you're talking out of your chuff, what you mean by a better engine is one with more torque, that's not necessarily better, just easier for you to drive. ( . . . )
Gazboy said:
They are Ok(ish) in the wet. If 340BHP and 1060KGs says they are Ok then surely they cant be so bad on the S2000.
Whose got 340bhp in 1060kg's? That, is the question.
( . . . )
Dusties Griff!!!
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff