Just some thoughts I feel compelled to share:

Reading through some threads here about the NSX, and pre-'04 versus '04+ S2000's, it seems to me many of you have lost sight of what these cars are about. Honda engineers didn't design these cars to be raced around a track. Honda designed these cars to be fun to drive on the street. Being fast on a track is just a (welcome) byproduct.

Think the S2000's stock shocks suck? Think the S2000's peaky power band sucks? Think the S2000 should have been a lighter, fixed-roof coupe? Think the S2000 is twitchy at 10/10ths? I agree, if the point is to be fast.

Now, do you honestly think the Honda engineers didn't consider any of this? Do you really think they simply decided to skimp out on shocks -- one of the most important parts of any sports car -- to save a few dollars per unit? Do you think Honda decided to make the S2000 a convertible because it was cheaper, or faster? Do you really think they couldn't have made a more flexible engine with a wider power band for it?

Tossability at 8/10ths -- where the S2000 was intended to be driven -- usually means twitchiness at 10/10ths. Stability at 10/10ths usually comes at the price of tossability anywhere less. Honda obviously didn't think the sacrifice was worth it.

The S2000's handling dynamics are exactly how the Honda engineers wanted them.

It's not about lap times, horsepower, skidpad, or slalom numbers. It's about the driving experience -- the intangible, unrecordables.

That's why I own an S2000.

That's why the NSX is still a great car, even though there are faster cars for less money.

And that's why the '04+ S2000, in my opinion is watered-down despite being faster; it's watered down from the original goal not of being fast, but of being fun.

 

Wow, great post (Re: the S2000 parts at least; I've never driven an NSX)

People complain about the S's lack of torque, point to its decent (but not phenomenal) 1/4 and 0-60 times, and compare its specs to fixed-roof coupes, AWD sedans, etc....I've always had the feeling that they just don't "get it"

 

Put it this way, I'd rather have a fast car that's fun than a slow car that's fun.

 

I can understand that sentiment. I pretty much leave "fast" out of the equation. I'll go for the car with the better driving experience every time.

 

I've driven some fast cars like the 911 tt and C5 Z06, as well as M3 and 911 C4S. All signicantly faster than the S2000.

I don't have the seat time in those cars to be able to say for sure, you know the first 30 minutes with a car how much of a conclusion can you make?

But IMO from my limited seat time, the S2000 is as much fun to drive as those. Those cars with big power and big tires you don[t have to shift all the time to be in the correct gear. Also bigger tire contact means you can take a turn faster, so you don't get your kicks unless you are going faster than same turn in the S2000.

 

I sold my 01 M3 to buy my S. The M3 was a lot faster, but the S is a lot funner.

 

However straight line speed is fun. I drove the Z06 what a rush, the car seemed like it was going to take off.

 

Would I get bashed if I said I think my S2k would be more fun with more torque?

 

In this case the Miata is as fun as, if not more fun than the S2000.

Yet some people on this board think the Miata is "gay" or "girlie" or "won't event be caught dead in one"

 

^ No. I think if we are honest, we will all say more torque would be nice.

But I drove the car before I bought it, as I am sure 99% of us did and I made the decision to buy despite the fact it could use more torque.

I think nodisguise hit the nail right on the head. Any S owner could obviously afford a more powerful car (there are some relatively inexpensive ones out there) but they chose this one. Now, if they bought it for it's heart stopping 0-60 or 1/4 mile times they gotta have weak hearts.....

But... If you purchased your S2000 because you wanted to drop the top on a vehicle which you feel is one of the best looking roadsters available today, rev it up to 9k (ok, or 8K*) and listen to the little 4 sing and occasionally carve up a couple of twisties then you made a great choice.

I think it is unfortunate that so many buyers somehow thought they were buying a 1/4 mile monster or a low priced supercar. I also find it extremely ironic how many people knock it for it's lack of torque and yet drive cars that cannot keep up with it.

(* asterisk denotes shortened shift seasons beginning in '04)








jk with the asterisk by the way. I just can't help myself!