Color me skeptical. If Honda hadn't cared at all about track performance, they would have put 10 pounds of sound insulation in to quell all those complaints about "not good for sustained highway driving".

The S2000 is the best performing roadster at its price point or size. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

I had my s2k for about a year & my M3 now for 1.5 years. Honestly, the s2k was more fun and felt more special.

 

Let's put it this way, I'd rather have a cute car than a box of ugly scrap metal. You are such a troll! S2000 is not slow by any means. It's not phenomenally fast by today's standards because of all the horsepower wars going on, but it's decently fast, with 0-60 in mid 5's and top speed of 150+. GTR, you're such a Nissan fanboi and a troll. All of your posts are nothing than garbages to bad-mouth other cars. Just go back to your Nissan forums and fantasize about that ugly box of scrap metal.

 

I agree with you that there's more to cars than numbers, but I'd have to disagree with you on the NSX statement. If I were to get a car for $90,000, I'd better get something that's MORE than just fun, and I can't see myself buying it because it is "twice" as fun as a Corvette, even if that statement is true. That's just too expensive. The CRX was a fun car, but I wouldn't pay $20,000 for one. Another example would be the Miata; it is a fun car to drive, but I will probably never buy one (I would rather get a base Z than a turboed mx-5, since they cost about the same).

I also would have to disagree that the s2k was not designed to be a track car. If the s2000 was designed to be a street car, Honda would've added more torque so you can feel it at low rpms. Most people on regular driving probably won't go anything over 4000 rpms. IMO, you'd have to have a huge (legal) place to drive the s2000 to appreciate its technology.

 

[quote name='Penforhire' date='Jan 28 2005, 10:13 AM']I find it hard to believe the early S2000's handling dynamic were exactly what the engineers wanted it to be.