V8 Powered S2000
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Oh certainly. The S2000 was a bargain @ $34,000. If you're willing to live with a noisy bare bones car. The SLK55 was/is overpriced like any Mercedes and especially their AMG variants. The Merc has a lot more stuff and is a lot faster but not 2X more stuff and certainly not 2X faster. I think the SLK55 would have to come in around $50,000 to justify all the extras it does have. The other $20,000 is German labor rates and profit margin.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Not sure if you own an older SLK AMG or the new one so my post would change depending which you own.
Everyones has a different opinion about looks. The Crossfire is a hideous car and you owned that as well as owning an SLK now. So your opinion on looks are different than most since a lot of us can agree they're both ugly cars. But that aside, I like how Mercedes took a small roadster and slapped a big engine in it, which nobody did or does other than the old Cobras. The new SLK AMG is a great looking car though. If I did have the choice between a V8 s2000 or an SLK AMG it would be an LSx s2000 for sure. For the price of a used SLK AMG you can buy an S2000 and swap in an LS series engine or even turbo the F20 and could heavily modify both and still cost less than a used SLK AMG.
Everyones has a different opinion about looks. The Crossfire is a hideous car and you owned that as well as owning an SLK now. So your opinion on looks are different than most since a lot of us can agree they're both ugly cars. But that aside, I like how Mercedes took a small roadster and slapped a big engine in it, which nobody did or does other than the old Cobras. The new SLK AMG is a great looking car though. If I did have the choice between a V8 s2000 or an SLK AMG it would be an LSx s2000 for sure. For the price of a used SLK AMG you can buy an S2000 and swap in an LS series engine or even turbo the F20 and could heavily modify both and still cost less than a used SLK AMG.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1367645752' post='22518694
Can't agree with you, at all.
Much lower redline
Way more weight
Folding hard top instead of rag top
Way uglier (subjective)
No manual transmission (granted, you already pointed that out, but it's critical)\
Actual body proportions are quite different - the nose is shorter and the "classic roadster" look isn't there
The essence of the S2000 attraction is agility, light weight and lots of revs. The SLK has none of those things. It's merely a two-seater convertible and that's about all that's similar aside from some dimensions. A Z4M has more in common with the S2000 in that it at least has the long nose and shorter back end along with a high-revving engine and "only" 400 lbs heavier instead of 550, while being offered with a manual transmission.
Much lower redline
Way more weight
Folding hard top instead of rag top
Way uglier (subjective)
No manual transmission (granted, you already pointed that out, but it's critical)\
Actual body proportions are quite different - the nose is shorter and the "classic roadster" look isn't there
The essence of the S2000 attraction is agility, light weight and lots of revs. The SLK has none of those things. It's merely a two-seater convertible and that's about all that's similar aside from some dimensions. A Z4M has more in common with the S2000 in that it at least has the long nose and shorter back end along with a high-revving engine and "only" 400 lbs heavier instead of 550, while being offered with a manual transmission.
Not way more weight if Honda had stuffed in a V8 2 1/2 times the size of the 2.2L in an AP2.
The folding hardtop has caused me to question just how whiz bang the S2000 chassis design really was. Mercedes stuffed a 5.5L V8, a folding hardtop, and countless more luxury and convenience features along with some sound insulation into a chassis about the same size as the S2000 and only gained 556 lbs. I guess I would have expected more weight gain based on the brand and all the stuff. So in retrospect, honda didn't really push the envelope of lightness with the S2000 any more than.....Mercedes?????
Well beauty is subjective but.....Ya gotta be kidding me. At least for me the S2000 was never a beauty as far as looks go. Like all Honda products, it was conservative, inoffensive, even bland. But that did allow it to wear very well over a 10 year production run. Simple is good. The SLK (my year) had the nose grafted from the SLR McClaren which I love, a much broader spectrum of paint colors, much nicer wheels (16 spoke), quad exhaust, six piston calipers on display gripping drilled and slotted rotors and an overall more muscular appearance. For me it also looks way better with the top up than the S2000. But there is no winning an argument about looks. To each their own on that score.
No getting around the 7G-Tronic but don't knock it until you've tried the AMG massaged version with its full manual mode. However I will grant you the Aisin box in the S2000 is the best I've ever experienced, bar none. I don't think it can get better than that. On a side note, I'm finding it really hard to get used to steering wheel paddles after a lifetime of driving sticks. I keep reach for the shift lever which is OK on this car because you car shift either way. Tap tap the levers or slap the stick left / right.
Z4M? Now you're talking ugly. Yeah the SLK55 doesn't exactly have the penis proportions of the S2000, Z4, or Vette. But look closely and your ass is still riding nearly on top of the rear axle and the hood is long (but not so low). There's only so much deviation you can accomplish with any RWD roadster.
Again my point is not that the SLK55 is an S2000 but what the S2000 might have been with a factory V8. Not that Honda would ever put a V8 in anything.
The LSx engines don't weight that much more than the F20/F22C. The redline of a high-revving V8 is readily set up for 8K+ rpm, as Porsche and Ferrari are doing similar ranges with their F6 and V8 engines. The SLK redline just isn't close to the INTENT of the S2000 engine, namely, higher revs and moderate torque forcing you to rev the car hard to run it well. It's a big engine that makes a lot of torque rather than a ton of power by revving high.
Ultimately, they're two convertibles with semi-similar dimensions (like most other convertibles, quite frankly). As I said, the SLK doesn't REMOTELY follow the main aspects of the S2000 - agility, light weight, responsiveness and that high-strung engine.
Would the S2000 be heavier with a V8? Sure. 556 lbs heavier? Not a chance! And you are saying that Honda didn't push the envelope with the weight on the S2000? The AP1 weighs barely more than the FR-S but is a convertible with all other things being equal (engine size, RWD, etc, etc). That's extremely light. It's also lighter than the Porsche Boxster and is only surpassed by the Miata and Elise for lightness in a sports car convertible. Yeah, they really didn't push the envelope.
The SLK is 20% HEAVIER than an S2000 and weighs more than a modern Honda Accord EX-L sedan (3365 lbs). It isn't pushing any boundaries of lightness, that's for sure...Bottom line - I think you're stuck on the basic similarities between most convertibles and completely ignoring the principles that define the S2000 (which I listed twice for you). The S2000 is all classic roadster. The SLK is a GT car with a folding top and lots of power. Completely different types of cars, in terms of intent and execution.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
I've owned both an AP2V3 and now the SLK55. The S2000 is a great car. The SLK55 is a better car for the real world. It should damn well be at twice the price. Most people will never see a track. Most of those who do will spend less than 1% of their time behind the wheel on a track. Owning a car because it is "great on a track" when you will seldom if ever will see a track doesn't really seem rational to me. It's the same reason I passed on a Lotus Exige. Not a real world car. At least not the world I live in. With the SLK55, Mercedes has created a real world sports car for people who must suffer dismal traffic but still occasionally get to enjoy a nice road.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 2
From: FV CA
Sittin in mah S2kay forum listening to a guy who likes the Crossfire and now the girliest Mercedes of all time with a big-balls AMG motor in it tell me how his vehicle choices are similar to S2000s.
Unexpected/10. Great thread. Would read again. Please continue.
Unexpected/10. Great thread. Would read again. Please continue.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Tinted windows stop the lights of cars behind you for 200$. A 200$ stereo/deck will allow you to plug your iPod have satellite radio AND bluetooth to make calls wirelessly through your deck and if you want nav you can buy a navigation system which will do all those things + navigate. It needs 6 piston brakes because it weighs so much more. Want to enjoy a nice summer day? No problem, press the a button and the roof folds away. What's so difficult about pulling a lever to adjust the steering wheel and seat? Once it's adjusted you're done anyway. Racing a C6 Vette can't be used as an argument because it's 3-4 times more expensive than a stock s2000 which you can put money that you saved into to not only stay with Vettes, but destroy them if you so choose.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SpudRacer' timestamp='1367673652' post='22518993
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1367645752' post='22518694']
Can't agree with you, at all.
Much lower redline
Way more weight
Folding hard top instead of rag top
Way uglier (subjective)
No manual transmission (granted, you already pointed that out, but it's critical)\
Actual body proportions are quite different - the nose is shorter and the "classic roadster" look isn't there
The essence of the S2000 attraction is agility, light weight and lots of revs. The SLK has none of those things. It's merely a two-seater convertible and that's about all that's similar aside from some dimensions. A Z4M has more in common with the S2000 in that it at least has the long nose and shorter back end along with a high-revving engine and "only" 400 lbs heavier instead of 550, while being offered with a manual transmission.
Can't agree with you, at all.
Much lower redline
Way more weight
Folding hard top instead of rag top
Way uglier (subjective)
No manual transmission (granted, you already pointed that out, but it's critical)\
Actual body proportions are quite different - the nose is shorter and the "classic roadster" look isn't there
The essence of the S2000 attraction is agility, light weight and lots of revs. The SLK has none of those things. It's merely a two-seater convertible and that's about all that's similar aside from some dimensions. A Z4M has more in common with the S2000 in that it at least has the long nose and shorter back end along with a high-revving engine and "only" 400 lbs heavier instead of 550, while being offered with a manual transmission.
Not way more weight if Honda had stuffed in a V8 2 1/2 times the size of the 2.2L in an AP2.
The folding hardtop has caused me to question just how whiz bang the S2000 chassis design really was. Mercedes stuffed a 5.5L V8, a folding hardtop, and countless more luxury and convenience features along with some sound insulation into a chassis about the same size as the S2000 and only gained 556 lbs. I guess I would have expected more weight gain based on the brand and all the stuff. So in retrospect, honda didn't really push the envelope of lightness with the S2000 any more than.....Mercedes?????
Well beauty is subjective but.....Ya gotta be kidding me. At least for me the S2000 was never a beauty as far as looks go. Like all Honda products, it was conservative, inoffensive, even bland. But that did allow it to wear very well over a 10 year production run. Simple is good. The SLK (my year) had the nose grafted from the SLR McClaren which I love, a much broader spectrum of paint colors, much nicer wheels (16 spoke), quad exhaust, six piston calipers on display gripping drilled and slotted rotors and an overall more muscular appearance. For me it also looks way better with the top up than the S2000. But there is no winning an argument about looks. To each their own on that score.
No getting around the 7G-Tronic but don't knock it until you've tried the AMG massaged version with its full manual mode. However I will grant you the Aisin box in the S2000 is the best I've ever experienced, bar none. I don't think it can get better than that. On a side note, I'm finding it really hard to get used to steering wheel paddles after a lifetime of driving sticks. I keep reach for the shift lever which is OK on this car because you car shift either way. Tap tap the levers or slap the stick left / right.
Z4M? Now you're talking ugly. Yeah the SLK55 doesn't exactly have the penis proportions of the S2000, Z4, or Vette. But look closely and your ass is still riding nearly on top of the rear axle and the hood is long (but not so low). There's only so much deviation you can accomplish with any RWD roadster.
Again my point is not that the SLK55 is an S2000 but what the S2000 might have been with a factory V8. Not that Honda would ever put a V8 in anything.
The LSx engines don't weight that much more than the F20/F22C. The redline of a high-revving V8 is readily set up for 8K+ rpm, as Porsche and Ferrari are doing similar ranges with their F6 and V8 engines. The SLK redline just isn't close to the INTENT of the S2000 engine, namely, higher revs and moderate torque forcing you to rev the car hard to run it well. It's a big engine that makes a lot of torque rather than a ton of power by revving high.
Ultimately, they're two convertibles with semi-similar dimensions (like most other convertibles, quite frankly). As I said, the SLK doesn't REMOTELY follow the main aspects of the S2000 - agility, light weight, responsiveness and that high-strung engine.
Would the S2000 be heavier with a V8? Sure. 556 lbs heavier? Not a chance! And you are saying that Honda didn't push the envelope with the weight on the S2000? The AP1 weighs barely more than the FR-S but is a convertible with all other things being equal (engine size, RWD, etc, etc). That's extremely light. It's also lighter than the Porsche Boxster and is only surpassed by the Miata and Elise for lightness in a sports car convertible. Yeah, they really didn't push the envelope.
The SLK is 20% HEAVIER than an S2000 and weighs more than a modern Honda Accord EX-L sedan (3365 lbs). It isn't pushing any boundaries of lightness, that's for sure...Bottom line - I think you're stuck on the basic similarities between most convertibles and completely ignoring the principles that define the S2000 (which I listed twice for you). The S2000 is all classic roadster. The SLK is a GT car with a folding top and lots of power. Completely different types of cars, in terms of intent and execution.
[/quote]
It's not just a matter of adding a V8 engine. When you add the V8, as Colin Chapman would point out, everything else increases too. Tires, wheels, brakes, springs, driveshaft, differential, fuel tank, exhaust. Then factor in all the techno wizardry that Mercedes added to the SLK55 that could be deleted to take out weight. Mercedes also threw in a heavier automatic transmission. And finally factor in a folding hard top. All of that stuff adds up to only 556 lbs more than an S2000 (AP2V3). Or yeah, about a 19.5% weight increase. I'd say your Honda fanboi is showing. I see nothing particularly impressive about the weight that Honda achieved.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Tinted windows stop the lights of cars behind you for 200$. A 200$ stereo/deck will allow you to plug your iPod have satellite radio AND bluetooth to make calls wirelessly through your deck and if you want nav you can buy a navigation system which will do all those things + navigate. It needs 6 piston brakes because it weighs so much more. Want to enjoy a nice summer day? No problem, press the a button and the roof folds away. What's so difficult about pulling a lever to adjust the steering wheel and seat? Once it's adjusted you're done anyway. Racing a C6 Vette can't be used as an argument because it's 3-4 times more expensive than a stock s2000 which you can put money that you saved into to not only stay with Vettes, but destroy them if you so choose.