Some Thoughts about the S2K and Value
I have now had my S2000 for almost three weeks and have put about 900 miles on it. I am not an impulse buyer, but I am a gearhead and have been for more than 30 years. I had been looking at roadsters off and on for about a year, and have read all of the comparisons. About a month ago, my wife and I finally decided it was time to sell the van, let her drive the Expedition (which I had been driving), and get me something else. We went to the dealerships of three (and only three) manufacturers: Porsche, BMW and Honda (actually about five Honda dealers), looking only at the Boxster S, the M Roadster and the S2000. Z06's and Vipers are wonderful cars, but I am getting my musclecar fix elsewhere (see signature block), and they're not what I was interested in driving every day to work.
Without belaboring the issue, let me say that, at 47, I'm finally at a place in my life where the differences between the prices of these cars, especially over a 5 year (low interest) loan, is not a deciding, or even significant factor. Having spent some time in each of these cars, and having spent some more time standing around at dealerships and just looking at them trying to decide who had done the best job building a true sports car, I picked the S2K.
The reason I'm writing this is because I've read so many articles, references to awards, etc where the S2K is categorized as "the best under $40K sports car" or the "best roadster value" or the like. Those awards are surely deserved, but I think that short changes the car. While it certainly isn't the fastest or quickest in a straight line of the cars I was considering, and maybe not the sexiest marque to own, and while it has its idiosyncracies which are becoming apparent the longer I own it, overall, it's the truest example of a sports car I've ever driven. It's what MG, Triumph and Austin-Healy (among others) were trying to achieve in the 60's and 70's, and never did, either in handling, engine, or reliability. I can go on about a rigid chassis, VTEC, fitment, etc, etc, but you know all of that, and that's not the point of this post.
The point is that those of you out there who bought an S2K chose not only the best "under $40K" roadster in nearly everyone's estimation, but in my estimation at this point in my ownership, you chose the best all around roadster out there (no, I haven't been in an Aston Martin or Ferrari lately, but some level of practicality must prevail). Don't let anyone pigeonhole your car or you into believing you compromised because of price by not getting an M Roadster, Boxster S or Audi TT. I chose the S2000, and there were no compromises involved.
Without belaboring the issue, let me say that, at 47, I'm finally at a place in my life where the differences between the prices of these cars, especially over a 5 year (low interest) loan, is not a deciding, or even significant factor. Having spent some time in each of these cars, and having spent some more time standing around at dealerships and just looking at them trying to decide who had done the best job building a true sports car, I picked the S2K.
The reason I'm writing this is because I've read so many articles, references to awards, etc where the S2K is categorized as "the best under $40K sports car" or the "best roadster value" or the like. Those awards are surely deserved, but I think that short changes the car. While it certainly isn't the fastest or quickest in a straight line of the cars I was considering, and maybe not the sexiest marque to own, and while it has its idiosyncracies which are becoming apparent the longer I own it, overall, it's the truest example of a sports car I've ever driven. It's what MG, Triumph and Austin-Healy (among others) were trying to achieve in the 60's and 70's, and never did, either in handling, engine, or reliability. I can go on about a rigid chassis, VTEC, fitment, etc, etc, but you know all of that, and that's not the point of this post.
The point is that those of you out there who bought an S2K chose not only the best "under $40K" roadster in nearly everyone's estimation, but in my estimation at this point in my ownership, you chose the best all around roadster out there (no, I haven't been in an Aston Martin or Ferrari lately, but some level of practicality must prevail). Don't let anyone pigeonhole your car or you into believing you compromised because of price by not getting an M Roadster, Boxster S or Audi TT. I chose the S2000, and there were no compromises involved.
I wholeheartedly agree. I drove the Z3,M3,Audi TT, Boxter, BoxterS, mercedes320 and s2000 back to back in one day and fell in love with the S. At first i wasn't even going to drive the S but I didn't fit well in the BMWs, hated the TT in 100ft, didn't like the boxter, the BoxterS was better, the 320 was to cushy but the S was just right. My wife didn't like anything but the mercedes but hey it's my car not hers and the S is growing on her(having trouble with the all red interior).
Well said...now how's a bout posting a pic of that Dodge.
Trending Topics
Yep, pistol grip shifter and all. Thanks for the kind comments about the Challenger. I'm headed down to Fontana this weekend for the Superbike races, so I'm getting on a plane in about 1 1/2 hours. Will post more next week in response to CG's and other comments when I'm back in. If any of you come to the races at California Speedway this weekend, come by Jim Filice's garage, he's riding a 600 Kawasaki and a 250 Yamaha 2 stroke which I'll be tuning. Come by and say hi.
Jeff, very nice write up. It's very correct...no apologies need to be made for this car. It's a world class performance car...pure and simple.
And I want to see pics of the Dodge too...I grew up admiring American Iron, you've got a great example there, so take some pics!
And I want to see pics of the Dodge too...I grew up admiring American Iron, you've got a great example there, so take some pics!





