So called "Expert" review of the S..... needs correcting ;)
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
From: London
Take a look at this review of the S2000 over at review centre (the S2000 is still their top recommendation by the way)........
Its a long read but the so called expert seems to be talking out of his rear:
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review31444.html
Cerberus, Moff and I have had a go at correcting him but you're all welcome to weigh in as well
Its a long read but the so called expert seems to be talking out of his rear:
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review31444.html
Cerberus, Moff and I have had a go at correcting him but you're all welcome to weigh in as well
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
From: London
A few of his less complimentary quotes about the S:
"is virtually useless as a long-distance cruiser"
"for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration"
"I've driven a Lotus Elise (cheaper and similar power:weight ratio) with more confidence in the wet than the Honda gives in the dry"
"I don't think you can seriously compare the S2000 to a Boxter S. Maybe the BMW Z3..."
"slightly boring, bland looks"
"The engine (amazingly gutless)"
"It isn't fast, light or agile enough to properly be considered a sports car"
"MX5 is much better value for money and it seriously out-handles the S2000"
"my opinion (and the opinion of most of the people who drive it) is that it is merely good"
...... but at least he does agree that the Z4 and Boxster are both hairdressers cars!
"is virtually useless as a long-distance cruiser"
"for such a high-revving engine, the ratios are too close together, I often found myself skipping gears under hard acceleration"
"I've driven a Lotus Elise (cheaper and similar power:weight ratio) with more confidence in the wet than the Honda gives in the dry"
"I don't think you can seriously compare the S2000 to a Boxter S. Maybe the BMW Z3..."
"slightly boring, bland looks"
"The engine (amazingly gutless)"
"It isn't fast, light or agile enough to properly be considered a sports car"
"MX5 is much better value for money and it seriously out-handles the S2000"
"my opinion (and the opinion of most of the people who drive it) is that it is merely good"
...... but at least he does agree that the Z4 and Boxster are both hairdressers cars!
Trending Topics
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
"Good Points:
It's a Honda (reliable, well put together)
The engine (great noise, revs to 9000, 240bhp)
The Transmission (great feeling action)
Bad Points:
It's a Honda (slightly boring, bland looks)
The engine (amazingly gutless)
The Transmission (ratios way too close together)
Rear end very tricky in the wet "
So, in their summary, the good points are all cancelled by the bad points leaving one negative point "..tricky in the wet". Doesn't seem very objective.
My own summing up of the car in these areas would be: "high power comes in after 6k rpm giving you the choice of whether to have good fuel consumption, 'normal 2 litre performance', and stop the back going wild in the wet - or 240BHP and 3,000 rpm more in each gear than an Elise - all with legendary Honda reliability in a car that jealous pedestrians won't scratch with a key because of its badge."
I think that's a much more balanced view.
PS I think the "expert" should try driving a "torquey car" (like a TVR) in the wet and maybe he'll take a more holistic view of the S (you can't turn high torque on and off like you can the power in the S).
It's a Honda (reliable, well put together)
The engine (great noise, revs to 9000, 240bhp)
The Transmission (great feeling action)
Bad Points:
It's a Honda (slightly boring, bland looks)
The engine (amazingly gutless)
The Transmission (ratios way too close together)
Rear end very tricky in the wet "
So, in their summary, the good points are all cancelled by the bad points leaving one negative point "..tricky in the wet". Doesn't seem very objective.
My own summing up of the car in these areas would be: "high power comes in after 6k rpm giving you the choice of whether to have good fuel consumption, 'normal 2 litre performance', and stop the back going wild in the wet - or 240BHP and 3,000 rpm more in each gear than an Elise - all with legendary Honda reliability in a car that jealous pedestrians won't scratch with a key because of its badge."
I think that's a much more balanced view.
PS I think the "expert" should try driving a "torquey car" (like a TVR) in the wet and maybe he'll take a more holistic view of the S (you can't turn high torque on and off like you can the power in the S).
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,467
Likes: 0
From: Nottingham
I gave up with that twat, he was doing my head in and wouldn't listen. I think he is probably a Boxster driver
I promised myself that I wouldn't go back and read anymore replies but now I am too tempted...
I promised myself that I wouldn't go back and read anymore replies but now I am too tempted...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
From: London
Originally posted by mikdys
PS I think the "expert" should try driving a "torquey car" (like a TVR) in the wet and maybe he'll take a more holistic view of the S (you can't turn high torque on and off like you can the power in the S).
PS I think the "expert" should try driving a "torquey car" (like a TVR) in the wet and maybe he'll take a more holistic view of the S (you can't turn high torque on and off like you can the power in the S).
I love these sorts of "arguements" with people who just won't back down even when he was reviewing a car that was and still is the most highly recommended car on the entire review centre website!