Ks320

I have always been a fan of the S2000 since 1999, and still am one to this very day.

However, no matter how much I love the S, I can't deny the fact that this car is falling behing newer cars ... and pretty much every car in its league. The car really does need some more "umph". Even putting the magazine numbers aside, the S2000 really does feel slow. I know I'll get a lot of heat on this, but I'm not looking for the "oh ... that car just ran 0.1 second quicker than the S2000 on the 1/4-mile" type of thing ...

Of course, the torque-factor has something to do with it. The car has trouble keeping up with a lot of other cars in spirited drives, and even worse whenever I drive through inclines. Some of the canyon-like roads require relatively low speeds -- e.g. below 70km/h in order to make the drives safer. I would either have to stay below VTEC, shift to 1st all the time, or simply get a shorter final gear. Neither of the 3 is optimal. Otherwise, even an E46 330i would be able to come out of the corner quicker than I cud.

Also, the car doesn't feel as "planted" as most other cars (FYI, I have CR coilovers + sway bars, CR alignment, and stock RE050s that are less than a year old with 5000km on them). I've driven others cars on those same roads, and those cars all feel more solid -- those cars do include Skylines and 350Zs in stock form. The S's rear would want to come out a lot more (or at least it feels like it wants to come out more) ... and in most cases, the real breaks loose easier. I cannot say I'm a very good driver, but I am certainly not a bad one (at least my instructors are generally relatively positive when it comes to comments).

I know the short comings in the lack-of-power department becomes less of an issue on well-paved tracks with not a lot of altitude changes ... but the car does make spirited drives (note, not racing here ... spirited drives probably mean driving the car to its 60 to 70% on public roads ... I know ... still bad ... ) less desirable. And given that access to tracks is becoming harder for me, as I no longer live in the US ... spirited drives become my way of pumping my adrenaline.

Unfortunately, I am a guy that pays a lot of attention on the way that the car feels (in throttle response, transmission, etc and all sorts of feed backs) ... and have yet to find another car that gives me the same feel -- Exige did come close, but that car literally is too impractical. Have always hoped that Honda would build another MR supercar to satisfy my needs ... but the day they said it's FR AWD with tons of gadgets, my dreams were shattered. I think for me .. the NSX (02+ ones) is the way to go, and should answer my question of having a more powerful (and still fun) Honda. The new CTR doesn't excite me, even though it is "better" than the S2000 in performance aspect ...

I realized trying to make the S2000 something that it's not meant for (i.e. more powerful) is totally not worth it.

nightcrawler7188

4.77 and you will feel like it should have come that way from the factory.

Ks320

I personally didn't like the shorter gearing (or high numerical value gearing ratio). It does feel like the car has more punch, but it always makes you shift more and gets you getting caught in funny situation.

Honestly ... I think had Honda not have to get stuck with the idea of having a 2000cc (well, 1997 to be exact) engine for the S2000 to come out in year 2000, and keep it under 280bhp so it isn't more powerful than the NSX ... an inline-6 or V6 would be on the list.

I'm just disappointed that Honda spent all that time and effort of creating something new, and yet left so little room for improvement. Honda must have spent so much on creating this thing ... and frankly, it is a work of art, except they mastered something a bit too small I don't think the cost of development would have been much higher had they opt for a slightly more powerful engine, given that the engineers were starting from square-one to begin with ... i.e. the S2000 was like the NSX, everything that they designed was new since they haven't had an FR layout for the longest time, and even the F-series engine is new.

KAUSTiC

Not sure why you're so sour with the car... Drop a 2jz in it if you need the inline 6 and the umph you were talking about... you'll still have trouble in the corners with all that power. :/

Ks320

I don't want turbo ... ya I know, I am asking a lot. But anyways ... I'm just venitng, and bringing out the point that I don't think it's a sin to ask for more. Many people make it sound like it's a sin to compare the power department and "magazine times" with other cars or just newer cars in general.

It's quite ironic to read some of the posts here. People would try to argue how bad the drivers are in videos, or how "unfair" the comparisons are -- i.e. in the case of the Nismo Z and CR comparo. Yet would not accept the fact the S2K really is falling behind in specs. That's the truth, and nothing but the truth. Sure the S2K does put up an admirable fight against newer cars, given its age, but that doesn't mean the S2K is not relatively dated. People try to come up with "buts" and "ifs" all the time ... "oh ... just add an S/C or turbo ... and the S would fly". Yes I know ... but that's not the point. Stock versus stock (or at least relatively stock) is what I'm looking for ... because modified cars don't drive the same ... the reliability and the hassle free approach will be gone ...

Whatever ... I've been a posting whore here and will stop now ...

takeshi

I think you're ahead of the game acknowledging these two points -- based on how many of these threads keep popping up anyway.

Olegator

silly.....
but nonetheless.....coilovers, fi, tires and you are set.

pipka

I understand and agree. The same problem on my brain.

camuman

boost your s2k and you will be happy

you will trap way higher then 105

SPO100

God forbid your car isnt faster than the other guys. I'd much rather race against myslef and my times. Who cares about the other guy, if you improve your own numbers that should be good enough. Just how I feel.