350Z or S2000
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Queens, NYC
I can offer my obviously unbiased opinion, since I've got both 
For one, the cars are completely different. The Z is a big 2-seater that you drive, the S is a small 2-seater that you wear. Both cars offer exceptional motors, depending on where you want the power. The Z makes more torque at idle than the S makes in total.
The transmission in the S is probably a hair better than the Z. Stock for stock, handling is comparable. A Z with modified suspension (as is mine) will handle very well, but I have a feeling an S with equally modified suspension will handle even better.
Both cars are very manageable at their limit. I've only spun the Z once on the track (wet pavement, overdriving the car chasing seconds). Invest in the Traction Control for the Z, when it gets cold or rainy it's nice to have.
The S is MUCH smaller than the Z, which is already a car lacking in cabin and trunk space. A 400lb friend of mine fits in the Z, but does not fit in the S. As for the driver, 5-10 is probably the limit for the S. Z will handle guys up to 6-3.
Bottom line, you WILL be happy with BOTH cars. It's nice to know you can't make a bad decision here. The Z is quicker, but also doesn't respond well to NA mods like the S. And parts for both cars are hella expensive.
If you do chose to turbo either, the Z will make reliable 400whp at 6 or 7psi, depending on how good your tuner is. It will cost close to $8K to do it right, when all is said and done however. But 400whp puts you into territory of cars costing close to $100K.
The S is better on gas, for sure. (Anyone here know what kinda mileage you get city/highway, by the way?) The Z gets like 12 city and 30 highway in stock trim. Mine isn't stock anymore, so I see like 10 city and 27 highway, still not bad.
Hope this helps, or sorry if it confuses you further!
For one, the cars are completely different. The Z is a big 2-seater that you drive, the S is a small 2-seater that you wear. Both cars offer exceptional motors, depending on where you want the power. The Z makes more torque at idle than the S makes in total.
The transmission in the S is probably a hair better than the Z. Stock for stock, handling is comparable. A Z with modified suspension (as is mine) will handle very well, but I have a feeling an S with equally modified suspension will handle even better.
Both cars are very manageable at their limit. I've only spun the Z once on the track (wet pavement, overdriving the car chasing seconds). Invest in the Traction Control for the Z, when it gets cold or rainy it's nice to have.
The S is MUCH smaller than the Z, which is already a car lacking in cabin and trunk space. A 400lb friend of mine fits in the Z, but does not fit in the S. As for the driver, 5-10 is probably the limit for the S. Z will handle guys up to 6-3.
Bottom line, you WILL be happy with BOTH cars. It's nice to know you can't make a bad decision here. The Z is quicker, but also doesn't respond well to NA mods like the S. And parts for both cars are hella expensive.
If you do chose to turbo either, the Z will make reliable 400whp at 6 or 7psi, depending on how good your tuner is. It will cost close to $8K to do it right, when all is said and done however. But 400whp puts you into territory of cars costing close to $100K.
The S is better on gas, for sure. (Anyone here know what kinda mileage you get city/highway, by the way?) The Z gets like 12 city and 30 highway in stock trim. Mine isn't stock anymore, so I see like 10 city and 27 highway, still not bad.
Hope this helps, or sorry if it confuses you further!
Community Organizer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,599
Likes: 79
From: The 604
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,606
Likes: 4
From: Tallahassee, Florida
I actually went through this debate myself right before I bought my s2000.
I would suggest to do what I did. Go drive both.
After driving both I could tell that I clearly preferred the s2000.
The main things that sold me on the s2000 are that its much less common than a 350, the insurance (at least for me) was much lower, and it just felt like it fit me better.
Anyways, its kind of like apples vs bananas, its hard to compare the two, its whichever you prefer.
I would suggest to do what I did. Go drive both.
After driving both I could tell that I clearly preferred the s2000.
The main things that sold me on the s2000 are that its much less common than a 350, the insurance (at least for me) was much lower, and it just felt like it fit me better.
Anyways, its kind of like apples vs bananas, its hard to compare the two, its whichever you prefer.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 0
From: the 'burgh/orlando/soCal soon!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by alSpeed2k,Sep 28 2008, 08:32 PM
get a skyline GT-R
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio TX
Originally Posted by Jetpilot718,Sep 28 2008, 10:00 PM
The S is MUCH smaller than the Z, which is already a car lacking in cabin and trunk space. A 400lb friend of mine fits in the Z, but does not fit in the S. As for the driver, 5-10 is probably the limit for the S. Z will handle guys up to 6-3.
I could swear the Z has less trunk space than the S. Obviously more cabin room but not sure about trunk space.As for driver I believe it can handle someone taller than 5,10 comfortably. I have friends around 6,1-6,2 that drove my car. "BTW I'm 5,7
" In addition I've seen Jeremy Clarkson in the S!!! 
He has to be much taller than 5,10, someone correct me if I'm wrong.