Interesting to read the above posts.

Sounds like a lot of S2000 owners chose the S2000 based on price.

Any owners out there who had the ability to spend $75,000 or more but still chose the S2000? If so, why?

Just curious...

 

I think value is at least as important as price for many S2000 buyers. After all, a Camaro SS convertible stickers at $33.5k; (subjectively) less value for the same price.

 

yeah, i totally chose the S2000 based on price. For 36k nothing in mind was as good! ( i have a hardtop also) After driving it...it just made sense to buy it over a car that cost 12-16k more...even if the Z06 is faster.

I am very glad i didn't buy a 01 Z06 for 48k or so...they are selling for less then 43k now...brand new. Who knows...maybe in couple of years...I might have to pick me up a slighty used 2002 Z06 for approx 40k...seems resonable....gotta keep the S2000 also, for the sunny days!! I think we should all be so stoked to see so many awesome sports cars on the market now....and with more coming...it is a great time to be a sports car fan. I wish the fan boys, on both sides of the argument would go away. To me where the car is made makes no difference, but what is important is performance, fun, value, looks ...the whole package. Right now and in the next few years with the Lancer Evo, WRX, WRX Sti, new Z car, S2000, re-designed NSX, Lotus M250 and the everything from Ferrari and Porsche....I need more money!!

Down with SUV's...long live the sports car!!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elanderholm
[B]
the whole package.

 

I have the ability. I chose the S2000 for it's ability to bring a smile to my face. I love the balance and handling, plus I was attracted to the Honda/Acura reliability.

But the number one reason... was the tightness of the shifter/transmission (seriously, I fell in love with the shifter). Nothing is like it. One of the reasons I did not buy an M5 was the sloppiness of the Getrag 6 speed.

I would have bought a Modena but it was just out of reach (to wifey that is, not to me!)

 

To cover some of the many topics covered here. Why buy the S2000. I could get my 6'4" body with size 14 feet into the S2K. Honda's reputation for quality cars (I know people who make good livings keeping BMWs and Porsches running happily). Making a low-torque, high reving engine saves weight throughout the car which saves gas and can contribute to handling feel that is hard to match in heavier cars, even if they perform better by the numbers. Gas mileage is better in most real world driving. After 3 years and 16,000 miles I am averaging 29 MPG. This includes a weekend at a road course and frequent sporting adventures on mountain roads. As an engineer just thinking about 9 grand rings my bell. If you prefer something else buy it and be happy. My S2K wouldn't seem so special if everyone drove one.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elanderholm
[B]
yeah, i totally chose the S2000 based on price.

 

These are what I would think in addition to engine weight and overall balance.

(a) The unique feeling of "the faster it revs, the more you get", which is why 9krpm is attractive. The way the power goes up with revolution and engine sound are so unique for S2k... which I would think Ferrari is another company offering that.

(b) F20C matches LEV standard! I guess it's much more environmental for smaller engine than bigger one, even mpg is the same.

 

I always said, if Honda makes a rear-wheel drive car I can afford I would buy it.

They did. I did.

The smaller lighter engine offers performance benefits to handling.

Look at our 60-0 braking distance! Compare that to your heavier counterparts!

Now think of 0-60-0!?!!

Suddenly those Ferrari's, Porsche's and Corvette's don't look so good.

With Honda reliability, distinctive styling, and good handling.

As someone who never spends the money on a car from a dealership (my '88 Fiero GT [RIP] was $6000 w/44,000 miles on it, which I drove for about 80,000 miles), the S2000 I deemed "worth it".

(Used Corvette's from the 90's around here go for around $10,000...and they're a dime-a-dozen...I joke when I bought the S that for the money I could pick up three Corvette's!)

As the S's value hasn't dropped as significantly as the more common "competitors" that were brought up in this thread, that little four-banger is worth it!

Enjoy! (No matter your choice or reason for it...)

Randy

 

Good discussion!

Some obvious benefits to small engines, already mentioned:
Lighter weight which benefits accel, handling, mpg.
Smaller engine allows for more ideal placement, typically further back, for reduced polar moment, thus better handling.
Ideally would allow lower inertia flywheel, lower roofline etc (though very much a fcn of engine layout).

I don't necessarily buy that it is cheaper. To get the same hp out of a smaller engine, typically requires a more sophisticated valvetrain (ex: DOHC vs pushrod OHV), higher rpm thus potentially more expensive materials (S2000 fiber-reinforced sleeves), titanium & alum is more expensive than iron...
To be sure, less cylinders means less parts. But smaller cylinders probably doesn't equate to cheaper. And engine price certainly doesn't just scale with displacement. I would bet that an S2000 engine costs a lot more than GM's venerable 3800 3.8L-V6.

In reference to the "MPG follows hp, not size", it seems to be true looking at many examples. I can come up with a couple of reasons:
A large engine makes hp the old fashioned way. It also sucks down fuel the old-fashioned way: large pumping losses when at typical low-throttle conditions. Modern engines are much better than they used to be with computer-controlled managment systems, lower idle speeds, fuel cutoff on decel, (just being re-introduced) displacement on demand, (in a few cases, but still not widely used) direct-injection allowing lean operation.

Small engines make power with high revs. Which means high friction. So, to some extent, throttle losses are replaced with friction losses. As part of the same, they tend to be geared more radically, so even though your S2000 is never at 9000 rpm on the EPA emission certification tests, you are at much, much higher rpm than the skip-shifting Corvette with its way-out-there 6th gear. IMHO, the S2000 should use 6th for a long-legged "if I want response, I'll downshift" highway cruising gear. It'll rarely if ever be used in a race as is anyway.

But the MPG~hp correlation isn't true for FI engines. These small displacement engines put up high hp numbers and also pretty good MPG's.

As to the normalizing by torque/#cyl/displacement, (although I know it was a light-hearted post) sorry, you are incorrectly double-penalizing. Torque goes with displacement. # of cylinders is just a way to increase total displacement. Either just use torque/total displacement or torque/cyl/cylinder_displacement (which is obviously the same thing).

As to the Corvette and what some claim are optimistic numbers. To be sure, you drive a sports car as most will and it won't see those numbers. But if you set it on CC for a long highway drive, it will likely do well. I know of people who routinely get 30+ mpg with their 4000 lb, 3.8L Park Avenues.

I also think you can still achieve LEV with a larger engine (and easier with an automatic than a manual). It's a matter of how much technology you want to throw at cleanup and control. Though sure, more fuel consumed means potentially more emissions.

RX-8? I think it has about a 9K rpm redline, not 10-11k.

I agree with the general consensus: buy what makes you feel good. Not what is subjectively "better" to someone else.