if you want a track car, spend the money and get a CR, or at least CR suspension.

 

CR suspension is only barely more trackworthy than AP1 or non-CR AP2. CR would be my last choice, due to costing more money up front for stuff you will replace in a dedicated track car anyway.

 

No, AP1

 

I have already said my reasons above, and I followed most of them by buying an 2005.

ZDan, I understand that the engine and the gear ratios to match are changes and not necessarily improvements, but almost everything else on the list (valve spring retainers, speakers, carbon synchros in place of brass, etc) are legitimate improvements. Honda has mildly improved the S almost every year.

Get the newest, lowest miles, best maintained S you can. But, ZDan, I understand what you are saying and I definitely wouldn't sacrifice miles or maintenance just to get an AP2.

edit: We definitely agree on the CR. Way to much price premium for stuff that will get replaced out as you track prep the car.

 

Besides the interior upgrades, glass window, exterior changes, ect ect, stepping out of my 01 to an 06, I was like WOW!!! So different. The difference in acceleration from 4-6k is very noticeable. Some nice usable power before vtec, unlike the Ap1. Not quite the all or nothing, raw feel of the Ap1, which is fantastic, but different enough to make one know which they prefer. Also, the shifting on my Ap2 was far better. Not as noisy, and just so much smoother.

For pure track purposes, I personally would save $$ and find a nice 02 Ap1. If it's gonna be a part time daily, or weekend cruise car, along with being a track car occasionally, best idea is to get as new as you can afford.

 

Opinions vary, and that is an opinion, not a fact
Not all people think the same thing can be called an improvement

 

Honda got the AP1 rear suspension geometry wrong, period. Toe change with bump does NOTHING to improve performance, and in fact will cost you a little more time and speed to gather it back in if the tail steps out.

Rear toe shenanigans was a dumb idea on the FC RX-7, and it was a bad idea on the AP1. I know the reaoning behind it, it's just seriously FLAWED.

The fact that the car is less forgiving doesn't mean that it enjoys a performance advantage in the hands of experts. That's why it's such a dumb gimmick. It catches out the uninitiated by drastically increasing throttle-lift oversteer, but there's zero handling benefit for advanced drivers.

Note that I'm not talking about spring or sway bar rates. AS far as I'm concerned they should have stuck with the early AP1's rear roll stiffness bias, they just needed to FIX the stupid rear-toe-in-with bump.

 

I think everyone agrees that the reason Honda changed the car every two years throughout it's lifecycle is to improve it, not make it worse.

 

Logic no workie. There are many instances of companies "improving" great products in order to appeal to greater masses of people, and in the process de-wonderfelizing them to the few that really appreciated a great thing. There are any number of cases of cars getting WORSE year to year because of "improvements".
Not saying this is the case w/ AP2 v AP1, IMO they're practically equal in terms of trackability, slight nod to AP2 for the street (though for me the biggest improvements there, glass rear window and door speakers, came in 2002).

Hell, Honda deserves wreaths and laurels for NOT making it WORSE (which it certainly could have done)!

IMO, Honda seems to have done their best to ensure that performance did NOT improve (it didn't!). The other improvements are, to me, minimal.

They made it a *slightly* better street car, but with NO better performance, and it's no better as a track car.

The +10% displacement "improvement" is exactly offset by greater weight (whether its 25 lb. or 100+ lb.) and 8000 rpm redline. To the extent that the AP2 is NO faster in a straight line.

The trans gearing "improvement" (lower 1-4, taller 6th) is, to a trackhead, a move in the wrong direction. Wider ratios in order to get better acceleration from 0 or some low low speed is irrelevant when the slowest corner is ~45mph or greater.

The 17" wheels and 60mm greater tire width (total) "improvement" is offset by slightly greater weight, slightly softer overall spring and swaybar rates, and relatively increased front/reduced rear roll stiffness, to the extent that the two are virtually identical in autoX performance, stock v. stock.

The elimination of toe change with bump *IS* a big improvement in forgiveness for newbs and in quickness of recoverability in the hands of experts, but doesn't do anything in terms of improving outright lap times.

Stronger valve retainers? Mine are still fine at 125k street miles and ~22 track days at 9000rpm multiple times per lap.
"better" synchros? Maybe, but how much of a benefit is this REALLY? I've driven both, yeah it feels *slightly* smoother, but less mechanical. Improvement, sure but to me, minimal.

My next street S2k may well be an AP2, I have nothing against them! But as far as I'm concerned, the AP1/AP2 differences are *minimal*.

 

I agree. I'm glad they didn't throw the AP1 under the bus, by making the Ap2 a better performer. Instead they made it different, more refined, with better looks (subjective opinion) and more livable on the street and as a daily, but equal as a performance vehicle. In stock form though, the changes and upgrades added up for me personally, and my 06 looks, drives and feels like a better overall car than my 01.