The only thing I can say to watch out for (the only thing that has surprised me in the S2000) is cold tires. I've only had the back end come around unexpectedly twice--both times I had only been driving for a few minutes. Engine was warm, but the tires were not. Both times the tank was at about 1/4 full, which may have something to do with it.

Other than that, it's no more tail crazy than any other RWD cars I've owned/driven. Problem is that with the S2000s low polar inertia it spins rather quickly and is harder to get it under control once it spins than, say, a vette or a Z. If Honda (or King Motorsports) could set it up to do four wheel drifts (ala 914), I'd pony up a couple of grand extra.

Anyone used to a FF car is going to have to unlearn habits if they want to drive aggressively and spin.

 

I would have to agree that there isn't anything wrong w/ the way the S2000 handles. The real problem is the driver like many have already stated. People shouldn't be driving near the limits of the car on the streets. I own a '91 MR2 which probably has a greater tendancy to oversteer than the S2000 and I don't feel there is anything wrong w/ the way it handles. I've only spun my car twice, both times in the rain and on crappy,worn rear tires.

If you're worried about spinning out in your car, you can:
1. buy stickier, wider rear tires
2. buy a larger front sway bar
3. don't push the car too hard on the streets
4. go to a driving school
5. adjust the alignment of the suspension

I would just simply do #3.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bguernsey
[B]

Lets put things in perspective...

2002 Dodge Viper RT/10

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JT-KGY
[B]
You forgot another.. the rpm where these cars develop it's max torque..

 

So which are you a rep for GM or the UAW? Or are you just smoking some insane skunk weed? There is absolutely no way you can compare the Big 3 in terms of build quality to Honda. If you are literally speaking of American makers, i.e., Honda Accords are "made" in Ohio, then AND ONLY then I would agree with your statement.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnyboy32
[B]

To be honest...I don't know.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bguernsey
[B]

The RPM at max torque was what I was referring to as 'torque graph'.

 

I'm coming out of a Corvette, so I'll say that the power below 6000 rpm is crap, IMHO. It feels like a strong Civic. This is what I call no low end torque. But for daily driving, it's fine.

The handling and brakes are superb. I've taken it up the canyons and was impressed by the grip and balance. I haven't raced it yet, but I've spun it around a parking lot and I felt that it came back pretty quick. I don't expect to get myself in any trouble when I race it, but I'll reserve final judgement until I get on a track.

Robin.

 

Now that I've raced the car, I'll have to say that it's handling is nowhere near as stable as a '89 Vette. Of course, I worked on my '89's handling for a year before it was the way I liked it, but he the S2000 is a real handful regardless. The powerband is too uneven and the tail keeps wanting to come out and when it comes back in, it happens to quick and sends you to the inside of the corner, which I sometimes over correct and then I'm in some sort of pendulum thing which sucks. Not a great handling car once you get to the limit.

Robin.

 

Hey, it is all about weight. Keep that passenger seat empty and she'll pull pretty hard. Of course, that means my wife has to follow in her car, and that doesn't go over too well.