I finally got to test drive an 05 S2K today -- been looking forward to it for weeks. Unfortunately, I was kind of disappointed in the vehicle. I think the lack of low end power was the biggest problem; the engine made plenty of noise at low RPM but not a lot of power. After having owned several Hondas (and my wife has a TSX now) I thought I was used to the VTEC experience, but the S2K surprised me. Honestly, it almost felt like something was wrong with the car. Am I nuts, or is this really the case? It felt slower than my 97 Prelude, and much slower than my previous sports car, a WRX. I absolutely love the look of the S2K, the handling is awesome, it has the fun roadster feel, and the Suzuka blue model I test drove was gorgeous. It also seems livable as a daily driver, which was one of my concerns. But it did not feel like a fast car to me (which is out of whack with published accel numbers). I was ready to buy today, but now have to think about it.

I did get into the high RPM range a couple times, but can't honestly say I noticed much of a kick. It certainly wasn't like my WRX which would pin me to the seat, or my Prelude which would go VTEC crazy. This is another instance where published numbers, and my previous expectation of VTEC, did not jive with the experience today.

If anybody has any thoughts, pass them on. I was all set to fall in love with the S2K and nothing happened!



Craig

 

One other note, I did have AC running the whole time, would that have stifled the engine as much as I noticed?

CRaig

 

the a/c will definitly hurt the performance. i'm sure it does the same to your wrx, because i used to own one, and it was a dog with the a/c on.

the s2k just doesnt make much power without large throttle inputs and a healthy dose of RPM. the wrx starts pulling at 3K or so, even with minimal throttle input. the wrx feels faster, but in reality, in WOT conditions, its about the same.

the s2000 is way more fun to drive, no question about it.

 

ah yes, the illusion of torque. My old fox body stangs had gobs of tq and in stock form boy did they "feel" fast. But in reality the S2000 will man-handle a stock fox stang. Trust me, the S is a quick car and will surprise you, just don't expect it to "pin" you to your seat unless you're pulling a high G turn.

 

I don't own a S myself, but I have driven them and also owned a BB6 lude like you did (was a 98 TypeSH)

As for comparison to WRX, the WRX will definitely feel faster at lower RPMs due to greater torque. I've only driven stock to lightly modified WRXs (nothing crazy) and felt that it had a lot of torque but the car isn't accelerating that fast. You would feel that the car's going really fast but it takes quite some time before you can stomp the clutch into the next gear.

The S, on the other hand, is another story. There is little torque (around same torque as the BB6 lude but somewhat lighter) but the car revs very quickly the redline asking you to shift - and yes, that's after taking into account the S has another gear to go through in the tranny

The S is faster than it feels, whereas the WRX is the other way around (of course, we are talking about almost stock rides here, WRX could easily bump up its power a few ten horses with I/E combo and boost controller).

As for feeling slower than lude? That's weird. Is the S broken in already? The lude might feel faster, but then you know it's slower when you realize how much more time it takes the car to spin up to 70 or so mph (my lude was fairly stock but wasn't slow, it ran side by side to ~100mph with my friend's ITR with similar mods, I had an extra underweight pulley , but then I got SMOKED after that).

Anyways, kinda count how long it takes you to go up to 70mph, and you'll be able to tell the diff. As for handling? The S definitely handles better. In fact, the WRX (stock suspension) feels pretty bad on dry pavement in comparison. The lude felt great but you can surely see its limits once you take the car around mountains ... (still did well against other cars but the S is no doubt up another few notches)

 

I had a WRX as well. It's just a different sensation. A lot of torque in a heavier, more softly sprung car, versus less torque in a lighter, more stiffly sprung car. This is why butt dynos can't be trusted.

After driving the S for a while you start realizing that it really is pretty quick. It just takes other cars being around for reference, because you don't feel it in the pit of your stomach.

Stock for stock I prefer the S2000 over the WRX. They are pretty close, but I think the S2000 is definately quicker in every day driving (i.e. no 5K RPM clutch dumps from a dig), the throttle response is much better, and the power curve is much better.

Don't let your butt dyno fool you. This is definately a car that does 0 - 60 in the mid to upper 5 second range, and is capable of high 13s in the quarter.

 

i can live with the "lack" of low end torque.


torque makes you feel fast. hp makes you fast.

 

If you consider the WRX a sports car, then it is likely you will never quite understand or appreciate the S2000.

 

try again with a/c off and hit between 6-8k few times...

 

The A/C being on will make no difference if the car is being driven for performance. It declutches itself at WOT.
Now take a look at this statement:
And on this basis, you made your assessment?
Since it was a test drive, I would imagine that he was not exactly "excercise" it. Small throttle inputs equates to less VTEC grunt. There was probably nothing wrong with the car. You just didn't drive it the way you would if it was broken in and if it was yours.