Current S2K owners that had 911's
06-29-2001, 07:46 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two years ago I owned a 1990 Carrera 4 (964 series). It was a beauty. Like others have said, you can't beat the panache, the gauges, the engine sound, torque, etc. Mine was a little easier to drive as it had all wheel drive and she was always planted. Because of the better torque, you get the rush much sooner from the 911 vs. the S2K. Although my 911 never overheated, I was always concerned about it while driving it in So. Cal.'s traffic during the summer, especially w/ the aircon on.
Overall, I would have to say that I enjoy the S2K more as it is a better rounded car. However, I know a Porsche will still look awesome after 10-15 years....I wonder if the my silver S2K will still be eye candy for that long. We'll see....
Overall, I would have to say that I enjoy the S2K more as it is a better rounded car. However, I know a Porsche will still look awesome after 10-15 years....I wonder if the my silver S2K will still be eye candy for that long. We'll see....
06-29-2001, 08:58 AM
#14
i had a 911... and yes, apples to oranges- my comparo:
1. my 911 was a coupe the stook is a roadster
2. the 911 tail was twitchier, but when the stooks tail slips it seems harder to control (i never lost the rear of the 911 and have lost the rear of the stook)
3. you can buy 2 stooks for the cost of a 911
4. the 911 had to be bailed out every time it went for service (very expensive to service compared to the stook)
5. totally different sounds out of the rear...
6. stooks redline is past the 911s
7. 911 sort of had a back seat!
8. the 911 was more expensive to insure
9. of course the 911 is rear engine and the stook is "normal" front engine
10. my recollection is the stook is a true 50/50 weight distribution while the 911 was not as close to 50/50
11. 911 suspension was stiffer
12. the 911 is a porsche the stook is a honda
strange... but considering everything, i prefer the stook-
the 911 was great fun to drive, but i think that the top-off really makes a huge difference.
1. my 911 was a coupe the stook is a roadster
2. the 911 tail was twitchier, but when the stooks tail slips it seems harder to control (i never lost the rear of the 911 and have lost the rear of the stook)
3. you can buy 2 stooks for the cost of a 911
4. the 911 had to be bailed out every time it went for service (very expensive to service compared to the stook)
5. totally different sounds out of the rear...
6. stooks redline is past the 911s
7. 911 sort of had a back seat!
8. the 911 was more expensive to insure
9. of course the 911 is rear engine and the stook is "normal" front engine
10. my recollection is the stook is a true 50/50 weight distribution while the 911 was not as close to 50/50
11. 911 suspension was stiffer
12. the 911 is a porsche the stook is a honda
strange... but considering everything, i prefer the stook-
the 911 was great fun to drive, but i think that the top-off really makes a huge difference.
06-29-2001, 09:25 AM
#15
Registered User
I had a 2001 911 twin Turbo that I sold in March.
I got on a waiting list for an M3 and decided to pick up an S2000 to tide me over until the bimmer arrives. I had a stripped, Mugen-ized ITR track car from 1997 to 2000 so I thought I knew what to expect from the S2k...but I was VERY pleasantly surprised. The S2k is the tightest, most intelligently designed and engineered car I've ever owned. Other than a slight low-RPM hesitation that surafaces in stop-and-go traffic, no problems at all.
On the other hand, the Porsche was a HUGE disappointment. IMO, it is poorly designed and engineered, especially considering what it costs. In just one track day, the rotors warped and the gearbox overheated, toasting the synchros (necessitating a complete gearbox replacement by the guy I sold it to). The interior was a joke...dash pod literally bounced up and down; rattles and bangs everywhere, etc. etc. of Suffice to say, I doubt I'll ever own another Porsche again.
Now I'm thinking I'll keep the S2k...maybe add the SC next spring to get some of the kick in the pants that the TT had (crappy as it was, it was bloddy fast). I can't wait to see what Honda/Acura does with the new NSX...I'd love to see them spank Porsche and Ferrari...
I got on a waiting list for an M3 and decided to pick up an S2000 to tide me over until the bimmer arrives. I had a stripped, Mugen-ized ITR track car from 1997 to 2000 so I thought I knew what to expect from the S2k...but I was VERY pleasantly surprised. The S2k is the tightest, most intelligently designed and engineered car I've ever owned. Other than a slight low-RPM hesitation that surafaces in stop-and-go traffic, no problems at all.
On the other hand, the Porsche was a HUGE disappointment. IMO, it is poorly designed and engineered, especially considering what it costs. In just one track day, the rotors warped and the gearbox overheated, toasting the synchros (necessitating a complete gearbox replacement by the guy I sold it to). The interior was a joke...dash pod literally bounced up and down; rattles and bangs everywhere, etc. etc. of Suffice to say, I doubt I'll ever own another Porsche again.
Now I'm thinking I'll keep the S2k...maybe add the SC next spring to get some of the kick in the pants that the TT had (crappy as it was, it was bloddy fast). I can't wait to see what Honda/Acura does with the new NSX...I'd love to see them spank Porsche and Ferrari...
06-29-2001, 09:34 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am the previous owner of an 87 911 and the current owner of a 2001 s2000.
I actually thought the two cars were a bit similar inasmuch as they both leaned more towards a sports car than most other cars out on the market. Newer 911s are more domesticated though.
My impression is to give a very big advantage to the s2000. I seriously considered buying a 1995-99 vintage 911 versus my s2000. The big hook for me was new car reliability. Even in their days Porsches are not the paragon of reliability. Don't get me wrong, my 911 was fairly reliable, and never really left you stranded. However there were a series of nagging issues which made the ownership a bit more onerous than an s2000.
As I see it I only get so many sunny afternoons. If my play car is in the shop, then I'm out of luck. I also wanted my third car to be hassle-free, and so far the s2000 has fit the bill.
The one area that I would perhaps give the nod to the 911 though is in resale value. I kept my 911 for five years and put 80K miles on it during my ownership and sold it for $300 more (yes more) than I paid for it. It's hard to believe but I almost think those cars are appreciating these days.
I actually thought the two cars were a bit similar inasmuch as they both leaned more towards a sports car than most other cars out on the market. Newer 911s are more domesticated though.
My impression is to give a very big advantage to the s2000. I seriously considered buying a 1995-99 vintage 911 versus my s2000. The big hook for me was new car reliability. Even in their days Porsches are not the paragon of reliability. Don't get me wrong, my 911 was fairly reliable, and never really left you stranded. However there were a series of nagging issues which made the ownership a bit more onerous than an s2000.
As I see it I only get so many sunny afternoons. If my play car is in the shop, then I'm out of luck. I also wanted my third car to be hassle-free, and so far the s2000 has fit the bill.
The one area that I would perhaps give the nod to the 911 though is in resale value. I kept my 911 for five years and put 80K miles on it during my ownership and sold it for $300 more (yes more) than I paid for it. It's hard to believe but I almost think those cars are appreciating these days.
06-29-2001, 11:23 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Springfield
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jwkc
I own a 993 GT2 .But I dont have a S2000
I own a 993 GT2 .But I dont have a S2000
06-29-2001, 07:17 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gcurnew
I had a 2001 911 twin Turbo that I sold in March.
Other than a slight low-RPM hesitation that surafaces in stop-and-go traffic, no problems at all.
I had a 2001 911 twin Turbo that I sold in March.
Other than a slight low-RPM hesitation that surafaces in stop-and-go traffic, no problems at all.
His conclusion was I was shifting too soon under normal driving conditions and should always try to shift at a minimum of 4K or higher because this engine doesn't like to be babied. After I changed my driving/shifting habits the hesitation has vanished and hasn't occured since. I guess a guilty feeling of always wanted to "rev her it" but not doing so was the wrong approach with this engine. Go ahead and run her hard.... she seems to like it!