[QUOTE=labelskate,Oct 29 2010, 08:36 PM] those cars are all way more expensive than the s2000

 

That's too wide of a category that you put the S in. The MSRP for the S is 35k. It should be in the 40k and under category. But I do agree that if you are spending under 100k, the S will be the slowest among that group.

 

S2000 also falls in the under $500,000 catagory of cars..
Very bad comparison.
Now compare it to cars like the 370z, 335i, sti, hell even camry taurus, accord,mustang, camaro, gto etc and the S2000 is not a fast car.
comparison should be with cars in the 30k +/- 10k really.

 

I never understand why people say things like "oh well this ~$100,000 car will crush an S2000!". Ummm...okay put the extra ~$50,000 into a base S2000 and now tell me if your "exotic" will still crush any S2000.

 

Clunk is normal and alot more noticable in the s2000 than it would be in a front wheel drive car. This is because the S is rear wheel drive and due to the transmission still spinning when you go to put it in first gear the clunk is made through the play in the drive line. Not sure how to explain it but all the gears in the tranny and rear end together make alittle bit of play and when you put it in gear all the gears are pressed tightly against one another if this makes sense. Its similar to pre loading the drive line before a launch.

Hope this helps you understand the clunk alittle easier youll notice that same clunk in say a manual truck and they usually create an even bigger clunk

 

[QUOTE=ASMspec,Oct 29 2010, 07:08 PM] We did races back in 2003 over and over with my S2000 and my friends RSX Type S and the RSX held its own pretty well so the transition wont be that much. The S2000 is faster but not by much.

The S2000 is slow with todays standard of cars.

 

I think pol have the wrong impression of the s including myself especially if they've never researched about it.

The motor is exceptional. Big hype. Most hp per cylinder engine made. 50/50 balance. Rwd. Light and x design chassis. All that is not your typical Honda specs so a civic or rsx driver will easily assume the s will eat any Honda.

Not so much when they get in the seat.

 

Can anyone provide a car for 30k+- 5k that is faster than an S2000?!
Let's not talk about weight distribution, feel, efficiency.. and all stuff that we love about our S....
Let's focus on the straight line speed issue only to please some smart people in here!!!
And please don't say 350Z ... it's pretty close... give me something that is way faster.. As would the OP expect..
I would still buy the S even if you can find one, but I want to enjoy this argument...
The thing is... many expect the S to be faster !!!! does any expect the 350Z to be faster than it should, or a 335i !?!?!? all of them are equipped with Turbos or bigger engines... in fact people should expect more from these cars...not the "S" ....

Why is that... because the S has a lot to talk about ... anyone who has no S... hears a lot about S owners talking about how much they enjoy it and hence when people try it they imagine a Ferrari... well that's a complement... but it's not the speed that we talk about only.. it has decent power compared to its category.. in addition to a lotttttttttttttttttttt more ...

 

All I could think of when he brought up the "under $100,000" category and lumped in the S2000:


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw7D9cDQqHo [/media]


In before denial and faulty logic of why he's not being a typical M3 owner!

 

For me it's the soul of the car that does this. Hard to find a 30K car with as much soul.