I still don't know why everyone has to say this car is a bad interstate cruiser. Maybe compared to a Cadillac or Lexus, but compared to my RSX and my old Delsol, driving the S2000 for 300 miles on the PA turnpike, is more comfortable and leaves me less fatigued.

Maybe if I was too big for the car, I could see the long distance comfort issues, but it fits me just right and sometimes I don't even want to get out of it.

 

Yes, exactly, but this is the first mention I have seen of any yaw control system on the S2000. Maybe it is a typo or perhaps just revised ABS performance. Like the Viper for so long never had ABS, I think it is kind of pure that the S2000 doesn't have the hand-holding yaw control feature. Heck, most minivans and SUVs now come with some form of active handling or yaw control. I don't think it's a bad feature or that it doesn't work, but just that if it is present on a sports car there had better be a switch to turn it off when not wanted. Yaw control is more than ABS or traction control, and implies the ability to actively correct inappropriate driver inputs with individual wheel brake application. That would be a big feature addition if true.

 

It's not ABS, it's a brake balance system that now accounts for side-to-side variances in addition to the existing electronic proportioning front-to-rear.

We do want this... we don't want a switch to turn it off.

 

AMEN.

 

The phrase "Track performance is something every prospective S2000 owner should consider, because there's little reason to buy one unless it's going to spend some time on a race course." soured my opinion of the article.
I have clearly written several times in the past that I'm no stranger to road courses and high performance driving schools but to assume the car has no worth on public roads to the average automobile enthusiast (who does NOT track the car) is just plain ignorant.
One does NOT have to be graded with a timer nor go to Laguna Seca to enjoy the S2000 any more than another who is required to enlist in the Army to enjoy their Hummer.
This is the kind of automobile writing that really pisses me off. In order for the author to convey the DNA of the vehicle, they assume Honda created it as a one trick pony. This is NOT a Lotus Elise. You can take your boy to Little League, drive to the 'cape for the weekend, etc. Signing on the dotted line for S2000 ownership doesn't mandate an investment in roll bars.
It was a stupid phrase, plain and simple. Had I still been an editor and worked for Edmunds, I would have changed that line to read, "A visit to ones local track is something every prospective S2000 owner should consider, if for no other reason than to explore the seemingly limitless handling abilities of this incredible machine in a more welcoming environment."
IOW, at some point this weekend, at "name your track," there will be an S2000 owner overtaking a Boxster (etc) with a smile on their face that could only be equalled by the one from another S2000 owner overtaking a Boxster on the Pacific Coast Highway, US1, Appalachian Trail, Route 66, etc.

 

What you describe is not what I am calling 'yaw control'. Maybe it is semantics, but yaw control to me is something like Corvette's active handling, Caddy's stabilitrak, Porsche/Merc stability control systems, etc. Active system with yaw rate sensors that interacts with ABS systems and/or TCS/throttle to correct inappropriate yaw relative to steering inputs, etc. These systems can be obtrusive or heavy handed depending entirley on how they are programmed. In every application I have seen, there is a switch to turn it off, and in some cases toggle the performance envelope of the system as well. This switch is a good thing, even if rarely disabled.

What you describe is a refinement of the ABS/braking system without active yaw sensors. This sounds like a good thing, but if new, it is not described in any of the published technical info of MY2004 changes here (that I could find):
http://www.hondanews.com/forms/honda/s2000...ch+currenthonda

 

Have you driven one? If not, then how can you claim it to be better?

 

If tighter is better, then why not buy a FWD sports car? I always hear, "a loose race car is a fast race car".

 

They also incorrectly claim the redline is 8200 rpm when that is really the fuel cut-off limit (and the manufacturer redline is 8000 rpm). I guess writers don't let facts get in their way anymore.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by STL
If tighter is better, then why not buy a FWD sports car?