I was reading the article where they were comparing an 04 (UK Spec???) S2000 vs a 2.5 BMW Z. The Article was quite positive towards the S2000 (strange Honda is giving out hard topped test cars to the Journo's) but it also had me puzzled. They stated that the engine pulled much better at low revs than the previous model they tested. The way they harped on you would think Honda sneaked a US 2.2 motor into the UK press car fleet

Anyone else read the article and come away with the same impression ?

EVO has never been a big fan of the S2000. This is a shame because they are by far my fave car mag and there views on cars are normally spot on. This was the most positive review I have read from them.

"The S2000 is one of those cars that we really ought to like a lot more than we do. It's a no-nonsense, rear-drive sports car with a 237bhp, 9000rpm in-line 'four' and a close-ratio six-speed gearbox that, if you were compiling a list of the best gearshifts in production, would be very close to the top. As a package, though, the Honda has left us oddly unmoved; the 1999 original attracted flak for its engine's lack of low- and mid-range vigour, and its chassis' lack of focus. The latter was notably improved for 2002 but for us the S2000 remained better on paper than it was in action. "

"Honda doesn't claim any changes to the 2-litre VTEC 'four' but we can't believe it's in the same tune as the original S2000. The spec sheet says it still produces an incredible 237bhp at 8300rpm and a weedy 153lb ft of torque at 7500rpm, while the gearing is exactly as it was, thanks to lower profile rubber on the bigger rims. So nothing has changed, apparently, yet the S2000 now delivers adequate urge in a high gear from low revs, and more than adequate oomph at moderate revs. And the fact that it does changes everything - the S2000 is no longer a car that only starts to make sense when you're on the right road, in the right gear, at over 6000rpm. "

"Five years after launch, the S2000 is the car we hoped it would be. BMW has some catching up to do."

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/driven...ry.php?id=45508

 

Were they not informed of the gear ratio changes? That's what makes the biggest difference in making the car feel faster.

 

they specifically said there are no gearing changes for the UK car, which suprised me.

It's possible that they've made some changes to the car, in terms of fueling, Etc., without changing the displacement.

 

Interesting read.

 

Nope, no changes to the UK 2004 other than the suspension modifications and the cosmetic changes, to the best of my knowledge. It certainly doesn't seem to pull much differently to the 02 I p/x-ed against my 04.

evo's review has been a longstanding source of irritation on the UK board - the feeling over there is rather that they got it wrong originally and are now looking for some excuse to backtrack.

Better late than never, I guess......

 

Wouldn't be the first time automotive magazines just flat out "get it wrong." Car
and Driver wined and dined over the 350Z and kept the S2000 off
it's Ten Best list two years ago yet strangely enough, put it back on the list following the
rather limited changes to the '04 model. I think they were totally caught off
guard by the e-mails/letters following the S2000's omission from the list. Afterall,
when something HASN'T been changed, how (or why) would it suddenly NOT
be as good as it once was? It wasn't as if there were other roadsters out there
suddenly better than the Honda, especially for $30K.

 

EVO was never against the S2K. I remember reading an issue from 00' or 01'.

A 'Battle of the Roadsters' in which the S2K was up against the BMW M Roadster, BMW Z3, Mercedes Benz SLK, Porsche Boxster, Audi TT Roadster, and it took First Place.

If that's not enough to make you a fan than I don't know what is.

 

Another Quote from the magazine


It's on record that we at evo aren't big fans of the S2000. Way back in the summer of '99 we drove three sports cars to the car's launch party in the south of France to help discover just what sort of roadster Honda had created. We weren't sure whether we were going to find a back-to-basics sports car, a high-quality sophisticate or a brawny, raw thrills rag-top, which is why our trio of gate crashers was the Elise, Boxster and Griffith, evo icons all.

Our expectations were high, fuelled by an uncompromising and downright thrilling on-paper specification. To the traditional front-engine/rear-drive layout the S2000 added the world's most powerful and highest-revving normally aspirated 2-litre production engine, a snickety six-speed gearbox and, in the tail, a torque-sensing differential to ensure that all 237bhp would be deployed effectively. The specification also included an impressively stiff bodyshell, double-wishbone suspension all round and high-geared, electrically-assisted steering.

However, it was soon clear that although Honda's engineers had cracked harder puzzles

 

I think you're confusing evo with something else - they've never done a group test like that and they really didn't like the 99-01. They put the 02 up against the Boxster when the 02 came out and liked it a bit better, but still thought it was flawed.

Are you thinking of the Edmunds.com group test?

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/...65/article.html

 

Mark we must have been writing our responses at the same time