I don't street race, so it really doesn't matter what other cars I see on the street have. In one sense, high HP ratings are becoming more and more irrelevant as traffic congestion & speed limit enforcement continues to increase. Good handling, however, can be used everywhere.

My last S2000 was supercharged, and no doubt it increased the fun factor under acceleration (when it was running right), but it also negatively impacted the car's great handling balance.

I don't care how many cars go faster in a straight line, when I hit my favorite twisty roads w/ the top down and the revs up, very few cars can match the visceral experience.

Different areas have vastly varying roads/traffic levels, but 240 hp feels just about perfect for the kind of Hill Country roads I enjoy most. (secondary, often narrow w/ imperfect pavement, lots of elevation change, and little traffic (esp. LEO's)).

 

Never enough, as long as you can put it to the ground.

 

all depends on your personality and your experiences. i have put over 25k miles on modern day 1000cc sportbike so even the mind boggling speed that they have, it has become "slow" to me.

to basically summarize a long post, no you cannot have enough power.. you will always want more after you adjust just make sure you have traction otherwise it's pointless

 

I think for daily driven cars, enough HP is when you are the limit of what you can put to the ground. Of course, you always want more, its just the nature of the beast.

 

I was never claiming a wrong or right, simply stating different people have different ideas of enough. In my opinion the s2000 would need a power upgrade in the future to stay competitive with its intended market, not to be a great car.

In my opinion a great car is one that the driver feels directly connected with the road and can tell precisely what the car is doing (ie: miata, s2000, ~rx8, etc) Most any well designed lightweight roadster will give this. On the other hand, the s2000 was intended to compete with some higher end cars. These cars may be getting power in the future, and for the s2k to stay competative it too would need power also.

To sum it all up (In my opinion) - The S2000's handling characteristics and overall charm make it a great car regardless of power. To stay competative with the intended market, however, it may need more power.

edit: First day on the s2000 boards and I'm already in trouble

 

not in trouble at all. we always talk like this. would u rather it be a place filled with fake niceties and polite flotsam? WELCOME!

 

We're all being civil and having a discussion.

The boards have been a little stale and we're having a healthy dialog.

As long as people don't get petty, defensive, or start with personal attacks, it's all good!

 

Ya it is a crappy question, but I've found anything above 600hp in a tuner car isn't really drivable and doesn't translate into speed on the track. (with turns) Perfect hp for the S, with stock rear gears I'd say 450hp would be enough ass kicking goodness for me

 

how early does the turbo kick in? what rpm? how does it compare to SC in useability?

 

I think the Newton and the big cell phone is the same vein as the S2000.

Technology will continue marching on.

As these items age, there will be an inherent diminishing function that is reflected in their appearances.

Why would you be saddled with the clumsiness and short battery of the big cell phone when for $20 or free with a calling plan you can get a new one. Heck for the cost of replacing the battery you could get a new one.

Which 20 year old formerly mass produced car is so inherently incredible to drive that it's "better" than a base Miata?

An S600 may be a "cool" novelty and get attention from others, but is it more fun to drive than a base miata?

That's how it's going to be with the S2000.

And when you meet someone in the future and you tell them it's "a sports car without the nonsense of today's filler..."

I'll laugh if they ask you why you didn't get an AP1.



And I kind of like some of the filler. And didn't you install heated seats?

And don't you have a modified final gear set?

But I understand not wanting to cater soley to appearances. Of course that's not what I believe people should do. But ignoring that appearances have always contributed to evolutionary fitness is a folly of Man's egocentrism.

And if you're a model, then your job is to be the man that people want you to be (at work). Same with politicians. When was the last time a straight-shooter got anywhere but embroiled in controversy? But maybe we should stick to cars, eh?