Is anyone considering the frequency of repair record of the respective cars? Having owned Hondas for many years, even back to the 1978 Accord, which did have some problems, I have found the Honda automobile to be a superior automobile, albeit in the other ones I've owned, economical, rather than performance oriented as is the S2k. BMW on the other hand has had a somewhat dubious repair record historically. If Honda has coupled their history of high quality production with what I experience as high performance in my 2001 S2k, can there be any question?If one would choose to spend an additional 20000 dollars to have their auto sit in the shop after 20000 miles for the supposed prestige for owning the German benchmark, then buy the BMW. If you wish to save some money and still experience genuine sports car performance, then spend wisely and buy the Honda.

 

To me it was price. The M with a few necessary options is much more $$. Not necessarily a better or worse car to me, not in same league. If cost was no object most of us'd be driving a Ferrari 360 (or at least a Viper for me).

 

I bought my M coupe first -- then the S2000. In the convertible format the S2000 has a slight edge IMO. But drive them both....

About the reliability knock above -- I have found that to be the opposite -- my BMW has been to the shop once (in nearly 3 years) for a noisy seat, my s2000 has been in the shop 3 times (in 6 months) and now needs a fourth visit...

 

Lets see, the bmw has a better warranty, can go 15K miles between oil changes and is a faster car...but is much uglier than the S2000.

The bmw is a safer car, has more safety equipment on board, like stability control, traction control, 4 wheel vented, 4 channel ABS, autoleveling HIDS?

but than damn thing is ugly...

The M roadster has OLD suspension...the S2000 is nasty in the rain..

A brand new from the ground up M roadstercoupe comming in 2003! Why the hell would you pay 45K+ to buy a old design?