S2000 or 350Z Roadster?
#21
Registered User
everyone has their own opinion and there are many of them on this board..
my $.02, is that if you want something that needs to be rev'd HIGH, is a bare bones, no toys sports car then the s2000 is for you..
i see the 350Z as my overweight cousin to the s2000 with more bells inside.
plus Nissan does have a rust problem due to the type of cheaper sheet metal they use to build their vehicles.
then on the other side of the coin, there are those who think you are considering apples and oranges.. a 4cyl vs a 6cyl
in the end, do what feels best inside as you have to drive it
my $.02, is that if you want something that needs to be rev'd HIGH, is a bare bones, no toys sports car then the s2000 is for you..
i see the 350Z as my overweight cousin to the s2000 with more bells inside.
plus Nissan does have a rust problem due to the type of cheaper sheet metal they use to build their vehicles.
then on the other side of the coin, there are those who think you are considering apples and oranges.. a 4cyl vs a 6cyl
in the end, do what feels best inside as you have to drive it
#22
how much would i pay over for a 350 Z...what does that even mean? The S is about 34 sticker. If i wanted a Z i would have gotten one. When i was searching for a new car i didnt even consider the Z because the G35 coupe is sooo much classier and only a hair slower. The cars are very different IMO. The cars are basically the same in drag racing, but i think the S is better at handling. The main difference is the feel of the car. Please correct me if im wrong. I wasnt impressed with the use of plastic in the Z thats what made me not even consider it. To make the Z look as good as the S IMO i would have to put nice rims with big lips on them and even then i would still perfer the S.
#23
Registered User
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k' date='Feb 1 2005, 11:00 AM
the phrase I always preferred was, from the back it looks like a dog trying to run and take a crap at the same time.
#24
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dunbar,PA
Posts: 2,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by u235power' date='Feb 1 2005, 12:02 PM
My wife and I are looking at getting a sports car now that we live where it doesn't snow... These two are at the top of our list, I just wanted to get some of your input on what you see as pros and cons of each.
When I lived in the city, I had an 02 S2k as a daily driver. Due to the lack of low end torque, the car was very hard to drive in bumper to bumper traffic. I had maybe one or two sections of highway where I could VTEC the car. As every "S" owner knows...VTEC is where all the fun begins. If you will be driving in city traffic, I'd probably recommend the "Z".
I have since sold the 02 and thought about buying a "Z". I was torn between a new "Z" roadster or a new "S". After driving both, I decided to purchase a new 04 "S". I must say that I love the changes they made to the car. The car feels roomier, drives smoother, and has more torque. I liked the "Z" but it just didn't drive like a true sports car to me. It felt like I was behind the wheel of my Toyota 4X4. Also, it carried a price of 39+K and didn't perform any better than the S2K.
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central Coast - CA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the input... We are definitely going to drive the "S"... Just from what I have read, it sounds like the "S" is going to be more along the lines of what we're looking for... A true sports car to get the most out of these twisty back roads and Rt. 1, the PCH.
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Metro Boston
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always wondered why people complain about the perceived lack of torque in bumper to bumper city traffic.
At 10 mph I don't need any torque.
For sane driving on public roads I never felt the s2000 was lacking except carrying a 250lb passenger and another 100+ lbs of tools in the trunk.
At 10 mph I don't need any torque.
For sane driving on public roads I never felt the s2000 was lacking except carrying a 250lb passenger and another 100+ lbs of tools in the trunk.
#28
Registered User
In my opinion there are two valid reasons for getting the 350Z over the S2000:
1. You don't want a manual transmission.
2. You are ... how do I put this politely ... too "robust" to fit comfortably into the S2000. Tall and skinny is fine.
In all other cases, I think the S2000 is the clear winner.
1. You don't want a manual transmission.
2. You are ... how do I put this politely ... too "robust" to fit comfortably into the S2000. Tall and skinny is fine.
In all other cases, I think the S2000 is the clear winner.
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by temin' date='Feb 1 2005, 10:57 PM
I've always wondered why people complain about the perceived lack of torque in bumper to bumper city traffic.
At 10 mph I don't need any torque.
For sane driving on public roads I never felt the s2000 was lacking except carrying a 250lb passenger and another 100+ lbs of tools in the trunk.
At 10 mph I don't need any torque.
For sane driving on public roads I never felt the s2000 was lacking except carrying a 250lb passenger and another 100+ lbs of tools in the trunk.
ron