The question is, if the S2000 has no torque, what does that make all of the cars it squashes? Would they have negative torque? Or maybe peak horsepower and weight play a bigger role than you're willing to admit.

A V6 would not be a magical fix for the S2000. You may add torque through displacement, but you'll pay with weight and balance, especially if you intend to keep the 9000 redline. I gasp when I see new cars with blown V6's with tons of torque, but under 200hp and 0-60 times over 7 seconds. Hey, why not a V12? Thats got torque.

-B

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nastinupe
[B]Look

Face the facts.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triple-H
[B]Not a torque monster that is for sure, but a much better performance handling envelope and an engine that just makes you

 

The transport truck I blew away at the lights has a TON more torque than the S2000, but I left it in the dust with ease . He must have not been racing I guess.

I think a bulldozer has a shitload of torque also...anyone run one of those? I think we would lose that one .

Seriously...like everyone says, take both out BEFORE you buy. I was in a similar situation as you, I was looking at a BMW Z3 3.0 (I know it's not the M) and was pretty well dead set on getting it. I decided to just TRY the S2000 for kicks. I took it out and instantly loved it...bye, bye BMW, hello S2000.

 

One thing I found out after a test drive is the M roadster is way easier to do power burnout and let's not forget that the M Roadster have brakes that are way superior than the S2k. Not too important for street driving, but huge advantage when driving in the track. But these are two very different cars. You really can't go wrong with either one. But if they are both the same price, the BMW is a better value for the amount of fun you can have IMHO.

 

By "way superior", you mean less fade on the track? I'd buy that...how much more does the car cost? $15,000 more?

As for the more important and practical, non-track driving, Car and Driver lists the M Roadster as having a 70-0 distance of 162 feet whereas the S2000 braking distance was 157 feet, or 5 feet shorter of hitting the back of that semi. If having that semi at your windshield is way superior, I'll take the less superior S2000.

-B

 

To each his/her own; there are many idiosyncratic as well as logical thoughts and feelings that go into a sports car purchase. As someone once said about motorcycles, they're all great. In fact, every car has its pluses & minuses- it just comes down to personal choice and weighing all the factors. I'd recommend reading all the tests & reviews you can find, particularly the comparisons, & see what the experts are saying, too. Then take the scientific approach & flip the coin! You can't go wrong with either one & will no doubt enjoy it immensely!

 

Best thing to do is test drive both cars.
Most dealers don't let you test drive the S2000 so I suggest you look up some news papers or autotrader and find a S2000 you can test drive.

I test drove the Z3 (not M) and my friend's boxster prior to purchasing my S2000.

 

Thanks to ASIN for the scans and info. Pasting below.

Scanned from road&track article that FCGuy mentioned:
S2000 beats Boxster-S and M-roadster in lap time.
It goes thru corners fastest and with the least efforts (g).




Next scan:

The lateral g reported is NOT an indication of ability to hold 200ft skidpad but rather the generated g as result of car movement.
Here are the other pages:

 

bguernsey,

I believe the original post said that the M Roadster was only $2k cheaper, since we are comparing used cars. If we were to compare new cars then the new M Roadster with the new S54 engine is in another league from the S2k, price wise and performance wise.
And yes, I do mean fade less on the track where you absolutely need the confidence of good brakes and the M Roadster also stops in better, Proof: Please see the attaches scan from road & track on the post above. So in this case, the semi would be on the S2k windshield

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bguernsey
[B]

By "way superior", you mean less fade on the track?

 

You're quoting an article where the distance difference is 1 ft in favor of the BMW at 80-0, 2 ft in favor of the BMW at 60-0, and the S2000 inches out the BMW on the track times?

If anything these scanned pages show that the brakes are not way superior, but simply comparable and that overall the S2K does perform slightly better than the BMW on the track, where you said its way superior brakes really count. Your proof simply doesn't support the supposition that the brakes are way superior, even on the track. Comparable, perhaps.

I'm not claiming the brakes are way superior on either car. I'm refuting your claim that the BMW Roadsters brakes are way superior. If you want to say marginally superior or comparable, then I might not disagree. But I've yet to see anything to suggest its effective measure is more than that.

-B


[QUOTE]Originally posted by r6e36
[B]bguernsey,

I believe the original post said that the M Roadster was only $2k cheaper, since we are comparing used cars. If we were to compare new cars then the new M Roadster with the new S54 engine is in another league from the S2k, price wise and performance wise.