How many NSX's do you see daily?

vs

How many S2k's do you see daily?


The NSX is a super car. The S2000 is not, and will most likely be my next vehicle. Until you have driven a well taken care of NSX you can't bash it.

 

Ehh... both are great cars. But all things equal, the NSX is still beyond the S2000.

If you were following the NSX and felt faster, it's not all that impressive. It's much less of a white knuckle experience to play follow the leader. Maybe he took a conservative line; maybe you were bat**** crazy.

Regardless, the S2000 makes quick work of those situations and if you look at the price difference (as new vehicles), Honda made some great progress in the 90s. Glad you enjoyed your car. Get them both on the track.

 

A stock 3.0 NSX is actually quite slow in the straight aways and with the stock rims are really small in width 205s fronts and 245 rears aren't much faster on the track compared to the S2000 I believe. I think that a stock 91 with all stock 91 parts will be exactly on par with a stock S2000. When I first bought my NSX (94 NA1) it was stock and I was a little disappointed with it's performance, that was until I swapped out the stock suspension, did all the bolt ons mods, new rims and wider and stickers tires, best mods were new set of Headers. It really opened the car up and the car felt it had the power to match the chassis.

Most stock NA1 cars dyon around 235-240, I've seen some as low as 225 to the wheels. My NSX dynoed 270ish and with the new suspension I am very happy with my NSX now.

 

Really these two cars are very different beasts.

Clearly, what the NSX is doesn't hold much value to you. It'll be faster 0-60, and 1/4 mile. It won't be faster around the track with 91 stock setup.

If you think this is unusual, an S could likely beat most 70's super cars.

The NSX's later models, with the 3.2 and the final improvements in 06 offer a mor luxury rich super car experience. The S is raw and high strung. The NSX is not that.

Both are great cars, but for different reasons.

 

NSX really isn't all that much faster than the newer S2000. Same can be said about the S2000 and newer Civics. If OP was expecting to blown away by an NSX, that is why OP was disappointed. 0-60 and quarter mile is basically the same between the NSX and S2000.

Lot of people like to defend the NSX as some great car, and it is great for what it was, but for the money, there are just better cars you can get. Same goes for Supras, RX-7s, MR2s, and Vettes from the 90s as well. The NSX has a high resale value because people want it, but not because its especially fast. Dollar for dollar, a late model Corvette will smoke an NSX and come with modern technology to boot.

 

AND if you remember the video of the SSM being driven around the Ring he commented that the S felt faster in the corners.



Edit. Found it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmEmHDimeH8 [/media]

 

Then there was this article from R&T back in the day for those who remember...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparis...cura_nsx_page_5

Honda S2000 vs. Acura NSX

The "fun car" holds its own with the dignified NSX

Honda S2000

Honda S2000
Price as tested $32,477
Engine type 2.0-liter dohc 16V inline-4
Horsepower 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza S-02; 205/55R-16 89W f, 225/50R-16 92W r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec
Slalom 65.9 mph
Skidpad 0.90g

After a short stint in the wet on the excellent Thunderhill Park track, an extremely challenging, smooth-surfaced circuit with a variety of high- and moderate-speed twists and turns, I returned to the pits to compliment the driver of the yellow Ferrari that I had been following. The driver, Dennis Simanaitis, went on to explain how easy it was to drive the 485-bhp Maranello in the wet. A few other editors, too, had been perfectly at ease with their cars in the rain.

This contrasts greatly with what I experienced in Honda's S2000.

The Honda S2000 is definitely a "driver's" car. At speed on the track, rain or shine, the S2000 requires unwavering concentration. But do it right and you're rewarded with a tremendously satisfying driving experience.

At the front, no matter what the conditions are, the car just grips and grips. You're more likely to experience a bit of throttle-induced oversteer trying to get the power down coming out of corners before you would feel any front-end plowing going into a corner. In the wet, however, the rear of the car required constant monitoring. Let your guard down for but a moment and you may find yourself spinning off into the grass.

When it comes to high-performance driving, these are just the opinions of a hack. So I asked our hot-shoe Steve Millen for his take on driving Honda's little 240-bhp red rocket.

"Is the S2000 the most difficult car of the group to drive in the wet?" I asked. Steve pondered the question for a brief moment and affirmed my suspicions. I then added, "So, for a driver of your ability, this car is a lot of fun?" A wry smile appeared on his face. "Oh, a lot of fun," he replied.

The S2000's only weak point is its lack of low-end torque. There is virtually no power until the VTEC variable valve timing kicks in around 6000 rpm. You can either learn to accept the lack of grunt under normal street driving conditions (in the 2500–4000-rpm range), or place your order now for the set of hearing aids you'll need after spending an extended amount of time in the 9000-rpm neighborhood.

With the S2000, Honda has proven to the world that it is truly a leader when it comes to getting a lot of horsepower out of a small-displacement, high-revving, production car engine. A change in camshaft, the engine-management system, and a slightly reduced redline to produce more usable low-end power would make the S2000 experience even more memorable on both road and track. — Jim Hall

Acura NSX

One would no doubt hesitate to sing the praises of a 10-year-old car among a formidable group of new up-and-comers such as these. Not only does a car's appearance become dated after a decade, its performance is eventually eclipsed by less expensive machines. This seems to be the case with the Acura NSX.

Acura NSX
Price as tested $88,850
Engine type 3.2-liter dohc 24V V-6
Horsepower 290 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque 224 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Yokohama A-022; 215/45ZR-16 f, 245/40ZR-17 r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 14.15 sec
Slalom 62.1 mph
Skidpad 0.92g

So what am I doing defending it? Simple: I feel it's the best all-rounder in this test. Many will point out that its "little" sister, the Honda S2000, is capable of faster acceleration times than the Acura at about half the cost; but most probably have never driven the compact roadster on a commute for more than two hours.

At speeds of more than 55 mph, the little Honda's cabin becomes a cacophony of engine, wind and road noise, all of which starts resembling a Limp Bizkit concert with Metallica and Kid Rock jamming in the background. Alternative rock fans may think this sounds good, but after about half an hour, you will be longing to pull their amplifier plugs.

The NSX, on the other hand, cruises to a more serene melody. The 3.0-liter VTEC V-6 stays relatively hushed during normal even-speed cruising, and only makes its presence heard when you mash the throttle pedal. Then, it rewards you with a growl as menacing as any race car, accompanied by a burst of head-snapping acceleration.

I must admit that the S2000 was more fun to drive around a racetrack than the NSX, thanks to its compact nature and go-kart-like reflexes. But to get the most out of the S, you'll need to keep the inline-4 spinning at 8000-plus rpm, a task that becomes tiresome after a half day of lapping. (Why is it that people named Jim Hall have an affinity for small, high-strung cars?)

Also, our test NSX seemed to have an alignment problem, resulting in numb steering feel and heavy understeer. Test driver Steve Millen agreed, "This car feels worse than the last NSX I drove," he commented. Still, the mid-engine Acura was able to click off faster lap times around Thunderhill than the S: a testament to the NSX's exceptional handling balance.

As for the others in this test; sure, there were faster and quieter examples, but none provided the overall diversity of the NSX: outstanding performance, optimal comfort, good fuel economy and a less-than-exotic price tag. With a more powerful V-8 engine (which is rumored to be coming in a few years) — not to mention a dramatic face lift and lower price — it won't be just the S2000 the NSX bullies around in tests like these. It'll be others ...most likely those shown in the surrounding pages. — Sam Mitani

 

I was afraid to create this topic becuase i thought people would just bash on me like i always see happen. i am glad people gave me some reasonable answers.
Like i said before the is 20 years old and i do agree that the s2000 does a pretty good job against older super cars.
i do like NSX i am not trying to bash them. I have always thought they were pretty bitchin cars.

 

for me... I could care less about the NSX... an "exotic" on a budget with a "honda" badge on it. neat.

But, ignoring my own dis-interest in the car... you gotta look at just performance numbers for the 3.0L NSXs...

270hp, 210ft-lb, 2950lbs.
10.92lbs per hp


S2K
240hp, 160ft-lbs, 2850lbs.
11.87lbs per hp

just the power to weight ratio tells you the NSX won't be that much faster. the 3.2L is a different story, but still, stock for stock... a S2K with a competent driver compared to a NSX with a less than competent driver, S2K will be a good match up.

But, in theory, the NSX assuming in good condition, with the same driver, should turn faster laps than a S2K. However, in my experience, NSX owners are like Supra owners... rare to find one being piloted by someone who can drive.

 

MULDER - It was a good write up. I've always found the 0-60 times to be off on the S. Anything below 5s seems to be too fast.

I'm consistently seeing 5.5-6.1 stock.