that's why I'm getting a supercharger in the future.

 

I have begun to think that Honda looks at the popular sports cars out there, outdesigns them in pretty much every way, and then just for the hell of it undercuts their cars by 1/3 on the hp and torque.

It seems to me like the other cars out there (350z, evo...etc) have the hp and torque that america buys. I mean these other cars don't seem to have much trouble selling. They do better then the S certainly. I think if the S had the hp numbers of these other cars they would sell better. When people go out to buy a roadster power matters. whether they want to drag or do twisties power matters especially in the US.

And I'm not being a fanboi this is a constant pattern with Honda which is why toyota/lexus kills it in the US and honda gets what's left. Toyota seems in touch with the culture they are selling to. "Hey, Americans like lots of power, maybe we should make some powerful cars to sell them. geez this is working, our lexus brand is right up there with BMW and Mercedes."

Those are my candid thoughts, I don't mind being corrected. In fact please tell me I'm wrong!!

 

But then that's what the s2000's focus is. Not to be a car for grocery shopping or picking up chicks. So to say "S2ks are in trouble" is a bit exaggerated.

The s2000 is not really in the class of Evo/Sti nor Cobalt SS. Sure, it could have more power, so do the Elise and Exige. But what the car lacks, is made up by the driving fun and handling. It just a trade-off. You can't have both unless you are paying GT3 price.

 

^what about gt-r? haha.

i mean s2k's aren't in "trouble", it's not like they were that popular to begin with so i doubt the lack of power is effecting the sales. plus it's fast enough for most people until they get used to the car and want more.

and you can't really say honda doesn't give what americans want...they are known for being efficient and reliable, not making tire burning power cars. and i think the v6 accords are plenty fast. with that said i kinda wish the s2k came in a v6.....then again it probably won't be as fun as the ones available now.

 

I wouldn't trade the sound of this engine in VTEC for anything... Not for an STI, not for a Vette, not even for a GTR. This engine is pure sex...

 

Aren't all cars a compromise? Want more power? What do you want to give up to get it?

1. Money? Not me. The S was at the top end of what I would pay for a small two seater. I will pay more for a sedan or truck that can take me on trips with family luggage but not for my ego stroking sports car.

2. Give up the reliability of non FI? Not me. I like having a turn key car that will last as long as I keep up on fluid changes.

3. Give up the light weight and small size for V6/V8 power in the front? Not me.

4. Give up the reasonable mileage for the power to out run chevy's newest hopped up Cavalier? Not me.

5. Give up the S2000 for an cheap economy car chassis with a big motor and rims that is only enjoyable when it is being raced? Not me.

The S2000 has the best balance of characteristics to me and my budget. Yes, there are some very good and powerfull cars out there for people who want something different.

I think Honda likes to blaze their own path to set their products apart. I feel that I can trust their motors be reliable and a good balance of power/weight. Or are turbo 300zx, turbo supra motors, and turbo RX-7 motors, just as reliable as B16 and F20 motors. I think there is a cost to being on the leading edge of the HP wars.

 

I enjoy my current S2000 every bit as much as I enjoyed my first one 8 years ago. I don't care what else comes out, I still like my S2000.

If Honda makes a faster one, I'll upgrade. If not, I'll keep enjoying the one I have now. Period.

Think of it like an old MG or something. It's not about how fast it is compared to other cars. It's about how big a smile it puts on your face.

 

If you pay GT3 price for a GT3, you will still be making substantial sacrifices. GT3 will force you into a situation of lower reliability (seal leaks common), ultra harsh ride, non streetable ground clearance (scrapage everywhere thats unavoidable), torque steer, higher maintenance requirements and adjustments (despite factory claim of low maintenance intervals), rear weight bias, loud as hell at speed (much louder than S2000, rattles like bucket of nuts (after break-in), lower back pain due to harshness of ride coupled with painful ergonomics (biased towards support rather than comfort), hot boot area (cooling system runs in front causing a very hot storage compartment), much more expensive maintenance cost for services, shorter lifespan (debatable), and the ever noticeable cost of entry for a GT3 (over twice the price of an S).

The S has and will remain a classic niche vehicle, a roadster, more rare than a 911, less capable as an all-out racing machine than GT3, uniquely designed(chassis/engine/configuration). The S is more nostalgia than anything at this point. I don't believe the S keeps up with modern goal of an all around racing car, but you do get a car that was designed as a cruising roadster that can spank cars around tighter tracks, while maintaining daily practicality.

I would also suggest reading a brochure for the GT3 and its mention of how daily usable it is. Then go out and actually live with a GT3 on a daily basis. For the reasons above, you will realize that what Porsche describes about their GT3 is not very true, as that machine is a monster on the track, but as a result, compromises daily usability and practicality when compared to other sports cars.

 

Dont know why people keep bringing up handling because almost half of those cars on that list will out handle an S2000. INCLUDING the chevy.

 

I've driven an '08 SRT10 w/ 640 bhp (modded, of course) and though it was fast, I felt better driving my S2K afterward. There's just something about the S that makes it seem like a performance bargain, even after driving something that does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds.
Anyway, I agree with the lot of you who said that the OP should just buy a different car then. If you expected a roadster with 162 lb-ft of torque to be fast in a straight line, you've failed in life (miserably..).