i really want this car but it sounds like some potential issues with the back end locking up, some clicking noises, recalls.
i love this car but i thought it was bulletproof in reliability.
am i wrong in making a decision not to go with this car?

 

i am on the same boat...leaning towards RSX-S and add a turbo...?

 

Sorry, but do you really think that a turboed RSX-S would be more reliable than a stock S2000?

 

Speed, don't get an s2k. And RedCelica.. go ahead and buy that RSX-S with turbo. My feeling is if you have even the slightest bit of apprehension about buying a car....DON'T. It's not like buying a pair of jeans. This is a relatively large purchase (for most of us at least).

Especially with an s2000, the last thing you need is to have someone "Sell" you on one. If it doesn't already speak to you... STAY AWAY.

Personally, as soon as I heard about the s2000 coming out, I knew it was for me. I had a sportbike at the time that I wanted to get rid of in order to buy a car... what luck! I purchased a motorcycle with four wheels.

 

A stock S2000 would be more reliable. I've put 56k miles in 22months and haven't had any major issues. I doubt you'd be able to do that in turboed RSX.

 

Sorry but there's NO WAY a Turbo'ed RSX would be more reliable than a stock or even a mildly modified S2000. NO WAY!

 

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. There's no such thing as 100% reliable car.

Beside you're hearing a lot of those problems here because we like to come here to bitch about it.

 

I've never had a problem with my S2000 and I would recommend it to anyone who was looking to buy a car in that price range. Most of the other owners I talk to have never had issues with reliability either.

 

I'd like to echo kadeshpa's thoughts. There's lots of great cars in the marketplace. If you have reservations about the S2000, buy something else.

 

Sheesh. I can't talk from much experience, as I've only had mine for a month and 1200 miles, but there seems to be two ways to look at this car: Street racer/track car or transportation/fun car. As the former, I've read that this car is about the best bang for the buck that you can buy--matching or exceeding the performance specs of cars costing much more. As the latter, being able to go fast, top-down, with respectable fuel economy and the mystique of a two-holer--it costs more than a Miata, MR2, or bottom-of-the-line Z3--but clearly exceeds them in performance and resale.
I've abused a '51 DeSoto and threw a rod (gee, Dad, it just started making that noise.) Abused a '57 Ford and a '63 Valient, (and luckily didn't hurt the parent's cars), nor did they perform well. Didn't think I abused a '68 Datsun 2000, but in a year had two clutch adjustments and finally had to replace it. Finally stopped trying to drive street cars like a racers, and lived happily with a string of vehicles inclucing 2 Datsun/Nissan Z cars, although I thouroughly enjoyed driving them. Bottom line, if you beat on any car, it's going to cry sooner or later.
Although this little Honda can swing both ways, it was not (IMO) designed to "launch" in street races or from drag strips. Those who try will have clutch and rear-end problems. If you want to do that dance, be prepared to pay the piper. Respect it for what it is, and I think a lot of people "here" will agree, it is more dependable and trouble-free than most (if not all) other cars in its class. For more $$, you can get a faster car, but for the price of the S2000, it would be very difficult (or impossible) to match its quality, dependability, and performance.