I don't know if the stereotype of "a domestic car's reliablity is poor" could be qualified as bashing.
All performance comparisions aside, pick up the annual car issue of Consumer Reports and compare the reliability of the Chevy's (Corvettes only, if you like) to the Hondas (S2000s only, if you like). That is one compelling argument and the only one I need to tell me that it is laughable to compare the expected reliability of the Honda S2000 to the Chevrolet Corvette.
I dunno though, maybe CR is on the take and I'm the one who's wrong here. But if reliability means anything (and it certainly at least means time and money), then Honda is clearly superior to Chevrolet.
Get the Z06 because of the type of machine it is, but don't try to argue a point on its expected reliability versus the S2K. Well, not intelligently, I mean.

 

reference to the z06

 

reference to the z06 My first choice was a z06, I went to the dealer to check out 2 used 01 z06s, guess what I found out. They were GM buy backs because of excessive oil consumption.

 

Actually, if memory serves, the V8 F-bodies, Corvettes, and Vipers ALL have the same Borg-Warner T-56 transmission.

The following is a rant about the same BS I see on every one of these X is better then Y threads.

1) Every time people start comparing cars on any car forums (not just s2ki.com) people start getting delusions of grandeur about their cars. NO, an S2000 is NOT as fast as a Corvette . . . not even a base C5 . . . not even in the twisties. If you have ever beaten a Corvette, it's because the driver had more money than skill.

2) Yes, the S2000 has a higher build quality than most domestics - but it is not problem free (check out the TSB's). Also, according to an article I read, the Z06 oil problem was fixed by the end of the 1st yr of production. A couple of the reported problems of the S2000 (#4 cylinder, for example) have not yet been addressed by Honda.

3) You should get an S2000 because it's more exclusive than X car is. OK, I can understand not wanting to have the same car as everyone else, but realize that there is a price for that. First, your car is going to cost more (overhead and R&D costs being spread over fewer vehicles). Second, parts are going to be more scarce (I'm sure only a few S2000 parts are close by, while I'm sure there are enough spare parts to build a dozen new Camaros a couple hours away). Third, look at the posts about frustration the lack of dealer knowledge about the TSB's (think this has anything to do with the relatively low volume?).

 

Lol, since i can not field all the arguements, ill do my best.

I know about typical domestic reliabilty, and frankly, i am not going to have the car long enough for the domestic/import reliabilty and longevity issue to be an issue. Not to mention, the S, hell my S, has many imperfections honda has yet to take care of for 02' (grinds, notchiness) [also notoriously weak clutch, which i do have not felt]

Also, the S is not a typical honda, and like someone has said, we have yet to hear from those exceding 100k on it, to see just how well they do when the millage climbs..

And to those complaining about "whining", lol, it is not easy to swallow the fact that I made a huge mistake. For whoever said "save us the for the good of everyoen else BS", you obviously have misunderstood the post. Cause it is for other people, people like me who test drive the car and for the first few months are blinded by all this great car has to offer, but then relieze that their BRAND NEW HONDA grinds gears on easy shifts, or feels like theres a metal thing on the corner of the 3rd gear gate. Or maybe when that wonderful mail comes saying that your new HONDA has a problem with spark plugs becoming loose. THen you think to yourself, didn't i buy a honda not to deal with this nonsense. And then, when your upset about all that crap, you relize that without high RPM cltuch drops your car is a dog off the line. I mean, its just depressing to think about.

But since i do not have unlimited funds, i am going to have to drive the hatch for at least 6-10 months after the S is sold just to save up for a used chevy. And the more i think of it, i choose the S over the chevy for a reason, so maybe the corvette camp is not for me, i guess saving for an M3 should start now, only car that seems to have everything i am looking for.

Sorry if you do not like the post, but nothing is perfect, and i know this, i just thought the S was pretty close when i bought it. Mike

 

Have you factored in the cost of gold chains, silk shirts and a chest wig?

 

People post these threads because they get such a big response. Get it?

That said, I call bullshit on what most of you have said about the Vette (including one or two who claimed to have owned it.) Go drive one.

 

posted by Nastinupe 1:
"Honestly, I can understand how this guy feels. I believe that the car was pushed to be faster than it really was."
That's funny to me. I have taken many people for rides and after telling them up front that it's a 4 banger, they have all, every one, said- WOW, Incredible,- etc when the ride was over.

 

Apples and Oranges-A Comparison
S A. Sandford
Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) Vol. 1, No. 3,May/June 1995
We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared.
However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.

First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an
analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1).
Granny Smith Apple and Sunkist Orange
Fig.1
Materials and Methods
Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith
apple and a Sunkist Navel orange.


Fig.2
Conclusions
Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar.
Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.
A Personal Note
I, for one, intend to carry a copy of figure 2 in my pocket so that the next time someone accuses me of comparing apples and oranges, I can whip it out, shove it in front of their eyes, and say, "No - this is comparing apples and oranges!" That should fix them.

Scott A. Sandford is a research astrophysicist working at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California.
Caleb Brown is an illustrator and biologist living in Montana. By day he drives a delivery van, and by night he draws pictures with his computer.

quoted from:
http://www.inno-vet.com/articles/1999/0599/52.htm

 

Your making an EXCELLENT decision! I support you 100%!

(Well, thats one less ignorant person behind the wheel of an S2000 to make us look bad)