Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda S2000

13468931

Comments

  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    The tires are the biggest cost. Fuel economy isn't great if you're driving the car reasonably hard, and I just seem to find the interval dealer service (i.e. 15k mile service) being more expensive than other cars I've owned. There's also a lot more upkeep if you're fanatical about keeping the car looking good: shin etsu grease for all the rubber seals, regular doses of 303 Aerospace Protectant for the top, etc.

    My first set of RE050s bit the dust around 11k miles (rears) and were a solid $500 to purchase and mount.
  • titantitan Posts: 16
    Thanks, my friend. Classic comment on the old Z3 for it really was a chick car- weak in almost all categories. Each time I have test driven an '04 S2K, I have been unable to push the engine beyond 6K revs. I hae the feeling the engine is really coming alive at this point. Cockpit seems a little noisy from revs but I dig that and it- the cockpit- is damn nice. Tight fit and ergonomics at the fingertips. My only purchase hesitation has been the panach of the Porsche vs. owning Honda. Ironically enough, my family has always driven Honda since I can remember. Thanks, Radiate for the comments as you are making my decision easier.

    Does anyone have a decent website that supplies wheels for the '04 S2K? Love the car but Honda could have provided much sportier more aggressive 17's.
  • topper1topper1 Posts: 2
    Thanks for the rainy day advice and opinion on use as daily driver. I appreciate your taking the time.
  • I have decided to buy a 2005 S2000 New Formula Red in Novmeber 2004. I looked around at lots of cars and have had lots of cars and this looks like the best for me.

    I live in Houston and it will be a daily driver, a lot of days with the top down on my 25 commute to work.

    Power, performance, handling, braking, reliability, slickest 6-speed available.

    Thanks,

    MidCow
  • carlikercarliker Posts: 285
    titan - Please do not let the Porsche namesake keep you from buying an S2000. The worst reason to select a car is based on "panache". Not intending to be mean, but that just sounds snobbish and ignorant. The S2000 performs better, out accelerates even the Boxster S, and Car & Driver even believed the interior (such as the steering wheel) was of better quality than of the Porsche. Too many people are set on the names of Porsche and BMW and willing to sacrifice the performance just to say they have one. This is complete nonsense to me since other higher-end Porsche/BMW owners probably mock the lower end owners anyway.

    About the tires, anything could be better, but I don't see the slightest thing wrong with the 17 inch tires Honda put on the S2000. Why do they need to be anymore aggressive and sportier? The car performs quite well and handles better than any other roadster (near its class) with the tires it currently has. Not one article out of the hundred I've read about this car has commented about the tires needing to improve.

    midnightcowboy - I currently have a formula red '04 S2000. I think the red and suzuka blue are a lot more unique on the road than the two silver shades. The black, white and yellow are two that I don't see as much either. The '05s are going to be out in September I believe. It will be interesting to see what Honda is going to be doing after that.
  • kyfdx@Edmundskyfdx@Edmunds Posts: 25,881
    are an advantage... In fact, the car was just fine on the 16" it had prior to '04. Have you seen the price of 18" tires? The biggest drawback to the S2000 tires is the rate of treadwear.

    I personally would rather have an '03 Z4 3.0, but that is just a personal preference. It is nice to have choices like that.

    regards,
    kyfdx

    Moderator - Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • titantitan Posts: 16
    No doubt the S2000 performs better than a regular Boxster, but when it comes to the "S" version, I have reservations that the S2K is out accelerating that car. In the end, both the Boxster and Honda are great cars. One clearly could not go wrong with either selection. For many months now I have found the Honda to be of great value and fine craftsmanship. My only hold up on the Honda is I despise the wheels so there goes another $2K out of pocket expense and the passenger side airbag cannot be cut off. That's lame when you have small kids and want to toy around with them in this car. Brings me back to an earlier questions and that is: anyone know of a solid website for wheels?

    Any reports on a new color for '05?

    Does anyone know of a dealership that has a silverstone w/ red interior?
  • carlikercarliker Posts: 285
    I still have no idea why anyone would despise the stock Honda wheels. Do you want 18" tires, new rims, "never die" ultra tread? What's the deal? The tread may wear, but that's the case with most sports cars. There is NO reason to spend $2K on new tires. I haven't put enough miles on mine to determine any long-term tread issues, but there isn't any other vehicle that handles better near the price. Obviously, a lot of that has to do with the tires Honda chose. The Lotus Elise ($8K-$10K more) doesn't even have 18" tires (17" on rear, 16" on front). At least Honda tires don't have the 350Z problems.

    The Honda S2000 DOES out accelerate the Porshe Boxster S. If you enter 2004 Porsche Boxster S acceleration times in a search engine, you'll find out that it goes 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds. The 2004 Honda S2000 accelerates to 60 in 5.4-5.5 seconds according to two separate Car & Driver articles (among others I've read). The regular Boxster only goes to 60 in 6.4 seconds. The S2000 just doesn't break as well as the
    Boxster S.

    Finally, this vehicle wasn't made to drive kids around. It's a ride for sports car enthusiasts. Who cares about a cut off switch when a small kid shouldn't be in the passenger seat anyway? Go buy an SUV or a sports sedan for that. An intelligent economic decision is hardly "lame".

    Most dealerships carry silverstone with either red or black interior. It's a common color so it shouldn't be difficult to find at a dealership near you.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    tirerack.com has wheels and tires. I do understand that the S2000 as a funky offset which significantly limits the choices. eBay has a smattering of wheels, too.

    I like the '04 rims, which fill out the look of the car nicely. Granted, some people would prefer a more BMW-style or Corvette-Style look. Just not me.
  • The Netscape home page today lists a survey of the most expensive to insure cars under $40K. The S2000 tied the Mustang GT Convertible as most expensive to insure with an average cost of $2,363/yr. The survey was done by Runzheimer International.

    $2,363 seems awfully high to me for this car. What are you owners paying?
  • carlikercarliker Posts: 285
    I checked out that netscape.com article about insurance. I don't know about sphinx and other S2000 owners here, but I pay nowhere near that amount. I'll be paying $823.20 this year (little less if I paid it all at once). Of course, I have a clean driving record, no accidents, own a house, and I'm 28 (over the 25 mark). If I was only married, it would be even cheaper...well, that's fine. Also, some states people live in just cost people more to insure their vehicles.

    The numbers in that article should be taken with a GIANT grain of salt (especially for the S2000). Obviously, any fast (and/or convertible) vehicle is going to be more expensive to insure if there is a younger driver or even a younger driver in the household that can get their hands on the keys. The cars in the list are also vehicles typically tuned (except for the Sebring??) Actually, I'd be more concerned about the less expensive cars with higher rates. The Mustang is $5000 less than the S2000, but costs the same to insure. The Celica is $10,000 less, but just $200 less to insure and it's not even a convertible. The Dodge Neon SRT and the Honda Civic cost of insurance to car price ratio is extremely high as well. Neither are convertibles and both are $13K less than the S2K, but almost the same to insure. Except for the VW Passat W8 which is a sedan, the S2000 is the only $30K+ on the list. The article doesn't make a mention of that. I also like how the article eliminates several brands just because of the "high class" brand name as if none of those would be a surprise. What is the point in doing that when those brands have vehicles under $30K too? I guess some people are surprised that Honda even has a vehicle over $30K, so why wouldn't they be surprised that it costs a little more to insure?
  • titantitan Posts: 16
    Earth to Carliker, come in. This is Reality calling. There is no stock S2000 on this planet that will do 5.4 in the 60. Please reference the article- or as you say- the numerous ones telling this story b/c I have obviously been reading the wrong journals. That time is a 911/Vette time, not a Honda time. If you are banging out those times, then you'll be receiving a call shortly from Ferrari as a replacement driver for Schumacher. The S2000 is an awesome car with a quick agile engine that, what do you know, does provides two seats for, hey here's a thought, actually driving with a person in the passenger seat. Albiet an adult or a 7 yr old, I would think that is why Honda put an extra seat in the car in the first place. Scan the pages of previous posts and you'll quickly see I am not alone in wishing Honda had a cut-off switch for this exact reason.

    Furthermore, wheels are wheels and tires are tires. I am interested in optional 17" rims. The tires are fine. Good rims will run you $2K.

    Still cannot find a silver w/ red.
  • dariodario Posts: 1
    I own a 2001 S2K, I have taken it on several trips from Delray Beach, FL to Orlando, FL which is about 250 miles. I am 5'7" 155lbs., and experienced minor aches and pains from the trip. I attribute this to the seats (supportive but not cushioned to luxury standards) and limited elbow room. I offer this information in comparison to the other vehicle we have taken on same trips.(luxury sports car) But I consider this a puny price to pay for what it gives me in return (adrenaline rush, sensory rewards, handling, feelings, etc.) Hope this helps you.

    Dario
    soyday@yahoo.com
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    I don't think 5.4 is unreasonable at all. Based on real-world results at s2ki.com over the years, that seems to be towards the lower-end of times, but still within reason. Just like Vette/911 territory is more like upper 4s, not 5.4. (If a 3000lb 350hp torquey fat-tired V8 Corvette couldn't break 5.4 0-60s, it wouldn't sell so well!)
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    "Earth to Carliker, come in. This is Reality calling. There is no stock S2000 on this planet that will do 5.4 in the 60. Please reference the article- or as you say- the numerous ones telling this story b/c I have obviously been reading the wrong journals. That time is a 911/Vette time, not a Honda time."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=8202&page_number=5
  • titantitan Posts: 16
    Sphinx99, I respect your posts from the various and numerous intelligent ones you've made, but the article link you provided draws reference to the Elise's time of 5.5 in the 60- not Honda's. Bottom line is the S2k is quick- very quick and engineered almost perfectly. IMO, there is just no way a stock S2K is clipping 5.4 or lower.
  • radiateradiate Posts: 8
    That Car and Driver article referenced a 0-60 mph time of 5.5 seconds for the Honda "The Honda’s acceleration looked a little tepid compared with the much lighter Elise—60 in 5.5 seconds". the lotus' time on the last page of the article states "the Elise can scoot: 4.4 seconds to 60 mph". it is poorly worded regarding the honda, but it seems clear when reading about the lotus, that the 5.5 refers to the honda.
  • Thanks for the response Carliker. I'm sure my premium would be much lower also due to my driving record, age, etc. I was just surprised to see an S2000 as most costly to insure for cars under 40K.
    I've been eyeing an S2000 that is listed in a local paper. 02, less than 10k miles for $23,500. Verrrry tempting!
  • carlikercarliker Posts: 285
    Here is another link to an article that Car & Driver did that makes it clear to everyone (hopefully) about the 5.4 - 5.5 second time. And, titan, please read more carefully.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article- _id=7274&page_number=2

    This is what the car is able to do which doesn't mean every driver could pull it off. I thought that would go without saying, but obviously it didn't. Every 0 to 60 time is solely the potential a car has depending on how good the driver is. Some cars have a larger margin of error for driver skill than the S2000, as well.

    clint - That does sound like a tempting deal, with low mileage and the first version of the S2K that comes with rear window. Your insurance would obviously be lower too on the '02.
  • carlikercarliker Posts: 285
    Usually when people say "wheels", they mean "tires" . When they mean "rims", they say "rims". Out of all the things to spend money on, one would think the Honda stock rims are fine enough (and to most, they easily are) to save $2K. Your two reasons that are making you hesitate from getting an S2K are the rims and the lack of panache a Honda has? Are you kidding me?! C'mon...please. Sounds rather superficial. At least the cut-off switch is a safety concern...even though I still go with what I said earlier. If a person gets a smaller vehicle, not to mention a roadster, you are sacrificing a lot of safety anyway. The passenger seat WASN'T INTENDED for little kids...otherwise, Honda would have put a cut-off switch like they do in their other "family" vehicles. Since it was unnecessary, again for cost reasons, it didn't make much sense to include it in the vehicle. But, thanks for explaining to me why there is a passenger seat. Mind boggling. Geez!
13468931
Sign In or Register to comment.