Honda S2000

sphinx99

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.

titan

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.

topper1

Thanks for the rainy day advice and opinion on use as daily driver. I appreciate your taking the time.

midnightcowboy

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

carliker

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

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

titan

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?

carliker

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.

sphinx99

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.

clint98v6at

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?

carliker

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?

titan

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.

dario

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
[email protected]

sphinx99

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!)

sphinx99

"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

titan

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.

radiate

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.

clint98v6at

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!

carliker

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.

carliker

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!

carliker

Here's an Edmunds (First Drive) article concerning the 2004 S2000 stating the 0 to 60 time at 5.5 seconds. There's your references.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/honda/s2000/100348367/roadtestart- icle.html?articleId=100600&tid=edmunds.e.roadtests.content...- Honda*

Quote: "Honda claims that 0-to-60-mph times slip down to "less than 6.0 seconds" with the new engine, and since Edmunds has had previous S2000s scooting to 60 in as quick as 5.8 seconds the carmaker is probably being conservative. The new S2000 feels quicker and likely hits 60 in about 5.5 seconds."

This, of course means, the S2000 out accelerates the Porsche Boxster S.

carliker

http://www.honda-acura.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-113958.html

Quote: "So let us consider the original question. The S2000 is a bit quicker accelerating to 60 mph than the Boxster S, and they are virtually identical to 100. ("But, officer, it was only in the realm of scientific research.") Their top speeds are virtually identical, panic stops from 60 mph are within a foot of one another, and the Boxster beats the S2000 on the skidpad."

kyfdx

The Z4 has a cutoff... most pickup trucks have cutoffs.. the Boxster has a cutoff.. There is really no excuse for the S2000 to NOT have one.... A passenger seat is just that.. for a passenger. No minors allowed? I think not.

regards,
kyfdx

carliker

http://www.honda-acura.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-113958.html

Quote: "So let us consider the original question. The S2000 is a bit quicker accelerating to 60 mph than the Boxster S, and they are virtually identical to 100. ("But, officer, it was only in the realm of scientific research.") Their top speeds are virtually identical, panic stops from 60 mph are within a foot of one another, and the Boxster beats the S2000 on the skidpad."

carliker

Cost is an excuse. Honda figures most people who would buy this type of car won't have minors with them. I wouldn't want the price to increase for something I don't even need. If you are set on having minors ride with you, then by all means, get the Z4, Porsche Boxster or most pick-ups. Leave the S2000 for those of us who could care less.

kyfdx

If you have children, you shouldn't buy an S2000? Hmmmm... interesting concept. You should be in marketing.

carliker

Pretty simple concept for most too though I'm not really sure what your point is.

kyfdx

My point is that just possibly, every person interested in the car is not just like you. The airbag cutoff is a feature offered in MOST two-seat cars, and to say "screw everyone who isn't just like me, go buy something else" as an answer to someone who thinks it is a feature that should be offered really does nothing to further the conversation about the car.

I guess you could start a discussion titled: "Only people who love the S2000 just as it is, post your messages here." But, you might get lonely in there.

regards,
kyfdx

sphinx99

I don't have kids but still wouldn't mind the cut-off. Once I was with a friend and her cute four year old son who wanted a ride. All I could offer was a 3mph top-down crawl around an empty parking lot

I do understand why there's no switch though. Although it's softened up a bit, and the standard for "hardcore" has changed, from the beginning the S2000 was intended to be a rather edgy, raw car. I'm sure none of you would get upset over the Lotus Elise not being child-friendly. Well, four years ago in the U.S., the S2000 was the "Elise" of the American market.

Honda also tends to be hypersensitive about safety issues. They often have avoided something as simple as auto-up power windows due to the safety concern of children getting their fingers stuck. So, it is no surprise to me that they wouldn't want children inside a small two-seat sports car.

radiate

I have children and feel very apprehensive about taking them out in the car. The car is edgy and it is fun, but i doubt that most of us owners are driving this car hard and fast most of the time. in fact, it is nice to have the option to drive it hard, but i enjoy it just as much as a weekend cruiser. i wish my daughter could too. The issue of safety cuts both ways. Not having the cutoff option may be creating a potential problem as well. Never-the-less, i still love the car. BTW, i recently bought a connector for the stereo head unit that allows my ipod to work directly through the cd changer button. the direct connection is awesome, 700 cd at my fingertips without the sound degradation of an fm modulator

carliker

Just as you have the right to mention what bothers you about the S2000, I have the right to counter that by explaining why a certain gripe shouldn't matter. That's actually prolonging a discussion, not bringing it to a halt. Also, if you are going to use quotations, please quote something I actually said. "Screw you" seems awfully harsh.

Personally, I wouldn't take a young child in any two seater anyway (just like I wouldn't want them to sit in the front seat of any vehicle). Besides, don't they belong in child seats? For older kids (but still small enough to get injured by the air bag), you can always get a coupe or a convertible with a back seat (like a Mustang, Sebring, PT Cruiser, VW Bug, Audi Cabriolet, Saab 9-3, BMW 3 Series, etc.). Anyway, I tend to be more understanding with gripes that have more to do with the driver (especially when it's a car that's all about the driver). Child passenger gripes should be left for cars that are intended to have them as passengers.

Sphinx - Just curious, how much faster would you have gone with a 4 year old in the front seat if the car had a cut-off switch?

kyfdx

My apologies for the paraphrasing..

I have a ten-year old.. He sits in the back of my car, still.. But, he went with me on the Z4 test drive (airbag cutoff), and I believe I was going seriously faster than 3 MPH. I don't think anyone drives a car with the intention of crashing it.

There are a lot of 2-driver households with two cars and children. My wife was considering the Z4, but I'm sure she would have crossed it off the list if she weren't able to pick up her son from school.

"Child passenger gripes should be left for cars that are intended to have them as passengers."

I think you are substituting your intentions for the manufacturer's.

But, I do agree... This does seem to have prolonged the discussion.

regards,
kyfdx

carliker

"There are a lot of 2-driver households with two cars and children. My wife was considering the Z4, but I'm sure she would have crossed it off the list if she weren't able to pick up her son from school."

Unfortunately (and I'm sure I don't need to tell you this), sacrifices need to be made in these kind of households. Many people want to have two-seaters, but are only able to have two vehicles which need to transport children. Therefore, the Z4 (or other roadsters) must be put on hold until their children grow up. Roadsters are impractical anyway, and the S2000 is more so since it can't provide you with this feature. In an impractical vehicle, this just isn't much of a surprise to me (just like how it doesn't come with heated/power seats).

"I think you are substituting your intentions for the manufacturer's."

Honda targets and designs their cars to meet their customers needs based on how they (Honda) feel the customers intend to use it. I don't.

kyfdx

Well.. I don't assume Honda gets it right with every feature they put, or don't put on a car. The CR-V still lacks a button for the power door locks on the passenger side after 7 years, when every competitor and non-competitor that makes a car with power locks has one. Now, if that were the case on the S2000, I could understand, as you can just reach over and pull up the lock. Maybe, they'll read this discussion and have a change of heart. In the meantime, I'll just assume they are misguided, rather than assuming they are trying to alienate potential customers.

regards,
kyfdx

midnightcowboy

There are companies that will install airbag cut-off switches if that is your primary concern with the S2000.

http://www.airbagonoff.com/

I think the whole passenger airbag issue is being blown out of proportion.

First you have to have a very major wreck and second the air bag has to fire in such a way that it injures a small passenger. The odds are pretty slim.

Maybe you don't fly on airplanes either? Maybe you have won a billion dollar lottery? Maybe you have been stuck by lightning? Maybe you had two blow-outs on the same side at the same time and you car rolled and there were no survivors.

Anyway there are solutions to everything; It is just how much mitigating the risk is worth to you.

YMMV,

MidCow

habitat1

Seems like a lot longer than 10 weeks ago that I handed over the keys to my S2000 in trade in for an Acura TL. I am definitely going through a bit of withdrawl.

As far as an airbag cutoff switch, I agree that it would be a nice feature. I got a letter from EPA/DOT approving an aftermarket installation, but never bothered. Too incovenient to drop the car off at the recommended installer 50+ miles away. So whenever I took our oldest daughter (9) out, I made sure the passenger seat was all the way back, she was well buckled, and we only went on secondary streets. I don't think I would ever have taken her on the DC Beltway, airbag cutoff switch or not.

Regarding the 0-60 S2000/Boxster S debate, I'll throw in my two cents, especially since I came very close to getting a Boxster S back in late 2001, before deciding on the S2000. I have had the opportunity to drive both 2004 models since. My conclusion is that the two are very close to 60, 100 or any other measurement of acceleration, but with a slight edge going to the Boxster S. If the S2000 isn't broken in, and/or the driver hesitates to take it to redline, the Boxster S will win every time. But, and this was key for me, the "fun factor" of taking an S2000 up to 9,000 rpms was incomparable to the rather unexciting way the Boxster S accelerates. Similarly, the handling of the Boxster S is very impressive, but the car feels twice as big as the nimbler S2000. These two cars are very different in the manner in whichthey achieve their performance. Anyone debating 0-60 in 5.4 vs. 5.6 is missing the point. Pick the one you like, and don't worry about stats.

By the way, Porsche does have the best option for those who want top down fun and have kids. Both of my girls fit perfectly in the rear seats of a brand new 2004 911 Turbo Cabriolet sitting in the dealer showroom. 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it's priced almost exactly the same as the S2000. With the exception of the extra "1" in front of the price.

sphinx99

What's an extra digit between friends?

I've actually seen a fair number of 911 cabrios with a child seat in the back.

carliker

habitat1 - Numbers are just fun to mention and to ponder. Stats shouldn't really matter in sports either since it should only matter if a team wins. Considering how much more the Porsche Boxster S is compared to the S2000, it's amazing how similar the performance is.

"My conclusion is that the two are very close to 60, 100 or any other measurement of acceleration, but with a slight edge going to the Boxster S. If the S2000 isn't broken in, and/or the driver hesitates to take it to redline, the Boxster S will win every time."

This might be true if you take two inexperienced drivers and put them in both cars (since the S2000 requires more driving effort), but you might as well throw times out the window altogether if that is the case. Those links I previously posted conclude otherwise to your thoughts. When people mention that "you have to take it redline to make it accelerate that fast" is just stating the obvious. They are saying you have to do something extra (implying more difficult) in order to get the results. Like, "wait a second, the car can't be that good because you have to do this and that in order to get those times". Well, that's just how you drive the S2000. You take it to redline. There is no other way to drive it if you are going to drive it the right way. In a Porsche Boxster S, you don't. Two different vehicles that you drive differently. If you drive both vehicles properly, the S2000 will edge out the Porsche Boxster S every time. The Boxster S just has a larger margin of error. Seems like you are a little heartbroken with your S2000 withdrawal, habitat.

Why did you decide to get the Acura TL? I know I saw you post on the RX-8 site. Were you considering that vehicle as well? Also, how did your trade-in deal go? I was wondering how the resale value of your 2002 model held up during your trade-in.

Sphinx99 - "I've actually seen a fair number of 911 cabrios with a child seat in the back."

I promise you I'm not anti-kid, but I just feel sports cars and chidren should not mix. If I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a 911 cabrio, child seats would be as "strictly prohibited" as smoking a cigarette in a California restaurant.

earlfargis

$35k to spend a on car? Must be nice.

The base Boxster you buy on looks alone because it's not in the same performance class of any of the cars listed. The pricier Boxster-S is a different matter.

Don't buy a Z until the tire feathering problem is fixed. Quickly stated, you'll need to replace the front tires every 5-7k miles in all likelihood -- 10 to 12k max. No word from Nissan if the '05 fixes the defect.

Don't have any insight into a Beemer Z4 other than to mention a Honda will be more reliable.

Good hunting!

habitat1

"If you drive both vehicles properly, the S2000 will edge out the Boxster S every time".

Obviously, I am partial to the S2000, but I don't think that is a correct statement. I've seen a few road test 0-60 numbers that put the S2000 neck and neck with the Boxster S, but I've also seen a few that put the Boxster S slightly ahead of the S2000. Going to 100 mph, the figure I recall for the S2000 by Motor Trend is 14.0 or 14.1; the Boxster S 13.8. And the Boxster S tops out at 160+ mph, whereas the S2000 is more like 150-155.

Again, all of these "numbers" are insignificant to me. I think the S2000 has twice as much "fun to drive" value as the Boxster S, even if the Boxster S slightly edges out the S2000 in lateral g's, slalom, and top end acceleration. And that extra $25k+ that stays in your pocket with the S2000 doesn't hurt matters; nor does Honda vs. Porsche maintenance and reliability issues.

"Why did you decide on the TL?" It was a tough decision. The 2004 TL 6-speed offers very good performance for a FWD sedan that can comfortably carry 4-5. I was replacing a 1995 Maxima SE and, unfortunately the 330i was just too small for our needs. The 545i 6-speed would have done the trick size wise, but by the time you loaded it up with the TL's standard features, it cost $30k more. And the i-drive still "drives-me" nuts. I also considered a E320 CDI, but didn't think it was a very good value and, other than the fun of driving by gas stations, doesn't offer much excitement. I am reasonably happy with the TL, but my 6 year old daughter likes to rub in the fact that I "used to look cool" driving the S2000. So, yeah, I am a little heartbroken. For those that have an S2000, don't take it for granted. You could spend twice as much to only be half as happy.

ginot

I've had the back end of our 2K kick out of shape more than a few times--it's catchable with little drama--under heavy throttle in a corner, a trait I'm familiar with from racing days and other RWD cars.

The first thing to go on what I consider one of the greatest "fun to drive" cars I've ever driven or owned, is the set of Bridgestones under it, in favor of Goodyear GS-D3s. The D3s are stickier, wet or dry, and inspire a greater sense of confidence under cornering--much better rubber more suited to the vehicle, IMO. Of course, the B's are Japanese, so it's understandable they're standard fare.

BTW, the second thing to go are the stock speakers and maybe the radio, as well.

Otherwise, my wife--an excellent driver of performance vehicles--and I consider the 2K a quite stunning machine and plan to keep it.

sphinx99

Thanks for the advice on tires. I have been wondering.

Update; I'm nearing 17k miles. I'm guessing that mileage-wise I'm in the upper echelon of MY04 owners. What's frightening is the fact that I am probably going to need my SECOND set of rear tires by the time I hit the 20k mark. I do not know if the Potenza RE050s simply don't last as long as the S02s, or if I am driving much more aggressively, but I don't recall the S02s going in 10k miles of non-racing daily driving.

Mr_Shiftright

do you do 4-wheel alignments and regular tire rotations?

habitat1

And, if you do, that's part of your problem. The S2000 (as well as most sports cars) has different size front and rear wheels/tires that cant' be rotated front to back and unidirectional tires that should never be rotated left to right. Unless you decide to drive backwards every other rotation.

I traded my S2000 in with 18,000 miles and the original tires, although the rears were ready to be replaced.

sphinx99

As habitat said, you don't do rotations on the S2000. It isn't an alignment issue, either, the tires wear uniformly.

I'm just assuming that the RE050s wear faster than the S02s did. This is a surprise to me because the Z4 uses runflat versions of these tires and I don't hear the same issue. The only other car that uses RE050s is the Enzo, and I have heard that is a different compound (but same tread pattern).

starrow68

Having spent the last year plus going to road courses and seeing lots of S2000's but very few Boxsters or S's I can say that on a road course the S2000 seems to have a pronounced advantage. When discussion at the track gets around to those two cars the Boxsters are easy to pass IMO while the S2000 with a good driver is really tough to stay close to in the corners. Only seen one Boxster S and it couldn't grade the car based on that driver. Older 911's are common at the tracks but Boxsters just don't seem to have the demographic that wants performance beyond 'fun to drive'.

Mr_Shiftright

Well must have to do with the tire compound then. Automakers do like to put sticky shoes on the cars as OEM to give you those good handling numbers. Remember how the NSX eats tires?

Also let's face it, if you are in a car like the S2000, you are going to corner aggressively and that takes its toll. I used to get only about 8K on front tires on my Saab turbo no matter which tire I used. I tried Pirelli, Bridgestone and Michelin, all about the same results.

habitat1

Now back to you - you didn't rotate your tires on the FWD Saab Turbo? I suspect that car ate tires because of poor balance and a sloppy suspension. A friend of mine had one and, although I thought it was an impressive car for the 1980's, I was amazed at how unimpressive it felt in 1995 after comparing it to my 1995 Maxima SE (not exactly a sports car, either). Although FWD, the Maxima felt much more balanced and didn't plow through the turns nearly as severely as the Saab.

I suspect with the S2000, it is indeed the softer compound. The S2000 drives about as "flat" as any car I've driven (including the NSX). You would almost have to take it to a track to get enough body roll to wear the edges of the tires. With the Saab, a quick exit from the grocery store parking lot would do the trick. My friend used to get 20k miles out of his tires with frequent rotations. Compare that to the 35-40k miles he gets out of similar driving with his 540i that has much higher performance tires than the Saab. Tires don't make up for bad suspensions and, if they try to, you pay dearly for replacements.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes I agree. Tire compounds are critical on today's sports cars. You put the wrong tires on some of today's hi-po sports cars, and they will literally fly off the road. A lot of what we attribute to the car's "handling" or "suspension" is actually in the tires. Modern tires are a sort of miracle compared to what we had to use ten years ago.

toydriver

Just bought a '01 with 20K mi. Looks clean and service records seem complete.

Question is $1200 for a 3 yr (from dop) or 60K total miles extended warranty a good idea. Covers most things except the rag top and clutch (which would be my expectation for possible early problems).

Any responses appreciated.