Are you an EV owner who has received a shockingly high quote for repairs? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, May 26 for more details.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
My first set of RE050s bit the dust around 11k miles (rears) and were a solid $500 to purchase and mount.
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.
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
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.
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
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Any reports on a new color for '05?
Does anyone know of a dealership that has a silverstone w/ red interior?
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.
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.
$2,363 seems awfully high to me for this car. What are you owners paying?
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?
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
[email protected]
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=8202&page_number=5
I've been eyeing an S2000 that is listed in a local paper. 02, less than 10k miles for $23,500. Verrrry tempting!
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.
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.
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."
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
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."
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
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
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
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.
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?
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
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
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.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
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
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.
I've actually seen a fair number of 911 cabrios with a child seat in the back.
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I traded my S2000 in with 18,000 miles and the original tires, although the rears were ready to be replaced.
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).
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.
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.
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.