Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z

donquixote30 · May 2007

Just read your question. I believe others have answered it as well or better than I would have. At any rate, I believe you are comparing apples with pears, raw torque/power versus craftiness, handling superiority, and precision.

Claires · May 2007

It'd be great if we can leave grammar/spelling critiques out of the discussion. Since this is the 350Z vs. S2K topic, the Solstice/S2K comparison is off-topic here, but you're welcome to create a new discussion comparing the two vehicles.

accelerator · May 2007

The dealership name is Bankston Honda in Lewisville, Texas and yes, it does include the handling charges. Ask for "Scott P". He is their S2000 Guru and he knows a lot! He is a straight up guy but as with any car purchase, remember the sales person is not going to be joining you for Christmas Dinner so keep your guard up.

He had one guy fly down from South Carolina and drove the car back because their prices are so good. Also, if you want to use Leasecompare.com, they will still sell the car at the same price, doesn't matter who. If you decide to make the trek down here, let me know and I'll give you my real name so I can get the $100 referral.

In April, they had 11 and now they are down to 3 or 4 (2 NFR and 2 silverstones). Their web site is http://www.bankstonhonda.com and the inventory page is http://www.bankstonhonda.com/index.cfm?action=inventorysearch&subaction=searchli- stnew&inventorytype=New&model=S2000&searchtype=allnew&zipcode=75057. Looks like they only have the 1 silver now. I can let Scott know you may be contacting him, if you like. Just let me know.

accelerator · May 2007

Sorry about the off topic, claires, I started a new thread for S2000 and the Sky/Solstice.

Honda S2000 vs Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice

accelerator · May 2007

I am in no way attacking you, just defending my purchase.

I got my S2000 for $28,500 ($6345 below msrp). This makes for an potentially incredible lease deal. Financially speaking, the S2000 just made a better choice for me. From many of the other posts I've read, many of the people driving vehicles like this are wealthy. I'm not hurting for but I wouldn't call myself wealthy. If money is a huge factor for you, I would take into consideration of how long you expect to have the car. While GM's 100k warranty is nice, you need to find out what it covers. When I got my S2K, I could have extended the warrnty to 100k miles for $1204 and that was "roof to road."

Oh, and if you have to get an Automatic, then your choice is pretty clear. I've heard good things about the automatic. BUT don't let the S2k's stick scare you. It is smooth, light, and effortless. The mustang's clutch was nice but heavy compared to the S2K. I drive in 60 min rush hour each day and the shifting is easy for me and I haven't had a stick in 4+ years. My last stick was an Toyota MR2.

I, too, had a Tahoe and it was bulletproof. We also have a Chevy HHR 2LT and love it. I have no reason to think GM's roadster would do poorly, as long as they didn't pull a Fiero (the parts bin philosophy).

trucktricks · May 2007

Sorry for getting off topic here (new thread was created by accelerator)so I will be switching over.

My search is for the high performance, top down, affordable, roadster experience.

Honda S2000 and Solstice GXP both clearly fall in that category.

Aston Martin Vantage and Ferrari F430 Spider both clearly do not.

trucktricks · May 2007

Ooops. My apologies for getting off topic. Looks like accelerator has come through on this one.

trucktricks · May 2007

I understand on the "defending" thing and thanks for appropriately starting the new thread.

BTW, I was once the proud owner of a Fiero ( my son and daughter shared this car). Overall, it did OK for satisfying basic transportation needs and they thought it was great. It was an absolute nightmare to work on. The parts bin philosophy can be made to work if done carefully. In this case taking an entire front wheel drive powertrain and shoving it to the rear with very few changes produced mixed results.

accelerator · May 2007

In high school, a friend of mine had a Fiero GT. It looked great, until that darn dog walked into the road. My buddy swerved to miss the dog, ended up going into a ditch which launched us into the air about 8 feet. We were able to tell how high we went from the marks on the tree that failed to move out of the way. We both walked away with very minor scratches despite the car was cracked in half on both sides of the sun roof, tires ripped from the chasis, and a popped driver window. We were lucky we hit the tree a little off center or else I might not be here to joke about it now.

And no, alcohol nor excessive speed were involved; just inexperienced kids over-correcting trying to avoid hitting an animal.

Oh, the point I was trying to make is that the cars design did what it was designed to to do, save our lives in the event of a crash and I can never find fault with that.

Claires · May 2007

Thanks for starting the thread, accelerator. I've linked it into the Sky and Solstice discussions too, so that it'll get the attention of the owners of all three vehicles.

Honda S2000 vs. Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice

montrose · May 2007

Been skimming through this thread and wanted to add a bit of my own experience in general, not really in response to any one post. I've driven the Z and the S, not the Sky.

I think just based on the specifications of each car, it should be obvious how each will drive. The Z is going to be a brute with a lot of torque that tappers off by redline whereas the S2K is going to be the exact opposite with no torque down low but an all out attack from 6k to redline. The S is a lot more high strung and edgy, harder and more demanding to drive at 10/10ths, but much more rewarding when doing so. The Z is less refined, but a lot more forgiving, it wont bite you quite as hard if you make a mistake like backing off the throttle mid-corner. For me, the S would be more rewarding wringing every last second out of it on a track while the Z is more fun showing off and screwing around sliding the back end around. I haven't driven the Sky/Solistice, but I'd imagine it's going to be somewhere in the middle of the S and the Z, more for giving and less high strung than the S and not quite as brutish or portly as the Z. If the S is scalpel, the Sky/Solstice is a steak knife and the Z is a machete. If learning how to be a better driver is one of your goals, then the S is the car for you because it won't mask driver errors like the Z will, but other than that I don't see a point in arguing which car is "better" because each of them is designed so differently. Choose whichever best suites your driving style. If you like drag racing, go buy a Z, if you like road racing, go buy an S, because while each can do both, the Z is a better drag car and the S is better when the road gets twisty, end of story.

When comparing all three as roadsters, it should be pointed out that the Z was NOT designed to be a roadster and without it's top, the performance is NOTICEABLY LESSER than the coupe. The suspension is softer, the car is a few hundred pounds heavier, and the chasis is a lot less stiff than the coupe. This even further takes away from the driving experience that everyone raves about the S for. The Z roadster wasn't designed for the performance minded driver, it was designed for the driver that just wants to look good with the top down, and as such it's been watered down a bit.

As far as reliabilty, I do service at a Nissan dealership and I used to own and still do work on Hondas. I don't know a whole lot about the Sky/Solstice other than what I've seen on the net, but I am 100% confident (even if I don't know a damn thing about the Sky/Solstice) that the the S and any other Honda will always be more reliable and have a better fit an finish than most other cars in the same price range (with Subaru and Toyota up there too), including the Z and the Sky/Solstice. I know for a fact (because I've replaced a few Z engines and transmissions myself) that up untill this year (time will tell if the '07 Z motor is any good) the Z has had problems with the motors not seating the piston rings correctly and thus burning oil like crazy (such as 1 quart for 1k miles) and the earlier model years ('03-'04 in particular) had problems with blowing up transmissions as well as front tire wear issues because of flaws in the front suspension design (the tire issue hasn't been completely resolved), and the brakes on the non-Track models were crap up until I think '06. I like the Z enough to make me want to buy one, but I won't because they are junk, along with the better part of Nissans lineup. The '07 Z has addressed many of these issuses with better brakes and a brand new motor that gives me that tingley feeling when I think about it, but I won't get too excited until they show better reliabilty than the previous engines. Nissan is bottom of the barrel for reliablilty as far as Japanese cars go, maybe a little better than Mitsubishi. I read some "most and least reliable cars of 2006" article on the web the other day and out of 5 or 6 categories (SUV, sedan, sports...), Nissan was in 4 categories for top 5 worst of '06. I think we only had 9 or 10 models all together last year. The Z wasn't one of those 4, but it goes to show Nissans "quality". I don't think I even have to talk about the American car manufacturer's reputation for quality, reliabilty, and fit and finish, and turbos eventually wear themselves out as well as putting a lot of stress on the rest of the engine. I've owned a turbocharged car in the past. While it's fun and easy to make a lot of power, they're a pain in the [non-permissible content removed]. All of this is not to say that the S2000 doesn't have it quirks, but most of them were worked out with the 2002 revisions and then even further "refined" with the 2004 revisions. The pre-2002 models had a few bugs to be worked out and the pre-2004 have a problem with toe change throughout the rear suspension travel that makes them a bit twitchy, but as far as reliability, they are just like any other Honda. The only serious problems I've heard of since the '02 model are directly related to driver error and abuse, not Honda's manufacturing deffects (blown rear differetials from hard launches and clutch drops and blown motors do to mechanical over-revs caused by a driver miss-shift, which could happen just the same in any other car). You'd be hard fetched to blow out a Nissan rear end from any sort of abuse, but that's about the only place that Nissan's got Honda beat in the reliabilty department. The Solstice/Sky might turn out to be great cars in the long run, but they still won't touch Honda as far as reliability and quality is concerned. Nissans warranty isn't that great and Honda's might be a little better, while the GM cars have a good warranty, but you don't really even need a warranty on the Honda, whereas the other two cars I wouldn't feel comfortable not knowing where the nearest dealership was at all times. The Nissan gets the worst gas mileage of the bunch (it's the heaviest) and despite what the sticker on the window says, the S will get around 30 mpg on the highway just like the Sky/Solstice.

This leads me to resale value. While I don't think it should factor in too much when you're buying a car (as long as you're in it for the long haul), the Honda does and always will have a better resale value than GM or Nissan because of how reliable Honda's are and how reliable GM's and Nissan's AREN'T. This could help you or hurt you, depending on whether or not you're buying new.

In the end, it doesn't matter, buy what you like. Just make sure you get the extended warranty with the Nissan and the GM, because you'll be keeping me and my friends over at the GM dealerships busy.

anythngbutgm · May 2007

My mom just handed off her beloved 91' 240SX to her brother with 300k miles on it. Sure, it needs some work here and there, but he's still driving it.

You're right, the 350 is all about power, not precision. I know a couple of people with them and they've had no issues to speak of, and these people either own or previously owned an S2000 so they don;t drive them gently.

I wouldn't even put the Kappa cars in the same sentence, Turbo or not, they were "el cheapo" from right out of the gate serving their mission as "Entry Level" as you can't go any lower in both price nor quality. Bad rear diffs, self-destructing Auto trannies, poor fitting soft tops seem to be pretty common occurance. The 350 on the other hand has been around long enough to be a yay or nay in the reliability dept. but as far as the cars go, they get good ratings in the CR while the Kappa get a big fat black easter egg... I'd go with the Z without batting an eye.

montrose · May 2007

http://www.nissantireproblems.com/

Food for thought. It's not to say that if you buy a Z, you're going have a nightmare with reliability, because not all of them have problems, but an abnormal percentage of them do. Many people are on their third and forth engines or transmissions. Just the thought of possibly having to pay for a motor or tranny outside of warranty, or new tires every 6k miles, would be enough to make me run, not walk, away from the Nissan dealership.

dat2 · May 2007

I have a 2005 350Z and just replaced the OEM tires at 31,000 miles, the wear was fairly even especially considering you can't rotate them. Of course the rear tires were pretty much shot, thank you Nissan bulletproof rear end. Nissan had resolved the tire problem by the 05 model and they properly took care of customers by replacing tires and adjusting the alignment specs as well.

Your comment about the S2K only having reliability issues related to driver error is hearsay and could just as easily be applied to the 350Z's that you have seen having trannys, motors and clutches changed out. Some owners of 350Z's are young people running hard or even tracked cars. Granted some of them were also engineering defects in the earlier cars. Look at the sales volume of Z's, then compare to the repair record and sales volume of the S2K and I bet you won't see the results you (subjectively) mentioned.

I routinely get 30 mpg hiway with my Z. Not sure where your comment about the Z fuel economy came from. That's pretty impressive mpg for sports car putting out nearly 300 horses. And the new 07 models get even better mpg.

montrose · May 2007

I think you're right, the tire wear problems have been addressed for the most part, but as far as I know, no changes were made to the front suspension, only the alignment, so the problem is not gone. You shouldn't have to worry about weird feathering problems with your front tires running any alignment specs you'd like, so long as the toe is reasonably close to 0, and that just isn't the case with the Z. You're experience with your Nissan dealership taking care of you with new tires and the new alignment specs was a good one, but not all dealerships are so quick to take care of their customers, so not all have had the same good experience.

I wrote "the only serious problems I'VE HEARD OF since the '02 model". That means IN MY EXPERIENCE, not that Honda has never built a deffected motor or tranny, whereas with the Z, I've seen quite a few trannys and motors with MANUFATURER DEFFECTS, not related to driver error. The tranny deffects were mostly in the '03-'04 cars, but the Z's were still having a problem seating the piston rings all the way up until '06, that's a maufacturer deffect, not driver error, and that's why people are getting new motors under warranty. If either case of tranny or motor problems was related to driver error, Nissan wouldn't cover the work under warranty and they wouldn't have TSB on checking oil consumption. Maybe the '07 motor will be better.

That's the first time I've heard of a Z getting 30 mpg and I think it's safe to say that for the most part the S2000 and the Sky/Solstice will get better mileage than the Z. It's a heavier car with a bigger motor; not rocekt science.

I don't own any one of these cars and I don't have any brand loyalty, I'll go with whichever is the better car. I couldn't care less which car you, or anyone else bought or plans on buying. I'm not trying to defend Honda or criticize Nissan, I'm just stating what I know from my experience with the intention of giving a potential buyer some more input about these cars that their salesman won't be telling them.

tgeen · May 2007

Trucktricks, our impressions of the 350Z vs S2000 are very similar. I don't own either one, but I've been shopping lately.

I would have to say that the Honda is probably the most satisfying car to shift manually of anything I have ever driven, including the Z.

If you're into shifting for yourself, as I have been doing for the past 25 years, you end up placing a very high value on a good shifter and clutch feel because you will be using these controls thousands of times every month. The S2000 was clearly designed by car guys who live and breathe manual shifting. Shifting gears feels like clicking the bezel on a Swiss watch, and the clutch feels like an old friend after the first five minutes. This is attention to detail. And Honda didn't even deign to offer an automatic. What's not to love about that attitude?

Honda will get my money, is all I can say. The Z is a blast to drive in its own way, more like a motorboat for the road than a scalpel. It's a lot heavier, and it feels it, but I wouldn't kick it out of bed. I would be happy with either one. But the Honda made a connection to me that was absent with the Z, and it achieved this within five minutes. To each his own, I'm sure.

I really need to drive the Solstice/Sky next. Sadly, I haven't heard too many good things about the manuals in these cars, and if they feel anything less than perfect, they're out of the running. In my book, you don't release a sports car until you have this fundamental thing basically worked out to perfection.

glendower · May 2007

"I've noticed that when I see a 350Z convertible, all I can see is the drivers head peeking out from inside the cockpit. It's like they're sitting in a deep tub up to their chin, surrounded by windows (rolled up, of course) and a wind blocker - not exactly my idea of a convertible."

Don'cha love it when pot calls kettle black: http://www.automobilemag.com/new_and_future_cars/2008/0703_2008_honda_s2000_cr/photo_03.html

Typical, however, of the BS the S2000 crowd is slinging on this thread.

S2000 is an undersized (interior) one-trick pony with a nice shifter--appropriate because you have to constantly use it to get any performance whatsoever. Must be a huge market for replacement shift knobs.

accelerator · May 2007

In response to the first five minutes comment, I've been without a manual shifter for a little over 5 years now. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to enjoy a manual again and was actually leery of taking the S on a test drive (being used didn't bother me, it was the simple fact of being a stick). After 5 minutes behind the wheel and zero stalls, I knew I was home. That was a 2004 model. After driving that one for about 15 minutes (very nice sales person), I decided I wanted a new one just so I could drive it that much longer. Last week, I picked up my Rio Yellow and I haven't looked back since. I drive 30 miles one way; of those 30 miles, the first 10 miles are stop-n-go traffic and my leg hasn't gotten tired or sore (remember, I haven't driven a stick in 5+ years). This is a true testament to the quality of shifter/clutch in the S2000. If you are on the fence and ~~like~~ LOVE to drive, then the S is for you.

If you take the plunge, let us know what you decide.

accelerator · May 2007

@apologists: You made me spit milk out my nose! Don't move, I'm loading up my slingshot and getting ready to take aim. :P

All I can say is the adage, "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand" applies here (of course you have to replace Jeep with S2000).

If I'm slinging BS, my S don't stink!

dadsz · May 2007

I test drove the Miata, S, Z, and Solstice. I'm a roadster guy from way back. My first was a 1976 MGB.

The Miata was a fun drive, but with the options I want was getting expensive. It reminded me of my old MGB on steroids. A great car, but as you start moving up in style (touring, grand touring) the car gets a little to pricey compared with the others.

The S is also a fun drive, shifting is as easy and simple as everyone here has posted. But the seats left a little to be desired in my opinion. They just didn't seem all that comfortable. I'm not buying a daily driver, this car is a play car but even so, the seats were too stiff for my taste. It's quick, it's fun, and it's good looking as well. But the cost for what you get is influenced by the Honda mystique in my opinion.

I'd stay away from the Solstice. The manual was just ugly to work in comparison with the japanese cars (or German cars for that matter). I cannot for the life of me figure out why American car makers cannot get the manual transmission down pat in the same way that the imports do. This car is soft in its handling compared with the S, Miata, and Z.

Here's why I ended up with the Z (new 2006 Roadster Touring): For the money it was simply the nicest car for me. I like the low end power (and no I'm not a mustang or camaro fan). I liked the sound of the engine. But most of all, I felt really connected to the car as I put it through its paces on the test drive. You don't sit lower in a Z than a miata or s (don't know why someone would say that... you simply adjust the seat). When I compared the final price on my Z with the S and the miata, I received a more powerful car with just as proven a track record as the others. I also have more options for the money. So it came down to both features and economics.

For those of you who are looking at either the S or the Z, you need to understand that many folks come to these forums to complain. If you go to the enthusist forums for each car, you'll get a more balanced view of each car.

Each car is different in its own way. Personal choice makes the difference if the price is the same. But drive each car that you are interested in and make your own mind up. Whatever you buy, you should be happy to drive. Enjoy!

accelerator · May 2007

Here are the links for the respective Entusist Forums:
Nissan 350z: My350z/
Honda S2000: Honda S2000

Just know you will find the same debates there that you are finding here, only a bit more heated.

BUT you will find a great deal of help, information, and perhaps even a local active chapter that promote fun runs (e.g. The Dragon). I'm looking forward to my first fun run in my S2000 this summer.

Be safe!

Oh, with any roadster you end up getting, don't forget the sun screen! :shades:

habitat1 · May 2007

"But the cost for what you get is influenced by the Honda mystique in my opinion."

"Honda mystique"? That's pretty funny.

In my opinion, the $30,000 S2000 is the deal of the century, price wise, if what you want is a serious sports car with world class driving dynamics and handling. It compares favorably with the base Boxster at $50k+ and bests both the Z4 and SLK350, both of which are $45k+. The closest thing to an S2000 in driving experience is a Lotus Elise, which is even less civilized for well over $40k.

The 350Z Roadster does indeed offer more amenities and a more "comfortable" touring style ride. But at 600+ lbs more than the S2000 and Boxster, it can't come close to the S2000 and Boxster in agility and driving dynamics. It really is more of a GT car than a sports car, which is perfectly fine, if that's what you want.

Back to the "mystique". Honda has it? I don't really think so. I bought an S2000 in 2001 because it was a better car than the mystique-laden base Boxster at the time. Every car that the S2000 competes with has more "mystique". Honda delivers the goods with the S2000 and, in spite of being nearly 8 years old, shows just how well you can do when you set out to build a sports car from the ground up. Something that no other Japanese manufacturer has done in the last decade, period.

I suspect I could get accused of succumbing to the "mystique" of Porsche with my purchase of a 911S Cab. But I never thought I'd hear that about a Honda.

accelerator · May 2007

Does mystique = "What is that?"

I've filled up my tank 3 times, and 2 of the times, I've been asked, "What kind of car is that?" I reply with, "It's a Honda S2000."

Their response: "That's a Honda?"

I love it! :shades:

dadsz · June 2007

Honda Mystique = most reliable cars built so you pay for the quality reputation...

Although it appears that in some areas that the S is selling for $2,000 under invoice as dealers try to sell their 2006s before the new 2008 redesign hits the lots. So apparently, mystique only goes so far....

I'd up the ante to jealousy for a Porsche! Mystique doesn't quite get you there with a Porche 911S Cab.... (As in "I wish I had one of those!" and "Holy #@$@! That's the car I'm going to buy when I get rich.")

Enjoy your car! It's awesome baby... Dicky V mystique does not apply.

dadsz · June 2007

Yep, there's that too! Great feeling isn't it?

tgeen · June 2007

Would any S owners (or Z owners, or anyone else) care to enlighten me on how well the S works as a daily driver? My current car is a 2000 Celica GTS, which I have been driving every day for the past seven years. So, I know a thing or two about peaky engines and all that.

I promised myself to get something with more torque next time, so I've been test driving larger and heavier cars, but driving the S was way more involving and fun than anything else I've tried lately. I'm estimating it has 30-40 ft-lbs more torque to work with between 3000-6000rpms compared to the Celica, and an extra 300 lbs of weight to haul around. It felt quicker through traffic according to my butt-o-meter. Not as grunty as the Z, for sure. But for the same price, I get a drop top. Advice, anyone?

dat2 · June 2007

If you want a sports car with more torque than you should test drive a Z! And when you miss the high rpms...the Z has a 7500 redline so it's got plenty up top too, the best of both worlds.

habitat1 · June 2007

I did not find the S2000's 162 ft lbs of torque to hinder its use/enjoyment as a daily driver, when I had a 2002 model for 2.5 years and 18,000 miles.

Frankly, a bigger issue was the noise level and overall comfort with the top up. I could handle it from the driver's seat, my wife did not like it from the passenger seat. If you will be doing a lot of daily driving with the top up, you may want to test drive it under those conditions.

Also, do not spend too much time with your calculator doing torque-per-pound or other such calculations. It's performance that counts. In spite of a 100+ ft-lb advantage on paper, the S2000 and 350Z are essentially identical in actual (full throttle) acceleration. Around town, at 50% throttle, the Z's low end torque offers a bit better acceleration, but you will be giving up point and shoot handling and better fuel economy with the S. It's very much a subjective choice.

Lastly, by comparison, my 911S "only" has a 28 ft-lb advantage over the 350Z, but at around 4 seconds 0-60, is in a completely different league, performance wise. I'm sure there is a statistical way to figure out why some ft-lbs of torque do more than others, but if you can do that, start a hedge fund, make billions, and buy a Ferrari 599. No torque issue there.

jkgreer2 · June 2007

We own a 2006 S2000 and other Honda & Acura cars. I suggest you test drive the S2000 and the Z, or whatever you are comparing, over a portion of your daily commute. When I walk into the garage every morning, I start smiling in anticipation of the morning commute in the S2000 with top down. At about half way to work, I try to convince myself to continue to work vs. taking off on a longer commute due to the enjoyment of driving the S2000. For the drive home, the same process happens and I try to add a grocery stop or other stop to lengthen the drive. All the while at 23 mpg to 30 mpg (depends on routes taken). Does the S2000 have less torque? May have, but driving it is like riding prior motorcycles, with two wheels added and a top. Any S2000 drive is very enjoyable due to the 6 speed transmission matched to the engine. Does the S2000 have less room? Yes, but my wife does not travel with me to work. Can you carry groceries for a family of 4 or 5 in the trunk? No (drive your other car). Will the car be a 'collector's item'? I think so for sports car enthusiasts, because it is pure fun to drive, as a sports car should be. Good luck with your decision. Life is short. Enjoy every day.

accelerator · June 2007

I have to agree with everything jkgreer2 had to say, except I spent $150 in groceries (9 plastic bags) and I was able to get it all in the trunk, albeit it was tight. I use my S2000 as a daily driver with the first 15 minutes in stop-n-go traffic and the remaining 25-35 minutes of my morning commute on a open highway (mostly straight). This morning was a perfect 76. I'm not on a lot of twisties but I still enjoy every minute of the commute. The shifting in the rush-hour is effortless while on the open road is exhilarating. The clutch is smooth. Like jkgreer2, my wife doesn't go to work with me either, which might be why we are still married!

The things you should also consider are your environment (will you get enough time to enjoy the car in your climate), insurance cost (it is high to insure), etc. Would you rather have some of the creature comforts the Z offers or the oneness you feel with the S2000? Do you want a unique car (S2000) or one you see everywhere (350z)? I love being at an intersection and dropping the top. I imagine people looking at me and wishing they had my carefree life. And no, I don't have a carefree life, the S2000 just lets me pretend like I do and allows me to enjoy life; for me, that is priceless.

This is the first car I can see myself literally driving till 100k or even 200k miles. I've never been able to say that about any car I've owned (in 18 years of driving, this is my 11th vehicle). I've had a mustang GT and while the acceleration was fun, I'm not lacking/missing any fun by the driving the S2000.

trucktricks · June 2007

I think you are on to something with the butt-o-meter. To take that idea a step further, you also need to consider the mass of the vehicle. Too much mass will mask good torque numbers.

Look at these and you will see why I just ordered the Solstice.

Solstice GXP/Sky Redline = 11.4 lbs/lb-ft
Z350 = 13.4 lbs/lb-ft
S2000 = 17.6 lbs/lb-ft

The Sol will flat put you deep into you seat.

I also went with the auto. The torque converter gives you another 2.0 torque multiplication over the gears by themselves.

Yeeeeeeha!!!

accelerator · June 2007

@TGREEN:

Be sure to factor in how long it takes to put up/down a top on a ? An S2000 can do it in less than 4 seconds.

Don't think it is important? I found myself just last week in some questionable weather but the air was cool and I didn't want to miss out on the cool breeze. So, I dropped the top. About half way home, I could literally see the wall of rain up ahead... I pulled over, pushed the button, and up went the top. I pulled over, put the top up and was was back on the freeway 15 seconds later; another 45 seconds after that, the rain was pouring down on me as I was heading into the rain. If I had been in a Solstice/Sky, I don't know that I would have risked putting the top down, not to mention getting out of the car on the freeway to put the top back up... safety factor there.

But I can't argue with the push the GXP/Redline has, the looks of the Solstice, nor thier stereos!

For me though, the S2000 just fits me like a glove, and every control is exactly where I would have put it had I designed the car.

rp1947 · June 2007

I purchased a 2005 350z for my wife and the tire problem is not resolved. I was totally unaware of it even thought I usually research vehicles as thoroughly as possible. We keep cars 10 years or more and take care of them. My wife is over 60 and drives on well-kept paved roads. At about 24K, I noticed front end noises that I thought might be brake rotor wear and had her take it back to the dealer. They charged me about $500 for new brakes and rotors and I let her pick it up. I rarely drive the car, but about 3 months later (just under 26K miles on the car), I drove it and noted the exact same noise that I thought the brake replacement should have fixed. I made another appointment, took it in myself, watched them put it up on the rack, look it over and let it down. The service manager said nothing was wrong and I insisted that a mechanic drive the car with me. It would only take 50 feet to pick up the sound. The mechanic told me about "tire roar" while strapping himself in the seat. He picked up the sound before we exited the shop and brought it back to the rack and showed me the inside of the front tires. The service manager couldn't have been ignorant, he just didn't want to mention it. His solution was to give me 1-800-nissan1 number and an estimate to replace all tires along with an alignment.

I travel extensively, but have tried to get through 3 times now and have never succeeded. Furthermore, I'm not doing anything until I find some better advise than the dealer gave me (I won't be doing business with them in the future. I can't stand being lied to).

For those of you that think it was fixed after 2004, you're mistaken. They may have delayed the onset of the symptoms, but the service schedule doesn't recommend alignment until 30K. If I had known of the issue, I would have checked the alignment long ago and taken it to a shop with the best equipment. The dealer that quoted it above admitted that they don't have equipment sophisticated enough to accurately correct the 350z.

I'm aware that the Potenzas are soft (I raced SCCA long ago and know tires and sports cars), but expected 35 to 40 K given my wife's driving habits. If any of you have information on a tire replacement recommendation for the 350z or an alignment machine that is suited for this car's suspension geometry, let me know. After all, my wife isn't going to the dragstrip with the car, she just loves the look and feel of the car and Nissan has no intent of addressing the issue.

accelerator · June 2007

For your replacement tires, I might recommend you checking out www.my350z.com. I think you may get a better response than on here. I know the S2KI.com has an entire section dedicated to tires. I'm not familiar with the 350 tires but the S also rides on Potenzas. I did some preliminary research on tires and found a nice set for around $400, OEM is closer to $1000 for all four corners. Sounds like your wife may drive like my wife does and $400 would suite my wife just fine and not put her in any danger. I'd have to look it up again, but I believe the manufacturer was Sumitomo.

dat2 · June 2007

Even with your wife driving there's no way you're going to get 40k out of a set of tires on the 350Z, or any other rear drive sports car with summer tires for that matter. I just replaced my original tires on my 05 Z at 28,000 miles and was very happy at that level. If your tires were going bad at 24k, that is very reasonable (when they starting making noises like they were worn out). I went with the Dunlop Direzzas from tire rack, about 130 a piece for the Z. These would be a good choice for your wife since they will retain a sporty feel, though not as serious a tire as the OEM bridgestones, but they will add a little softer ride and quieter on the hiway, they are the cheapest name brand tire you can get for the Z. But, they still won't work in the snow, never drive in the snow.

habitat1 · June 2007

"Look at these and you will see why I just ordered the Solstice.

Solstice GXP/Sky Redline = 11.4 lbs/lb-ft
Z350 = 13.4 lbs/lb-ft
S2000 = 17.6 lbs/lb-ft

The Sol will flat put you deep into you seat. I also went with the auto. The torque converter gives you another 2.0 torque multiplication over the gears by themselves."

Sorry to pick on you, but this post is EXACTLY why people should NOT put too much credibility in one particular statistic. I trust your numbers above are correct. But, according to Automobile Magazine Automobile Mag:

"The joy begins petering out by 4500 rpm"

Maybe that's why they only managed 5.7 seconds 0-60 and 14.2 seconds in the quarter mile - which would put the Solstice dead last in acceleration compared to the S2000 (5.3 /13.8) and 350Z.

And to think anyone would hamstring a sports car with a power sapping AUTOMATIC SLUSHBOX transmission under some screwed up notion that doing so would somehow increase the torque? Those times above were with a manual transmission - the GM slushbox version is considerably slower. Plus, what the hell fun is a sports car with an automatic?

If you decided to buy the Solstice for other reasons, fine. But if you are buying it because of your torque per pound calculations, rethink your choice. And for goodness sakes sake don't get a friggin slushbox on a sports car. That move makes Forest Gump look like a rocket scientist.

tgeen · June 2007

Thanks, everyone, for all the good advice. It's great to have a dilemma where the choices are so delicious that you can't pick a favorite right off the bat.

I live in Phoenix and I have a choice of daily commutes--I can slog through 7 miles of crawling freeway traffic followed by 11 miles of reasonably quick freeway traffic, or I can take the 35 mile route through the reservation and enjoy the mountains and desert scenery, but at a fairly sedate speed due to the sharp eyes of the tribal police. I respect the speed limits on the reservation, including a very long stretch at 35 mph, so I usually just set the cruise control and enjoy the view. It's funny how I don't mind breaking the speed limits everywhere else, but being in a sovereign nation and all, I just relax and take it easy. Either way takes about 45 minutes.

Calculating power to weight ratios is a good idea, but it's misleading with these variable-lift valve engines. If I can find the data, I'd like to know what those ratios are like at 3000 rpms, and 4000, etc. Subjectively, the current S didn't feel flat, which is the main thing. And this was with a passenger.

A cramped cockpit is not much of a ding on a car from the driver's point of view, in my opinion. The driver can't exactly do jumping jacks while the car is moving, so a good seat and good ergonomics mean everything. On a trip of 500-1500 miles, I appreciate good lumbar support and satellite radio more than anything else. Wiggle room is far more important for kids in the back seat. That's not an issue if I'm just driving myself around town.

Noise and harshness can get old in a hurry, though. Since my time in the S was fairly short, and the top was down and I was laughing out loud for most of it, I'm afraid my judgment was skewed. I will have to consider this more seriously. Thank God there are still some cars that have this effect on me in my old age, anyway.

It bothers me that many of the rumors I read of the replacement for the S2000 sound like a step in the wrong direction. A 2+2? A V6? An Acura? Yuck. It all sounds to me like an extra 600 lbs and a complete surrender to the automatic transmission mindset. It makes me think I should get a real Honda sports car while they're still in production, and keep it forever. I hope the rumors prove false, and Honda comes up with an evolutionary improvement like Porsche did with the Boxster.

Speaking of which, can anyone comment on driving a pre-2005 Boxster with a more recent S2000 and 350Z?

habitat1 · June 2007

"Speaking of which, can anyone comment on driving a pre-2005 Boxster with a more recent S2000"

After trading my Honda S2000 for a replacement sedan in 2004, I got back into the "fun car" market in 2005 and test drove and nearly bought a 2005 Boxster S (280 hp version). That car was quicker than the S2000, but not be a huge margin. It also would have been a bit more civilized daily driver (less engine noise in top up cockpit, better stereo, etc.). But, bottom line, at $58,000 for a well loaded Boxster S, that's a significant price premium over an S2000 for some to justify. Of course, then I went and got a 911S, at an even greater premium, but the fact that it holds our entire family made it easier.

If you are looking at a pre-2005 Boxster S (258 horsepower), it is more comparable to the S2000 in performance. The base Boxster is not - the S2000 is definitely quicker than all versions of the base Boxster.

dat2 · June 2007

the 07 Z is just as fast as a new Boxster S, and the 08 Z will feature the new 330hp+ 3.7 litre motor (from the new G37 coupe), so expect an extremely fast Z next year!

fedlawman · June 2007

350Z conv - 306hp / 3580 lbs.
Boxster S - 295hp / 2990 lbs.

Is 10 extra HP really able to overcome a 600 lb weight disadvantage? Even the 350Z coupe weighs 350 lbs more than the Boxster S.

habitat1 · June 2007

so expect an extremely fast Z next year!

I probably have a different definition than you of "extremely fast". Using 0-60 as the basis (only because that's what everybody quotes, but I prefer 0-100 as the metric) here are my definitions and a few examples I've driven:

"Extremely Fast": under 3.7 seconds. Porsche 911 Turbo, Ferrari 430.
"Very Fast": 3.8-4.2 seconds. 911S, Corvette, AMG E63, Ferrari 360.
"Fast": 4.3-4.7 seconds. M5, M3, 911 (base).
"Very Quick": 4.8 to 5.2 seconds. 335i, Cayman S, Boxster S.
"Quick": 5.3 to 5.7 seconds. S2000, 350Z, Z4.

By my definition, the 350Z might go from "Quick" to "Very Quick" next year, but I will doubt it will make it to "Fast", let only "Very" or "Extremely".

Please note, thaqt I don't consider acceleration the most important metric of a sports car. Give me an S2000, and I'll have more fun driving it than an E63 - at least after I get one or two drag races out of my system.

dat2 · June 2007

Oh, the 0-100k means a lot more than 0-60mph. Is that like saying you prefer fags over cigarettes? Don't get me wrong, I am all for finally going to the metric system, but you are just sounding extremely pompous, what with your 100k Porches and Beemers, etc.

BTW, the 07 350Z would rank in your "very quick" class now, CD just tested a model without limited slip at 5.2 sec, 13.7 in the quarter. Next year with roughly 30 more horses we should see that figure easily slip below 5 sec, which is commendable for a vehicle that rings in at a price below anything you mentioned (maybe getting into your fast cat). And of course I agree accel alone does not make a sporting car. Example all the midsize sedans that are nearly as quick as some sports cars these days. And to those people comparing the Z to a barge in driving precision, how do you explain the 06 Z winning the balls to the wall track competetion in CD last year, beating out the STI, EVO, S2000, RX8, etc. That must have been difficult with a car that had the precision of, what was it, a butter knife or something?

dat2 · June 2007

I should clarify, these Dunlops are pretty [non-permissible content removed] tires, but for the price they are hard to beat for street use. The sidewalls are a bit weak. Otherwise they have decent grip, even wear and pretty quiet on the road.

habitat1 · June 2007

Here is the Car and Driver actual test results for the automatic: Read and weep!!!

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 37.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec
Top speed (drag limited): 141 mph NICE!!

What am I supposed to weep about? According to a road test from your Car and Driver gurus, the 2002 model S2000 I had clocked a 0-60 of 5.4, 0-100 of 13.9 and a top speed of 155 mph.

Good for Pontiac to gear the Solstice to achieve a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds, but that's exactly why 0-100 mph, with a couple more gear changes and less dependent upon "launching" is a more relevent test. I'm sure someone as knowledgeable as you knows those C&D guys hold the brake while flooring an automatic transmission. Clearly, after you've mashed your foot to the floor in the slushbox Solstice and done your 0-60 sprint, it's all downhill from there. I think you need to get out the hankies for the tears you'll shed if drag racing is your gig.

By the way, my 5-passenger 1995 Maxima SE 5-speed with 155,000 miles has a top speed of 142 mph. "NICE"?

As far as a manual transmission vs. slushbox in a sports car, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Although fedlawman is correct in pointing out that GM's manual transmissions are not exactly the cat's meow.

habitat1 · June 2007

Oh, the 0-100k means a lot more than 0-60mph.

I was referring to 0-100 MPH (not KPH). By "metric" I meant standard of measurment, not the metric system. I should have been clearer.

dadsz · June 2007

Is it me or does TrickTrucks come off like a GM employee or one from their advertising agency? First he successfully hijacked the thread away from the SC vs. Z conversations, then continues with the comparisons to the GM car over and over. Guess he's trying to build brand awareness, but enough already mate...

dat2 · June 2007

Sorry for attacking you last night, not sure what got into me anyway. However, for a bit of fun take a look at CAR magazine from the UK, and in the back where they have quick rundowns of a lot of cars, take a look at the "Zed" read, where they prefer the Z over a Boxster and that is their recommendation!

habitat1 · June 2007

No worries. I'll check the Car magazine article out if I get a chance. Not sure what their recommendation was based upon, but I also picked an S2000 over a base Boxster on performance and a Boxster S on price back in 2002. The 350Z coupe gives you a lot of performance for a minimum of $10-15k less than the 2007 base Boxster.

anythngbutgm · June 2007

Yeah, I noticed that too. The logic was a bit off as well, but anyways...

Only thing worth commenting on was this:

Now add to this the weight difference and what you have is the automatic equipped GXP driver smiling as he whizzes by the S2000.

Per Edmunds:
2007 S2000: 2855 lbs
2007 Solstice GXP: 2976 lbs

link title

So no.

Comaprably, the Lotus Elise comes in at a featherweight 1984 lbs.

biancar · June 2007

Dat2, can you post a link?

Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles