I love the Honda S2000.

90-97 miata with 5k of goodies > any s2000

funner, better, cooler, etc..
 
care to translate that mpg figures into l/100km ? :p

tried countless times to convert it myself but i tend to get it wrong
 
I made a small Excel sheet where you can put in the mpg and it gives you the US and GB liter per 100 km figures:

http://rapidshare.de/files/37126206/mpg_to_liter_per_100km.xls.html

Don't worry about that filehoster. Just klick on "free", wait the indicatet time, enter the three digit code into the small text window and klick "download" (or whatever it says).

Regards
the Interceptor
 
How is the petrol consumption btw?

I agree with Izari - long haul = 35mpg or about 8L/100kms , mixed driving = 27mpg or 10L/100kms. But 5 to 10mpg in attack mode :eek: Sure you haven't a hole in the tank ? :lol:
 
90-97 miata with 5k of goodies > any s2000

Let me guess , 2nd hand jet engine :lol:

I suppose by putting a blower on the engine , chipping it , upgrading the brakes and suspension and dampers , and moving the engine about a foot behind the front axle to match the S2000's 50/50 weight distribution , plus substantially stiffening the chassis , I'd still take the Honda 8)
 
llpc60 said:
90-97 miata with 5k of goodies > any s2000

funner, better, cooler, etc..

MX5 < S2000, MX5 is slower, uglier tis more of a girl's car.
 
Eugene said:
How is the petrol consumption btw?

I agree with Izari - long haul = 35mpg or about 8L/100kms , mixed driving = 27mpg or 10L/100kms. But 5 to 10mpg in attack mode :eek: Sure you haven't a hole in the tank ? :lol:
VTEC kicks in... in fulll throttle (WOT)...
you are running between 7-9kRPMs
yeah... you eat gas up QUICKKKKkkkkkkk
maybe 10mpg... but that 2.2L I4 pulls better than the mustang V8 hahaha

oh btw... miata + 5k goodies only beat a STOCK s2000...
thats like saying if you turbo the s2000 and tune it .. you can beat a ferrari 360 modena... that cost like 3-4 times more...

tuning vs. stock is very unfair...
 
turbo doesnt go well with the S2000... why spoil the great high revving N/A engine?
 
turbo doesnt go well with the S2000... why spoil the great high revving N/A engine?

I agree. Alot of engine bolt on mods tend toward supercharging , the success of which depends highly on installation. As regards the S2000 though alot of the stock parts are top notch anyhow. The exhaust system is just as effiicient as aftermarket versions even though possibly heavier in some cases and of course not being stainless steel.

The only mod I have made to my own was to add a cold air intake (CAI) which accentuated the engine note (nicest sound this side of a Ferrari :D ) Power gains are minimal but it does allow the engine to breath more easily which can't be bad. I did have a decat or test pipe fitted but it made the engine note really coarse. Power gains again were virtually un-noticeable despite all the reported stats :?

I really wouldn't end mess with the engine directly though like turbo/supercharge/chipping etc as such mods generally requires engine remapping and alot of skill. and I don't know or trust anyone enough to ' practice ' their skill on my machine :x
 
Eugene said:
90-97 miata with 5k of goodies > any s2000

Let me guess , 2nd hand jet engine :lol:

I suppose by putting a blower on the engine , chipping it , upgrading the brakes and suspension and dampers , and moving the engine about a foot behind the front axle to match the S2000's 50/50 weight distribution , plus substantially stiffening the chassis , I'd still take the Honda 8)

match the s2000's 50/50? how much do you know about miatas? apparently, not a lot eh

and more of a girls car? I guess that would matter if you werent sure of your sexuality ;)

I really wouldn't end mess with the engine directly though like turbo/supercharge/chipping etc as such mods generally requires engine remapping and alot of skill. and I don't know or trust anyone enough to ' practice ' their skill on my machine :x

do you agree that for 25k dollars less, you could spend the extra money on better things and still learn the basics of taking care of a turbo?

but hey this is a s200thread, I know no one will consider a miata or try learning anything about them because after all, its a fags car :lol:

last post here, Ill make sure to wave at you s2000 guys as I blow past yall at the track ;)

:mrgreen:
 
do you agree that for 25k dollars less, you could spend the extra money on better things and still learn the basics of taking care of a turbo?

Nothing wrong at all with the Miata/MX5 but it is way softer than the S2000. Looks too make the S2000 more purposeful although I will admit all soft tops are slightly feminine (even a Ferrari Spider :lol: ) No aftermarket mod is as reliable as stock. The thing about the S2000 is that there really isn't any need to mod unlike the Miata where there is plenty of scope. Even with looking after a turbo (letting it warm up after start up and letting it run before switching off the engine) , the most you'll get is around 80k miles before it will need replacing.

What the Miata has done and no doubt , is show all manufacturer's that making a roadster is commercially viable. Without it there would be no S2000 , Z3/Z4/Z8 , TT Roadster , Z Roadster plus all the other rag tops :thumbsup:
 
regular boxter > s2000

Regular 2.7L Boxster is the reason why there's the 3.2L Boxster S because it's totally inadequate on all counts in relation to performance compared to rivals and especially the S2000.

As regards 0-60 times the Boxster S and S2000 are so close I'd hate to live on the difference. The German blitzwagon though has to resort to much extra cc's and 2 extra cyclinders to face off the little Honda :lol:
 
Eugene said:
regular boxter > s2000

Regular 2.7L Boxster is the reason why there's the 3.2L Boxster S because it's totally inadequate on all counts in relation to performance compared to rivals and especially the S2000.

As regards 0-60 times the Boxster S and S2000 are so close I'd hate to live on the difference. The German blitzwagon though has to resort to much extra cc's and 2 extra cyclinders to face off the little Honda :lol:

yes... thats cuz the porsche has leather and comfort features that a normal daily driver would need...
the s2000 is basically seat + steering wheel + pedals + shifter... nothing other than that...
and on a rough road ... the s2000 is as uncomfortable as my boot up ur ass with out lubrication...
yeah you get the point... i test drove the s2000 like 10 times... and i whiped it around plenty enough to know that daily driver = PORSCHE
weekend auto-cross/light track car = S2000...
heavy track use... Porsche 911S ^_^
 
sry boxster. i still prefer it bc it has more torque so its easier to dd and you cant beat porsche's chassis
 
Izari said:
Eugene said:
regular boxter > s2000

Regular 2.7L Boxster is the reason why there's the 3.2L Boxster S because it's totally inadequate on all counts in relation to performance compared to rivals and especially the S2000.

As regards 0-60 times the Boxster S and S2000 are so close I'd hate to live on the difference. The German blitzwagon though has to resort to much extra cc's and 2 extra cyclinders to face off the little Honda :lol:

yes... thats cuz the porsche has leather and comfort features that a normal daily driver would need...
the s2000 is basically seat + steering wheel + pedals + shifter... nothing other than that...
and on a rough road ... the s2000 is as uncomfortable as my boot up ur ass with out lubrication...
yeah you get the point... i test drove the s2000 like 10 times... and i whiped it around plenty enough to know that daily driver = PORSCHE
weekend auto-cross/light track car = S2000...
heavy track use... Porsche 911S ^_^

It's true. I mean I only drove the S2000 for a short period of time, but in that short amount of time I drove that car, it doesn't feel like a car that I could use as a daily driver. The suspension just feeds whatever is on the road right throughout your body.
 
^
u got that right
but i test drove a miata before...
the mx5 is sooo much worse than the s2000
lol
that thing rocked the spine and my ribs
 
http://img208.imageshack.**/img208/9187/dsc0381rb0.jpg
http://img131.imageshack.**/img131/6172/copyofricharsonparkinggarage122xt9.jpg
What's wrong with a hardtop S2000?
 
everything?
cuz its not connected to the chasis so it doesnt increase structural rigidity ...
:/... so .. there is no point...
 
Top