S2000 or 350Z?

[SilverStreak]

One is a scapel and one is a butcher knife. I'll take the scapel. personal taste and driving preferences.

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by glennc
s2000 handling is on another level compared to 350Z's. You could easily get 350 WHP out of an s2k with 3000 dollars in mods.

i love the hondas and the s2k, but it takes more than 3 grand to make 350 whp, especially from a torqueless vehicle...i can justify what ive said because i have driven one of those and a g35, which is basically a Z with a longer wheelbase. . that being said, your money is worth it if you buy the 350Z, more power, its nicer and also has a wide array of after market parts.

JDM AE86 said it best "you can sprinkle powered suger on a piece of shit, but its still an s2000"

i love them tho, but i'd buy a Z over that any day.

[EK 2.0]

rolling in my 2.0 with my ragtop down so my hair can blow...


it's all stooky...

[Stoppie]

well do you want to drive it year round? because i think the s2k doesnt have any traction control, etc. and the i know the 350 does.

Don't get a boxter... i'm quite the porsche fanboy, and even i hate boxters.

[SilverStreak]

[
I drive mine all year and don't need any stinkin' traction control.
Although they came out with TC and Stability control for the 06' you don't need it, the 50/50 balance makes it fun to drive in the winter.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Stoppie
well do you want to drive it year round? because i think the s2k doesnt have any traction control, etc. and the i know the 350 does.

Don't get a boxter... i'm quite the porsche fanboy, and even i hate boxters. [/QUOTE]

[rc2002]

Originally posted by SilverStreak
I drive mine all year and don't need any stinkin' traction control.
Although they came out with TC and Stability control for the 06' you don't need it, the 50/50 balance makes it fun to drive in the winter.

Haha, the danger of not having traction control is offset by the lack of torque.

After driving with VSA in the winter, I would never go back. I avoided quite a few accidents last winter because of VSA.

[xviper]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


Haha, the danger of not having traction control is offset by the lack of torque.

After driving with VSA in the winter, I would never go back. I avoided quite a few accidents last winter because of VSA.

You don't have any real world experience with an S2000, do you?
I have a Vortech supercharged S2000 with 4.44 FD gears. I drive mine all year round and I especially enjoy it in the winter. The worst the weather, the better I like it.
Maybe you're just ACCIDENT PRONE? Those of us who know how to drive in winter, don't need VSA. Our gas pedals have "mind" control.

[rc2002]

I'll admit it, I probably fall into the bad driver category. I've had lots of close calls - but still I like having the security of having something there to fall back on when I screw up.

[xviper]

Originally posted by richardchan2002
I'll admit it, I probably fall into the bad driver category. I've had lots of close calls - but still I like having the security of having something there to fall back on when I screw up.

Of course, that is your right and prerogative to insist on having VSA on any car you own. For people like yourself, this becomes a tool and a driving aid. I'm just saying don't assign a label of "danger" to a car for not having VSA. The danger comes from the ability and "misfortune" of those who drive them.
I used to drive a Vette ZR-1 through the winter. No VSA of any kind and you can't say that car had no torque. I would have driven my Viper all winter except for the fact that noone made snow tires that big.

[syeve]

Originally posted by xviper

For people like yourself, this becomes a tool and a driving aid.

Just like winter tires?


I have owned 4 honda/acura's and was deciding between these two cars.

Drove both, fell in love with the 350. I had a heavy bias towards the s2k when I started looking but after driving both, the 350 for me was the better car.

Like everyone SHOULD be saying - drive both, YOU will know which one YOU like better.

[munna1]

very hard desision to make there I realy like both cars S2000 I think

[Xtrema]

Z. S2k is only good @ track. It's just another Civic in city.

The lack of torque prompted Honda to add .2L in dispacement.

[blue Zed]

I think you should test drive both there more then just hearing their names.
you might not like one thing on one car or the other just think what you can live with 5 years before selling it.

[Ek9Max]

I was thinking about both. But I decided on an s2000!


I didn't drive the 350z though.....

[carzcraz]

I chose between an RX-8, Integra Type R, 350z and the S2000.

Went with the S2000 and have not regretted a day of owning it

[SilverStreak]

I've driven both and the 350Z doesn't have the same level of driving feel. The clutch and shifter and steering didn't feel up the the S2000 level. The low grunt was good but make the S2000's engine rev and you get the same result, still a drivers race in the end so it will come down to driving preferences.

[blue Zed]

with the s2000 i did not like the first gear. felt powerless and waiting to 9000 rpm to get any fun is not practical in city driving.
the 350z has a 3300 lbs weight that i did not like,compared to other cars with more power.
at the end i picked the Z. The torque is usable at any rpm and the extra lobe on the cam kicks in at 4000 rpms which sends you back in your
seats.

[SilverStreak]

Originally posted by blue Zed
with the s2000 i did not like the first gear. felt powerless and waiting to 9000 rpm to get any fun is not practical in city driving.
the 350z has a 3300 lbs weight that i did not like,compared to other cars with more power.
at the end i picked the Z. The torque is usable at any rpm and the extra lobe on the cam kicks in at 4000 rpms which sends you back in your
seats.

You don't need 9000rpm to get what you want. Things start to go just fine starting 4000, after 6000-9000 tthen it is another kick in the pants with a crotch rocket engine note.

If anyone wants to improve further the first two gears on an S, get some 4.44 or 4.77 final drive gear and you'll spank stock S2000s pretty easy. The killer combo would be an AP1 with 4.44 final drive match with an AP2 transmission. When talking about tq. people should understand gearing as well rather than listen to generalizations.


I would agree that the weight of the Z is a big hinderance, the Z cvonvertible is even worse at 3500lbs or so.

[rc2002]

Such a large final drive would have you revving at 4000rpm on the highway. Definitely not something you want to do for a daily driver.

You can argue for the S2000 all you want, but in the end Honda concedes some points and Nissan concedes some. There's a world of difference between Nissan and Honda. Try both of them and you'll know. Nissan is a torque factory, Honda is a screamer. That's all there is to it. 4000rpm on the F20C would probably be equivalent to 1500rpm on the VQ35.

Arguing is pointless. Test drive the cars and see. These types of threads should be banned.

[Ek9Max]

Originally posted by richardchan2002
Such a large final drive would have you revving at 4000rpm on the highway. Definitely not something you want to do for a daily driver.

You can argue for the S2000 all you want, but in the end Honda concedes some points and Nissan concedes some. There's a world of difference between Nissan and Honda. Try both of them and you'll know. Nissan is a torque factory, Honda is a screamer. That's all there is to it. 4000rpm on the F20C would probably be equivalent to 1500rpm on the VQ35.

Arguing is pointless. Test drive the cars and see. These types of threads should be banned.

I think I saw something before where a stock s2000 revs at about 3800 doing 120km/hr and doing gears makes it 4200....

So not a huge difference on teh highway.... However I've seen vids of the gears, and the speed difference it's pretty big in a drag race type scenario.