2008 Best Car Series (Round 2): Honda S2000 vs Audi R8

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 170 comments
  • 8,239 views

Axis Powers Face Off!


  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
I wish the Honda NSX would come back, fast as a supercar without the supercar horespower in the V-tec

Hate to dissapoint you here but the NSX wasn't as fast as a supercar, the NSX was a rather original car at the time though modestly powered but with the looks of a supercar kind of like the Audi R8.

Anyways I've just thought that each car maker is unique, how are they unique you say, Honda for their V-tec engines, Mazda for their rotary engines, Ferrari for making F1 enginuity cars, Mitsubishi for their 4WD technology, and so on

:lol:

Manufacturers have their perks, but I wouldn't exactly put the way you have. Are Mitsubishi really unique for their 4wd technology :p
 
Then again, maybe I'm an old-school ape who's not happy with a car that doesn't try to tear your arms out of their sockets when your front wheels hit a rut (like mine does). :lol:

Well my daily driver isn't power steered, so every time I drive a car with power steering it feels like nothing is going on, but with more time some cars do reveal themselves (MINI Cooper being a prime example). Trouble is, both Mk1 MX5s I drove had no power steering, and were wearing sticky racing rubber, and both times I drove them, it was raining. This meant heavy steering on fat tyres that felt dead, and also a bit of a wrestle to control any slides (which happened a lot). One of the cars in question:

n61206378_30263045_7083.jpg


I'd love to drive a basic, road car mk1, on it's standard wheels, with power steering, because I think it'd be a much nicer machine to drive.

[/off topic]
 
That's interesting. But I'll note it's a response to a comment that top speed is effectively a useless stat because you never get to use it.

Now, I've been on track days:

1174smxs2.jpg

But ones where you try to go as fast as you want to - no lolly-gagging between corners, or cruising. The highest figure I've ever seen on a speedometer during a track day is 110mph (in someone else's car, and about 10mph faster than they managed :D) which is about 80% of the car's theoretical maximum. I got 85mph in the braking zone for the corner in the picture above (different day) and no-one saw anything over 95mph - even the supercharged MX-5, the TVR Chimaera and the two Elises - and the Chimaera would pull 165mph with ease with enough road to do so.

So unless you're talking about Paul Ricard, La Sarthe or the 'Ring, the notion that maximum speed figures are any more relevant on a track is quite inaccurate - you still won't get anywhere near seeing them, even if you're going all out.

Were talking about terminal speed? I was under the impression we were talking about top end, which in my auotmotive dictionary (the one in my head) shows the ability to continue pulling hard into higher speed, and 110mph is really fast if you ask me, plus Aussie tracks have quite long straights. We only reached 160km/hr at Powercruise because they make you do speed limits through barriers at the beginning and end of each straight. With 30-40 cars on track, maybe more, cruises are really fun though.
 
Were talking about terminal speed? I was under the impression we were talking about top end, which in my auotmotive dictionary (the one in my head) shows the ability to continue pulling hard into higher speed, and 110mph is really fast if you ask me

"Top end" is how well a car accelerate to its maximum speed - or the "top end" of its speedometer. Top end ends at the top...

At 110mph, the car I was in still had 30mph of top speed left (though I was in a braking zone, so... bad). It hadn't even got near its top end - there was 20% of its capability remaining. On the shorter track with the MX-3, at 85mph I still had 55mph of top speed left - 40% of its capability remaining.

So even on track, you're looking at not seeing your "top end" (though I'd suggest that 20% left is probably approaching it, if not slightly in it). In fact your best bet for seeing your "top end" is by driving at high speed on a long public road - but we all know that's illegal (unless you're on derestricted Autobahn or in Western Australia), so not something we'd mention...


plus Aussie tracks have quite long straights.

The 110mph track was RAF Woodbridge. An airbase. With a mile-long main straight.
 
"Top end" is how well a car accelerate to its maximum speed - or the "top end" of its speedometer. Top end ends at the top...

At 110mph, the car I was in still had 30mph of top speed left (though I was in a braking zone, so... bad). It hadn't even got near its top end - there was 20% of its capability remaining. On the shorter track with the MX-3, at 85mph I still had 55mph of top speed left - 40% of its capability remaining.

So even on track, you're looking at not seeing your "top end" (though I'd suggest that 20% left is probably approaching it, if not slightly in it). In fact your best bet for seeing your "top end" is by driving at high speed on a long public road - but we all know that's illegal (unless you're on derestricted Autobahn or in Western Australia), so not something we'd mention...




The 110mph track was RAF Woodbridge. An airbase. With a mile-long main straight.

You only reached 110mph in that length with a full race speed corner exit?:odd:
So I guess I'm talking about mid-range, and I'm not that bothered about going back and seeing why I was talking about this in the first place.
 
You only reached 110mph in that length with a full race speed corner exit?:odd:
So I guess I'm talking about mid-range, and I'm not that bothered about going back and seeing why I was talking about this in the first place.

The preceding corner is a left/right 90 degree chicane...
 
The preceding corner is a left/right 90 degree chicane...

That's still pretty slow.:odd: I mean, 1600m and 110mph? Even my brother's V6 Commodore which is lightly modified can get 150km/hr (probably more now he's getting an LSD) on the 1/4mile from a standing start. I'll take 200m off for a really safe braking approach for the hell of it, so still 1400m to accelerate from around 40-50km/hr after the corner I guess. What car was this?
 
A 1.8 Mazda MX-5 Merlot, with about 140hp.

The car's owner saw 100mph and did the "Whu?!" face when my passenger told him my speed. :D
 
Last edited:
Well my daily driver isn't power steered, so every time I drive a car with power steering it feels like nothing is going on, but with more time some cars do reveal themselves (MINI Cooper being a prime example). Trouble is, both Mk1 MX5s I drove had no power steering, and were wearing sticky racing rubber, and both times I drove them, it was raining. This meant heavy steering on fat tyres that felt dead, and also a bit of a wrestle to control any slides (which happened a lot). One of the cars in question:

n61206378_30263045_7083.jpg


I'd love to drive a basic, road car mk1, on it's standard wheels, with power steering, because I think it'd be a much nicer machine to drive.

[/off topic]

Ah. Race rubber always kills steering feel.

-----

RE: racetracks... you will hardly ever go over 110 mph on a racetrack, unless it's uncommonly long... in which case it'll be boring. That's how drag-limited Radicals and Donkervoorts can post such exceptional laptimes compared to cars which can hit over 200 mph... even on the Nurburgring, where you can hit a pretty high terminal velocity.

Most 3 - 4 km long racetracks are only good for terminal velocities of about 100-130 mph... anything more would require a runway strip that's at least 4 kilometers long by itself (like you Brits and Americans have access to).
 
-> Sorry, again, the S2000 still. I don't really care about the spiffy interior of the R8 nor the super car profille. The R8 would be far to expensive for me to toss it around the rough stuff everyday, I like the ease to toss the S2000 around.

-> Plus the R8 doesn't really grab my attention too much, for comparison per purpose, I'd take the NSX anyday. Well some people considered the R8 is 'the next NSX' as an everyday Super Car. :)
 
-> ...
Yes I fully agree, but the S2000, isnt the most fuel efficient, isnt the most fun to drive, doesnt have the best interior, doesnt hold its value the best, doesnt have the least polluting engine, isnt the most practical and is now the most dated.

It is a brilliant car, but the competition of 2008 is better than it. Personally I would take a more practical, cheaper to run, and faster hothatch over the S2000. I couldnt say the same about the porsche though. Now from what owners have told me, who have had M3's Evo's etc, driving a porsche is a revelation!
^ Isn't the most fun to drive? I've manhandled a 993 GT3, a HKS'ed CT9A Evo 8 GSR, a E46 AC Schnitzer'ed M3, a E39 M5, a Sky Red Line, and a C6 'Vette Z51 (pre-LS3). In my personal standpoint that the S2K is way more fun and rewarding to drive than all of these cars mentioned.

-> You are saying that the S2K isn't all practical? Well it is a roadster, duh. But as a roadster, the trunk/boot of the S2K could swallow a hefty amount of cargo despite its small size, as exhibited by Fifth Gear:

Fifth Gear

-> And it doesn't mean if its dated or not, that doesn't really signify the total enjoyment of driving a true/real sports car. Best Motoring still hails it as the best driving car in the Touge (Kakeyoro Battle) even if the car is that old compared to its newer, faster competition.

For being a wannabe porsche at a cut price? I know fully well, I have already argued that fact, and its strongest point, it is not the best in. The laptimes are there to show its not even all that fast these days. Half the hothatches on sale today are faster.
^ I got to say that its not all based on lap times on which is better or not, it is the reward of driving that vehicle that gives the total driving enjoyment. Sure, the Evo is faster than the STi, but its it more fun? No. Same case to the S2K, is it faster than the 996 GT3 and M3? No. But is it more tossable without worrying about the cost of anything later on? No. Is it more fun and rewarding? Definitley yes.

-> That is why I sacrificed my 'Vette-killing WRX Wagon to a (semi)stock S2K just because the seer driving pleasure of driving such a thing. Not all cars can deliver that feat. And speed and track times isn't everything everytime. :)
 
-> ...

^ Isn't the most fun to drive? I've manhandled a 993 GT3, a HKS'ed CT9A Evo 8 GSR, a E46 AC Schnitzer'ed M3, a E39 M5, a Sky Red Line, and a C6 'Vette Z51 (pre-LS3). In my personal standpoint that the S2K is way more fun and rewarding to drive than all of these cars mentioned.

-> You are saying that the S2K isn't all practical? Well it is a roadster, duh. But as a roadster, the trunk/boot of the S2K could swallow a hefty amount of cargo despite its small size, as exhibited by Fifth Gear:

Fifth Gear

-> And it doesn't mean if its dated or not, that doesn't really signify the total enjoyment of driving a true/real sports car. Best Motoring still hails it as the best driving car in the Touge (Kakeyoro Battle) even if the car is that old compared to its newer, faster competition.


^ I got to say that its not all based on lap times on which is better or not, it is the reward of driving that vehicle that gives the total driving enjoyment. Sure, the Evo is faster than the STi, but its it more fun? No. Same case to the S2K, is it faster than the 996 GT3 and M3? No. But is it more tossable without worrying about the cost of anything later on? No. Is it more fun and rewarding? Definitley yes.

-> That is why I sacrificed my 'Vette-killing WRX Wagon to a (semi)stock S2K just because the seer driving pleasure of driving such a thing. Not all cars can deliver that feat. And speed and track times isn't everything everytime. :)

I can agree with that, as remember I did say that guys who have owned 911' m3's and evos have all said the most fun they have ever had in a car was their much slower hothatch.

I think a S2000 would be alot more fun in las vegas than it would be in england, as you would only get about 2 weeks worth of roof down driving. And I also dont think a hothatch would be as fun in the states as it is in europe due to the road designs.
 
I can agree with that, as remember I did say that guys who have owned 911' m3's and evos have all said the most fun they have ever had in a car was their much slower hothatch.

I think a S2000 would be alot more fun in las vegas than it would be in england, as you would only get about 2 weeks worth of roof down driving. And I also dont think a hothatch would be as fun in the states as it is in europe due to the road designs.

S2Ks and Miatas' driving dynamics aren't really affected by the position of the top all that much. Certainly having the top up does not hurt the drive. ;)
 
S2Ks and Miatas' driving dynamics aren't really affected by the position of the top all that much. Certainly having the top up does not hurt the drive. ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of wind in the hair and the noise of the engines and exhaust.
 
You can't even feel the wind at 160 km/h in the new Miata, even with the top and the wind deflector down. It sort of just ruffles your hair a tiny bit... unless you're over six feet tall.

Modern aerodynamics... wonderful.. :D
 
I was thinking more along the lines of wind in the hair and the noise of the engines and exhaust.

I've only driven the MX-5 with the roof up twice this year. Once was on a 200mi motorway slog (drag coefficient is 0.35 with the roof up and 0.39 with it down - so petrol savings :D ) and once was last weekend when an inch of rain fell in 10 minutes onto the field I was parked in.

Rest of the time, the roof is down. And that's the difference between a convertible like the S2000 and a roadster like the MX-5. Convertibles have a roof which comes down when it's sunny. Roadsters have a roof that goes up when it's raining.
 
Convertibles have a roof which comes down when it's sunny. Roadsters have a roof that goes up when it's raining.
^ That case doesn't translate the way I drive my S. I drive top-up if its sunny (to prevent excessive heat and sunburn {unless applied with SPF70+ sunscreen and my sunvisor}), Top down, when the weather is gloomy to light showers and in night time. :)
 
Wouldn't the S2000 be a roadster since it wasn't designed as a hardtop in the first place?
 
^ In a way, he's right. The S2K was originally designed as a roadster nothing more. And despite of being an open-top, the chassis/frame rigidity equals or even surpases other enclosed cars.

-> In fact he car was so rigid, it saved my best friend life and he bought another S2K just because of that sense of security, the firefighters can't even fathom that he'd walked away from a NASCAR-like wreckage (one axle flew off the car upon impact).

OT-> And back to the convertible/roadster thing. I've always thought that Convertible aka. Cabriolets (i.e. Eos, CLK) are open-top cars that seats 4 (or 2+2 for that matter). Roadsters (i.e. S2K, MX-5) are open-top cars that seats two. I can also add another version, its called a Speedster (i.e. Callaway C16 Speedster), on which is an open-top that has no top-up/down procedure/routine, it is either a top-up or no-top. I can consider the S2000 CR as a Speedster. :)
 
Back