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

[homeforsummer]

Why would I buy an Elise when I can have a real go-kart which is actually faster and a cheaper form of racing around tracks than the Elise.

The Elise is a perfectly usable road car (which a kart isn't) and when you drive it normally it can get well north of 30mpg (until I started getting high 40s mpg in my Fiesta my mate's Elise was actually matching it - yet does 60 in just over a third of the time...).

and they get a good launch but really suffer top end.

Top end is a completely, catagorically and totally useless measure on road cars. The only indication it gives as to useful road performance is how it might run at say 70mph on the motorway in top gear, and even then there aren't many modern cars that don't run well in top gear and normal motorway speeds. An Elise has perfectly acceptable overtaking punch, say, 50-80mph. Hell, with reasonable planning my Fiesta can be made to overtake without scaring myself.

The most useful performance figures for road cars are 30-60/70/80mph through-the-gears acceleration times (accelerating out of a town speed limit to the national limit being an example), and one that I saw in Road & Track mag in the States, which was something like 5mph-60mph, as it's a good indication of general useable acceleration (it takes into account low down torque, not traction at high revs as a standing start does).

The only Elise making truly noteworthy acceleration times are supercharged yes? The best N/A one I can see gets low 5s 0-100km/hr, my big ol' V8 Commodore can beat that, and afterwards it's just an uphill battle for the Elise which will struggle to reach high speeds for low power.

It depends how you define "noteworthy". The original Elise S1 gets to sixty in 5.5 seconds or thereabouts - I'd say that's bloody quick for a 118bhp car (some people around here are so stuck-up about what constitutes "quick"...). And it will leave most cars for dead around the corners - which are those bits which join the straights and that many hulking big V8s fail at compared to smaller, lighter sports cars and hatches.

most bike riders are workers in industries like construction, engineering etc.

EH? Figures, perhaps?

 

[Famine]

With forced induction you can fit more air in than any N/A engine could do itself by natural induction, sounds like you're making excuses now.

Edit: Well, my statement doesn't sound right either, I mean with forced induction you are forcing pre-compressed air into the engine, N/A relies on its own sucking power to get air. With the turbo/supercharger supplying that compressed air there is more oxygen/L displacement.

Or, to put it exactly the same way I did a couple of minutes ago, forced induction effectively adds displacement. A 62cui supercharger on any engine makes the engine effectively 62cui (1 litre) bigger.

When you compare a 1.8 to a 6.0 and say "Oh, but the 1.8 is x-charged so it's unfair. If I x-charge the 6.0 it'll be fair again" you are misunderstanding exactly what it is that the charging does. A 1.8 with a 62cui supercharger is still only a 2.8.

Hang on, the how power is made comment, that's sounds hypocritical to me. I endure all these rants about power:displacement, and yet that is the very reasoning of V8 enthusiasts, we have it, we don't care where from.

How is it hypocritical? Have I ever mocked big engines for being big?

Motorbike riders where helmets, special suits, and not many are business men from what I see, most bike riders are workers in industries like construction, engineering etc. They also have a special license, does the Atom require helmets, do the owers wear special driving suits, do they need a special license?

What, so the job you do determines whether you can ride a motorbike to work? If it helps, I know a lawyer, three doctors and an engineer who go to work on bikes - and no-one else.

You can ride a bike on a car licence. You can ride a bike in whatever clothes you wish. You can drive an Atom with a helmet on if you so desire. What does any of this have to do with the fact that my brother uses his Atom as a daily, 40mpg, drive?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Top end is a completely, catagorically and totally useless measure on road cars.

3 words, off street cruise. I guess UK doesn't have these.

It depends how you define "noteworthy". The original Elise S1 gets to sixty in 5.5 seconds or thereabouts - I'd say that's bloody quick for a 118bhp car (some people around here are so stuck-up about what constitutes "quick"...). And it will leave most cars for dead around the corners - which are those bits which join the straights and that many hulking big V8s fail at compared to smaller, lighter sports cars and hatches.



EH? Figures, perhaps?

We were never talking about corners in here, which of course we get beaten at. If I wanted to go fast around corners though I'd still buy a go-kart and race it. Otherwise my daily (the Elise in this case) would have shredded tyres, blown engine bits (racing will do it to any car), and leave me completely dead in the water after all that.

Figures? Who needs figures, it's just what I see on the road.

Or, to put it exactly the same way I did a couple of minutes ago, forced induction effectively adds displacement. A 62cui supercharger on any engine makes the engine effectively 62cui (1 litre) bigger.

When you compare a 1.8 to a 6.0 and say "Oh, but the 1.8 is x-charged so it's unfair. If I x-charge the 6.0 it'll be fair again" you are misunderstanding exactly what it is that the charging does. A 1.8 with a 62cui supercharger is still only a 2.8.



How is it hypocritical? Have I ever mocked big engines for being big?



What, so the job you do determines whether you can ride a motorbike to work? If it helps, I know a lawyer, three doctors and an engineer who go to work on bikes - and no-one else.

You can ride a bike on a car licence. You can ride a bike in whatever clothes you wish. You can drive an Atom with a helmet on if you so desire. What does any of this have to do with the fact that my brother uses his Atom as a daily, 40mpg, drive?

Yet that x-charger forces out more oxygen/L than an N/A 1L of displacement would.
Maybe you haven't complained about power:displacement, but so many others have, my mistake. It gets hard to remember who has has what views around here.
No Famine, you can't ride a bike on a car license, 100% definitely not. Tell me how these people you know cope when it starts raining then?

I really have to go to bed now, will catch up tomorrow.

 

[Tornado]

OK... and it's also designed to tolerate going 30,000 miles between oil changes, have a 200,000-mile lifespan, run on crap gasoline, and perform reliably anywhere between the Arctic Circle and the Equator. AND be bought new in an entire vehicle costing less than the Ferrari engine alone.

Besides, for a truck motor from the 70s, its HP/L rating is phenomenal anyways.

 

[Famine]

3 words, off street cruise. I guess UK doesn't have these.

You mean illegal street races?

Oh we do. And they're just as illegal.

No Famine, you can't ride a bike on a car license, 100% definitely not.

Please learn to differentiate your country's laws from mine.

Maybe you haven't complained about power:displacement, but so many others have, my mistake. It gets hard to remember who has has what views around here.

My views are typed in indigo. Tough to miss them

Tell me how these people you know cope when it starts raining then?

They cope. Why wouldn't they?

 

[///M-Spec]

I can't believe I'm actually arguing on the same side as poverty, but...

Furthermore, I have to question to reasoning as a whole as well. Only the Boxster has had a notable update since the S2000 first competed with the Z4/350Z/Boxster a few years ago (I'm ignoring the SLK because that is outgunned by about everything in the segment in terms of what you are arguing).

This is not true. The Z4, Boxster, TT have all had significant updates since the S2000 was introduced. The 350Z not so much, but it did get two engine updates.

The Boxster has gone from the 986 to 987. It has gone from 217 hp (MY2000) to 225 hp ('03) to 240 hp ('05), then 245 hp ('07) in the current 987 version. The 987 only shares about 20% of it's parts with the old 986. It's not only more powerful, but handles better and has a vastly improved interior compared to the Tupperware crapbox they sold in 1997.

On the BMW side, the Z4 had a mid-cycle update for MY2006. The lineup went from 185hp/225hp to 215hp/255hp. The suspension was retuned for a better ride/handling compromise with the run-flats. Interior bits were improved. 6-speed tranny was made standard in both cars.

The TT went from the 8N, a Golf in a pretty dress to .... the 8J, a Golf in a pretty dress. In all seriousness though, the new TT is supposed to be a huge leap in performance and driver appeal. It also went from 180hp/225hp to 200hp/250hp.

The S2000 however, hasn't changed much beyond the 2004 AP2 update, which is not even as significant as the Z4's update --suspension tweaks and our US-spec F22C1, plus some interior trim.

So what somehow makes you feel that the S2000 is outmatched by all of the cars it competes against when nearly all of the cars it competes against are unchanged since the first time the S2000 beat them?

This is a car that was so far ahead of the curve that it not only creamed all of its competition in 1999 but it still is easily capable of doing the same to its competition today.

Speaking personally, I think the S2000 was a home run was it first introduced 8 years ago. It was easily the pick of the pack when compared to the old Z3 and 986. But in that time, Porsche, BMW, Audi and Nissan have all improved their products.

It's not a clear cut victory this time. And I think "cream" is a colorful exaggeration. It's a great car. But a Boxster isn't exactly chopped liver you know.

I can find quite a few American reviews around the 2004/2005 range that it either won or received best handling credits. Which would essentially be akin to a 2008 review, because none of the other cars it competed with in those reviews (except the Boxster, which finished 3rd in this Car and Driver review and has a newere version that suffers from many of the same problems that that car did) are any better now then they were then.

Disagree strongly. I've already listed the changes above. And the S2000 has not faced it's updated competition (in any review I've seen) yet. We can play Magazine Numbers Battle if you really want to, but I think you'd have a hard time proving the S is far superior if we make it a pure numbers game.

The real draw of the S2000 is it's driving experience when it's GAME ON. At full attack, it really does kick a lot of ass and even today, I think it's a hard act to beat.

BUT

When you're just commuting to work. Or going on a date with your SO. Or running down to the grocery store. Or driving 500 miles a day. That's when the S doesn't work so well. Sure, you can do it, and I'm sure many people DO.

But there's a healthy part of the market that won't care to put up with the fact that it's claustrophobic with the top up. That's it's loud. That the zoom-zoom interior is utterly devoid of warmth and comfort. Even C/D didn't like that aspect of the S2000.

Meanwhile, the Germans are much better at the other jobs a roadster is expected to perform. And they're really not that far off the mark when you're doing 10/10ths either.

Its nice that you do, because no one agrees with you.

I know it's poverty, but just this once, let's not just throw out anything he has to say.


BTW, I voted for the R8. Like others have said, it really comes down to the new upstart that's taken to the fight to the establishment vs. a car that, well... IS the establishment.


M

 

[Joey D]

OK... and it's also designed to tolerate going 30,000 miles between oil changes, have a 200,000-mile lifespan, run on crap gasoline, and perform reliably anywhere between the Arctic Circle and the Equator. AND be bought new in an entire vehicle costing less than the Ferrari engine alone.

I'm not defending the particular 4.3 you're talking about, but your argument is bordering on idiotic here.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make with the Blazer v. Ferrari comment. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough, if that's the case I apologize. My point was that Ferrari was able to take the same displacement and produce more power.

Tow a boat with your Mini.

You probably can.

http://www.minidomore.com/mini_cooper_towing/receiver_trailer_hitch.php

Wouldn't be a big boat but you could tow a small one.

Reallly, aren't we tired of treading the same useless arguments? Horsepower per litre is absolutely the most useless metric ever. You think people don't care about 1/4-mile times but you expect them to care about specific output? Be serious.

I don't think a majority of people care about specific output either, most of the buying public cares about reliability and fuel economy. Once again, sorry if I was unclear.

 

[Tornado]

@ M-Spec: I stand corrected, but still refuse to acknowledge the idea that the S2000 is a out of date relic just because it is old. Whether or not the S2000 can outright win tests against everything it competes with like it used to is different from saying that it a dinosaur with no chance of coming near any of its competitors, which is what forza was contending. And then there is price...


But one note: The 350Z Roadster still sucks.

 

[Wolfe]

Horsepower per litre is absolutely the most useless metric ever.

I disagree. No matter your opinion of its value as a "criticism" of large-displacement engines, it's always useful as a rough guide of how hard an engine is being pushed. Just as how I'm unimpressed by low-HP/L performance engines, I wouldn't choose a high-HP/L engine for a dependable, economical workhorse. Different engines, different applications.

With that in mind, I would argue that while a 6L 300hp engine makes the same power as a 4L 300hp engine, the 6L engine is capable of more power, and on a performance car, shouldn't it have that power? It just seems silly to me to take what might as well be an outdated economy car's 4-cylinder, double the cylinders, lengthen the stroke, and call it a "sportscar" engine. It's nice that such engines are cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Besides, as Joey has pointed out, if you don't go overboard in extracting performance (eg. 100+hp/L ///M engines), the smaller engine is usually more fuel-efficient. GM is already embracing smaller V6s thanks to CAFE, and the LLT is a great one, with specific output on par with the Japanese and Germans. I'd say the age where the Detroit three could get away with building massive, unsophisticated engines is coming to a close.

 

[Tornado]

With that in mind, I would argue that while a 6L 300hp engine makes the same power as a 4L 300hp engine, the 6L engine is capable of more power, and on a performance car, shouldn't it have that power?

That is a moot argument.

Besides, as Joey has pointed out, if you don't go overboard in extracting performance (eg. 100+hp/L ///M engines), the smaller engine is usually more fuel-efficient.

At the cost of power.

 

[Venari]

HP per litre is also called 'specific output'. Torque per displacement is a less used measure but of overall engine efficiency. Any car of a certain mass and drag will have better actual fuel economy under fixed conditions if it has higher torque/displacement.

Any car in a straightline will accelerate faster if it's specific output is higher for the same displacement. Any car with the same peak power regardless of torque will be able to accelerate to the same speed. Those with a greater amount of torque (due to extra displacement) but the same power might get to the termainl speed faster, but they will use more fuel to do it.

Specific references are a very good way to measure performance within a narrow band of weights and total powers/torques.

Supercharging and turbocharging bias this by effectively 'changing' the displacement. Well, any military aviator will tell you about specific fuel consumption, which is an even better measure of an engine's performance - power produced for fuel burned. You never see it in the press, because cars are marketed, not sold by objective science. However, this is changing...

But bugger all that. R8 over S2000 every time. The S2000 was great when it was launched, but it made nowhere near the deserved impact that the R8 has. It is a spectacular car.

 

[Tornado]

Those with a greater amount of torque (due to extra displacement) but the same power might get to the termainl speed faster, but they will use more fuel to do it.

That is situational.

The S2000 was great when it was launched, but it made nowhere near the deserved impact that the R8 has. It is a spectacular car.

It is impossible to determine the impact the R8 will have in the long run, especially with the launch of that "other" 911 Turbo competitor. Its long term impact is also going to be determined based on what Audi is allowed to do with it.

 

[Duke]

My point was that Ferrari was able to take the same displacement and produce more power.

Understood. But my point was that the GM 4.3 was built to an entirely different design brief than the Ferrari 4.3 - much harsher usage conditions, less maintenance, longer duty cycle, cheaper development and MUCH cheaper manufacturing costs, etc. Of course the Ferrari engine can afford to put out more power - it costs more to build than the entire Blazer, and it's going to be pampered its entire life.

You probably can.

http://www.minidomore.com/mini_cooper_towing/receiver_trailer_hitch.php

I wasn't clear here. Small light moderate horsepower cars are great in their application. If I was doing track days, autox, or even a short-ish daily commute, I'd definitely choose one. But if I was driving from Philly to St. Louis I'd definitely choose a larger, heavier, higher-horsepower V8.

I don't think a majority of people care about specific output either, most of the buying public cares about reliability and fuel economy. Once again, sorry if I was unclear.

No, that was my misunderstanding. 👍

I disagree. No matter your opinion of its value as a "criticism" of large-displacement engines, it's always useful as a rough guide of how hard an engine is being pushed. Just as how I'm unimpressed by low-HP/L performance engines, I wouldn't choose a high-HP/L engine for a dependable, economical workhorse. Different engines, different applications.

OK, agreed - but that has nothing to do with which kind of engine profile is "better" - which is how it's always argued. Typical anti-US-car people always shout "American cars suck! It takes them 5 litres to do what the Japanese can do in 2 litres! What idiots!". It's highly typical of someone who has most of their knowledge from magazines and very little from actually driving/wrenching on cars.

 

[Wolfe]

That is a moot argument.

Is it really so pointless to expect a sportscar to have a high-RPM powerband and extract the most performance it can from its parts, within reason? Anything else just seems lazy.

"Oh, we could have designed a high-performance engine for that car, but we decided we could just slap this one in instead."

At the cost of power.

2009 BMW 328i Coupe -- 3.0L 230hp I6; 28mpg hwy.
2009 Ford Mustang -- 4.0L 210hp V6; 26mpg hwy.

Obviously there's a price difference, but with so many other factors in that difference it's irrelevant to the point here. This was actually the first pair of cars I thought of, so there's bound to be other examples. As always with automotive performance, there are a lot of factors to consider.

OK, agreed - but that has nothing to do with which kind of engine profile is "better" - which is how it's always argued. Typical anti-US-car people always shout "American cars suck! It takes them 5 litres to do what the Japanese can do in 2 litres! What idiots!". It's highly typical of someone who has most of their knowledge from magazines and very little from actually driving/wrenching on cars.

I know, it's those people that make it difficult to embrace HP/L the way I do. I still maintain that given the engines are built for the same purpose, HP/L is suitable as a comparison tool, but never the be-all end-all determinant of which engine is "best."

 

[forza2.0]

You must be smoking crack again. The S2000 has remained a strong competitior against all of the cars you've listed, and to that end, it continues to be a thorn in their side despite no major updates. The TT choice is laughable, the SLK only is worth a damn when it has a V8 under the hood, the Z4 is dead (and never was all that great of a competitor against the S2000), the RX8 is far too slow... That leaves the Porsche and the Elise, two radically different (and more expensive) cars compared to the S2000 that should be beating the S2000 no matter which way you put it.

The S2000 remains a relevant car because it was that damn good to begin with. Its as simple as that.



I'm not sure why that matters... The S2000 has remained a powerful option in the roadster market, and with the addition of the CR model, it continues to dominate a class that it defined eight years ago. Honda still sells every single one they build, and to that end, I imagine that a million voices will cry out when they finally kill it.

Ok yssman, and tornado, I dont need to give a full indepth argument as m-spec has already done so, hence im just gonna give some quick facts.

Around hockenheim

Audi TT-S 1:16.1 123 ´08 272 / 1395 Sport Auto
Porsche 986 Boxster S (262bhp) 1:16.2 123 ´04 266 / 1320 Sport Auto
Lotus Exige 1:16.5 123 ´04 192 / 907 Sport Auto
Mercedes SLK 350 (Facelift) 1:17.2 121 ´08 305 / 1410 Sport Auto
Porsche 987 Boxster 1:17.4 121 ´05 240 / 1398 Sportauto
Audi S3 (8P) 1:17.5 121 ´06 265 / 1450 Sport Auto
BMW Z4 3.0si 1:17.6 121 ´07 265 / 1385 sportauto
Lotus Europa S 1:17.9 120 ´06 200 / 995 Sport Auto
BMW Z4 3.0i 1:18.1 120 ´03 231 / 1384 sportauto
Audi TT Roadster 3.2 (8J) 1:18.2 120 ´07 250 / 1526 sportauto
Honda S2000 1:19.3 118 ´99 239 / 1260 sportauto
Audi TT Roadster 2.0 TFSI 1:19.6 118 ´07 200 / 1386 Sport Auto

Variano handling track

Lotus Elise 111R 1:22.425 ´04 192 / 896 quattroruote
Audi TT 3.2 quattro (8J) 1:23.774 ´06 250 / 1448 Quattroruote
Porsche 986 Boxster S (262bhp) 1:23.861 ´04 266 / 1320 quattroruote
Cadillac XLR-V 1:23.910 ´06 450 / 1754 Quattroruote
Porsche 986 Boxster S (248bhp) 1:23.998 ´99 252 / 1295 quattroruote
Nissan 350Z (308bhp) 1:23.999 ´07 313 / 1534 quattroruote
Nissan 350Z (283bhp) 1:24.397 ´02 287 / 1532 quattroruote
Mazda RX-8 1:24.546 ´02 231 / 1379 "Quattroruote"
BMW Z4 3.0i 1:24.675 ´03 231 / 1384 quattroruote
Toyota MR2 1.8 Roadster SMT 1:24.954 ´00 140 / 1065 quattroruote
Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6 1:24.978 ´05 330 / 1459 quattroruote
Nissan 350Z Roadster 1:25.612 ´03 280 / 1635 quattroruote
Honda S2000 1:25.645 ´99 239 / 1260 "Quattroruote"
Opel Astra OPC '05 1:25.866 ´05 241 / 1358 quattroruote


Oschersleben

Audi S3 (8P) 1:49.12 121 ´06 265 / 1450 Auto Bild
Porsche 986 Boxster S (262bhp) 1:49.72 120 ´04 266 / 1320 autobild
Audi TT Roadster 3.2 (8J) 1:51.43 118 ´07 250 / 1526 Dierk Mƶller-Sonntag
BMW Z4 3.0si 1:51.49 118 ´07 265 / 1385 Dierk Mƶller-Sonntag
Lotus Elise 111R 1:52.05 118 ´04 192 / 896 Sportscars
Opel Astra OPC '05 1:52.89 117 ´05 241 / 1358 autobild
Honda S2000 1:56.11 114 ´99 239 / 1260 "Auto Bild"
Mazda RX-8 1:56.14 114 ´02 231 / 1379 "Auto Bild"

the 'ring

Nissan 350Z (283bhp) 8:26 147 ´02 287 / 1532 Sport Auto
BMW Z4 3.0i 8:32.0 145 ´03 231 / 1384 Sportauto
Porsche 986 Boxster (225bhp) 8:36 144 ´02 228 / 1275 Sport Auto
Honda S2000 8:39 143 ´99 239 / 1260 Sport Auto
Audi TT 2.0 TFSI (8J) 8:40 143 ´06 200 / 1310 Sport Auto


Bored of this now but you get the picture. S2000, is outgunned on the track most of the time by its rivals, and alot of the current hothatches are faster than it also. And the car really isnt all that light, only 70kg less than a mk2 TT, and yssman, how often do I have to remind you to not underestimate the mk 2 TT. Its plenty quick and alot of fun to boot.

 

[homeforsummer]

Interesting figures, thanks for providing them 👍

But how many times, and not getting at you personally Forza, but it gives me a chance to reiterate: Lap times are not the be-all and end-all of performance cars. The S2K may not be the quickest car around a track (Fifth Gear recently put a Japanese-spec Mugen Civic RR around a track quicker) but much - nay, most - of the sports car experience is the feeling you get driving them, the fun factor, the noise etc. And in it's class, I'd be willing to bet that the S2K is as good, if not better, than many of it's competitors. Personally, I'd even choose a basic 1.8 MX5 over most of those cars, and it'd be much slower than all of them.

 

[YSSMAN]

...You forgot one thing...

Viva la S2000!

[/fanboy]

Speaking personally, I think the S2000 was a home run was it first introduced 8 years ago. It was easily the pick of the pack when compared to the old Z3 and 986. But in that time, Porsche, BMW, Audi and Nissan have all improved their products.

I don't outright disagree with you, the competition has gotten better, but on the same token, it doesn't exactly push the S2000 to the outside either. Its still competitive in performance and price (especially price against the Germans), which still makes it one helluva sweetheart for me.

Meanwhile, the Germans are much better at the other jobs a roadster is expected to perform. And they're really not that far off the mark when you're doing 10/10ths either.

Germans do what Germans do best... Make cars that are good all the way around. Thing is, when I'm buying a roadster, I'm prepared to make the sacrifices that the S2000 comes with.

Yes, I know I'm crazy.

 

[forza2.0]

Interesting figures, thanks for providing them 👍

But how many times, and not getting at you personally Forza, but it gives me a chance to reiterate: Lap times are not the be-all and end-all of performance cars. The S2K may not be the quickest car around a track (Fifth Gear recently put a Japanese-spec Mugen Civic RR around a track quicker) but much - nay, most - of the sports car experience is the feeling you get driving them, the fun factor, the noise etc. And in it's class, I'd be willing to bet that the S2K is as good, if not better, than many of it's competitors. Personally, I'd even choose a basic 1.8 MX5 over most of those cars, and it'd be much slower than all of them.

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!

 

[DaddyVDUB]

I don't think this one is as close a choice as some may think.

The S2000 is, granted, a very good lightweight sportscar... but it has its flaws... too frenetic, a little on the harsh side... it's on its way out... doesn't bring anything new to the table, and it wasn't even as revolutionary as, say, the NSX, when it came out.

Whereas the R8, despite being seriously outgunned by more powerful motors in its class, brings the extravagant style and character of a true exotic to the high end sportscar market... oh... and it drives nicely, too. In fact, it's a lot like the NSX... (just AWD, not as light and not carrying a Honda badge... ) not carrying the most firepower to the party, but definitely standing out from the crowd.

Besides... an R8 versus GT-R battle would be an epic thread... both in terms of voting and the possible flame wars that may erupt.

The R8 without a doubt,its exotic,looks like its going 200 sitting still,handles well,& its German

 

[Stevisiov]

Germans do what Germans do best... Make cars that are good all the way around. Thing is, when I'm buying a roadster, I'm prepared to make the sacrifices that the S2000 comes with.

Yes, I know I'm crazy.

While I agree that this may be the case, lets not forget what exactly the problem at hand. If you are wiling to make the sacrifices that the S2000 comes with because its more fun as a roadster it would have to be far far more fun that its competitors to make it car of the year, wouldn't you agree. I think for a 2000 car of the year it would have a strong case, even now its a very good car and certainly can stack up well against its competitors, but car of the year is a bit more than simply being a good match for its competitors.

The R8 for me, its certainly made an impression over in the UK I think last I heard the waiting list is at 18 months, pretty impressive, I love it because it strikes me as a modest supercar rather than a high-performance sports car. It shows you can have supercar looks, handling interior and handling at sportscar price much like the the 911 for that matter, only slightly better IMO. That's why I think the R8 should be car of the year.

 

[homeforsummer]

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.

Fun and the interior style/quality are very, very relative. One man's meat is another's poison. Personally I think the S2000 has one of the best interiors in it's class - everything it needs and nothing it doesn't. And as for fun, I guess that depends on what kind of handling you like, and whether you prefer the characteristics and sounds of a high-revving inline 4, a straight 6, a flat 6, a V6, a turbocharged unit, or any other demonination available in the class.

As for relative value or depreciation, the cheapest BMW Z4 I can find buy-it-now on ebay is about £10k. The cheapest S2000 is £6k. The S2000 has been out for 4 more years and it's £4k less. That's not really that bad depreciation wise. I'd expect the Z4 to be down to about the same value in 4 years time. Really, most of the ones in that class are going to be about the same depreciation wise.

Most of the cars in that class are pretty even in most areas, really, so the fact that the S2000 is the oldest can hardly be leveled as a strong criticism.

 

[Tornado]

Is it really so pointless to expect a sportscar to have a high-RPM powerband and extract the most performance it can from its parts, within reason? Anything else just seems lazy.

But that is different from what you said originally.

2009 BMW 328i Coupe -- 3.0L 230hp I6; 28mpg hwy.
2009 Ford Mustang -- 4.0L 210hp V6; 26mpg hwy.

I misunderstood what your point was then.

Ok yssman, and tornado, I dont need to give a full indepth argument as m-spec has already done so, hence im just gonna give some quick facts.

Blah blah track times blah. That useless list made it official: You have no clue why the S2000 is so well endeared.

And the car really isnt all that light, only 70kg less than a mk2 TT

Its lighter than all of its competitors by a good margin. 70 kg less is still over 150 pounds. And besides, saying it like that neglects the fact that the Audi TT should be light, as it is FWD.

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.

And the facts are just rippling in to support those claims, aren't they? You should have just left well enough alone, as all your two posts have done is take away from M-Spec's researched point.

You will also note that I admitted that it may no longer be the be all end all in the segment, but it is still very competitive because no one car outstrips it in more than a couple of categories. The problem is that you don't understand that a car doesn't have to be the best at everything to be competitive.

 

[forza2.0]

Blah blah track times blah. That useless list made it official: You have no clue why the S2000 is so well endeared.

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.

Its lighter than all of its competitors by a good margin. 70 kg less is still over 150 pounds. And besides, saying it like that neglects the fact that the Audi TT should be light, as it is FWD.

70kgs is the weight of one person. And being FWD doesnt mean a car should be automatically light. Its not like the s200 itself requires heavy duty geartrain as it doesnt make much torque. The TT is luxurious, the S2000 isnt, I wonder how much a TT would weigh if you removed all that sound deadening and heavy electric toys.

And the facts are just rippling in to support those claims, aren't they? You should have just left well enough alone, as all your two posts have done is take away from M-Spec's researched point.

No Not really

You will also note that I admitted that it may no longer be the be all end all in the segment, but it is still very competitive because no one car outstrips it in more than a couple of categories. The problem is that you don't understand that a car doesn't have to be the best at everything to be competitive.
[/FONT]

So why exactly should I vote for it then? For being a great has been?

It doesnt do anything the best, and it does imo get outstripped in most categories. Its one thing is is famed for it doesnt do best anymore.

Once again I have to say the car is trading on its reputation of the past, as you seemingly cant understand just how far the game as moved on.

 

[gator of kana]

Are we having an argument already? This is rediculous stop trying to prove points people!!! This is how it goes every day sheesh.

 

[Famine]

gator of kana is quite right. Stop having opinions, people, and whatever you do, don't express them!

 

[gator of kana]

I got a question Famine. Do you like V-tech engines?

 

[Danny]

No Not really

Very well argued. Would you like to expand, at all?

 

[Famine]

I got a question Famine. Do you like V-tech engines?

Well, I hadn't really thought about it. They seem to be at the core of quite a few frontline children's learning devices, so I suppose they're pretty good.

 

[gator of kana]

Well, I hadn't real thought about it. They seem to be at the core of quite a few frontline children's learning devices, so I suppose they're pretty good.

I like them because they are capable of revving at 9,000 RPM. Most Japanese people said that a high revving engine is great, 7,000 and 8,000 are good but when it comes to 9,000, you get the right type of harmony note that makes you want to keep driving.

 

[Famine]

I like them because they are capable of revving at 9,000 RPM. Most Japanese people said that a high revving engine is great, 7,000 and 8,000 are good but when it comes to 9,000, you get the right type of harmony note that makes you want to keep driving.

Now that you mention it, I like the way Speak'n'Spell really accelerates through the last 4 levels, keeping the difficulty high.