2001 Honda S2000 from North America - Comments

18th Nov 2003, 15:51

I would say any Foreign sports car is far from perfect.

If I had a Choice between a 69 Charger R\T with a 440 and 4sp, or a S2000, id take the Charger, every time.

I have driven a Viper, and a S2000, and the Viper was a MUCH better car.

25th Aug 2004, 23:06

You're right! After all, we all know that chargers, vipers and s2000s are in the same price range... haha.

31st Mar 2005, 07:52

Foreign Sp0rts cars are far from perfection eh? Especially as you have blown the price issue out of the window.

Now let me see... hmmmmm... Ferrari 360, yeah rubbish. Porsche 996 Turbo, junk! BMW M3 or M5, low tech. Subaru WRX Sti, little slow of the line. Nissan GTR, can only be modded a little. Any Aston Martin, cheap and nasty. Honda S2000, no fun. Lotus Elise, not involving enough.

Tell you what, I'll do you a deal. You keep your cars, us foreigners will keep ours ;)

30th Jul 2005, 04:12

Love it!

I am in the market for a sports car. Have looked at the 350z, the base Elise and the S2000 and only driven these things in the dry.

Exactly how hairy is the S200 in the wet? Exciting hairy or useless?

15th Mar 2006, 23:23

The tiny, torque-deprived motor in an S2000 IS much too high strung for city commuting. Launching from a stop @ 6,000 rpm. Hope you know how to change your clutch. In a real race from a rolling start, the S2000 will be creamed by a host of four door sedans on the market today. Nissan Altima 3.5, Honda Accord V6, and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP come to mind. Torque allows those cars to be launched from a roll and still produce low six second 0-60 times. The same cannot be said for the Honda. Look up a 5-60 time for an S2000 in any well known auto magazine... you'll be less than impressed. I promise.

23rd Mar 2006, 10:33

I am not downing the car, I am downing the engine. How is 150-160 lb. ft. of torque too little? Because there are cruiser motorcycles with almost that much torque. I am just annoyed with the hype of a car that is not really very fast. On the track, it is, if you can keep it in it's powerband. One missed downshift, and the guy behind you is going around. I didn't mean to offend, just putting my 2 cents in like everyone else. I am rather old school in my thinking about autos. If I don't want to buy into the new style of it all, just let me run along on my happy, torque filled way.

23rd Mar 2006, 18:16

You're comparing it to cruisers now?

Wow...

Crusiers have boatloads of torque and no top end so there is as little shifting as possible so the rider can just roll the throttle and get back into the powerband. They're motorcycles...

You must race s2000s all the time at the "track".

A lot of hype? Sure, it's an affordable sports convertible. Made by honda, looks great, has great handling, and a different engine that's made to shift, not to be drag raced from stoplight to stoplight.

24th Mar 2006, 20:14

You Honda guys love to put words in people's mouths, don't ya? I am definitely not comparing an S2000 to a cruiser, where did it say that? I stated that a cruiser has almost as much torque as an S2000. They are 2 totally different animals, I know this. As for you talking about me going to the "track", you don't' know where I drive, or where I live for that matter, so maybe I do go the "track", as you so eloquently put it. You don't know me, so don't act like it. I'm just an auto enthusiast who put in a comment you didn't like... I am not an enemy. Grow Up!

10th Nov 2006, 00:28

I agree with the first car. The Honda S2000 is a remarkable car that is pure driver orientated. Why are you commenting that a motorbike has the same amount of torque? Notice that motorbikes are fast??? Hmmm, hey, what do you know, so is the S2000!

From down-under Australia, the S2000 is a fantastic, high revving car, and only one other car that is affordable, reliable and economical has tried to copy Honda's concept. And that car is the Toyota Corolla Sportivo. Revving nicely at 8500rpm with help from it's Kawasaki technology. So, in conclusion, we like what we like, and the S2000 is a fantastic car that will out-rev, out-handle, out-perform and out-class the large majority of vehicles on the road today. So who are you to say buy a Buick?

2nd Nov 2009, 11:42

The S2000 is a well made sports car, that can also deliver great fuel economy. A GT Mustang gets half the mileage of a S2000, and yet both are about the same speed wise.

The Mustang looks like a Taurus inside, even uses similar buttons and moldings, while the S2000 stands out and does what it is made to do, and very well.

Until you've driven a Vtec, you don't understand the S2000, and the S2000 Vtec is one of the best to this day.

2nd Nov 2009, 14:46

Great review, very informative. Thanks!

3rd Nov 2009, 10:55

If you are revving that S2000 like you'd have to in order to keep up with that Mustang, you wouldn't be getting twice the mileage. Nothing gets good mileage at 8,500 rpm's.

4th Nov 2009, 00:10

Yeah, but who races a car that often to rpms of that sort. Unless both the Mustang and S2K are track cars, keeping both cars below 4k rpm - the Honda will get better mpg. Even though the car wasn't designed for economy, and produces 120hp per liter of displacement. Pretty incredible engineering. Just saying.

21st Apr 2010, 18:59

When considering torque you have to consider torque at the driven wheels, not just the flywheel, and to do so you have to take into account the gear ratios, final drive ratio and the tyre size. I agree that the S2000 needs revving to get the full performance but it's not a fair comparison to just look at the torque figure. Take your average hyperbike and the torque figure isn't too impressive but factor in the gear ratios and the weight and then do the same for a 2 ton, V8 car and you'll see why the bike is so fast.

Another important thing to bear in mind is that you need to get more air in the engine, for more power which allows more fuel to be burnt. Squirting extra fuel in is relatively easy with larger injectors, but providing the extra air, or more importantly oxygen, is more difficult. You have three options - more capacity; more revs (hence more combustion cycles per unit of time) or force the air in with a pump i.e. a turbo or supercharger. All the approaches have their downsides. Capacity adds weight; turbo/supercharging complexity and reliability issues and some lag/efficiency issues respectively; and increased revs potentially reduces reliability due to stress and makes the engine less tractable at low revs. What Honda have created is part-way to racing car engine and it's quite amazing it's so reliable.

By the way I haven't got an S2000 but I am just an admirer of fine engines such as the VTEC, BMW Ms, modern turbo-diesels and older designs such as the Jaguar V12 and I am sure I could add a host of others if I sat here and made my post even longer.

15th Dec 2010, 14:17

Engine horsepower is more important than torque. Torque can be multiplied by the transmission, rear end, and also the torque converter on cars with an automatic transmission.

Add another comment

Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site