4th Nov 2004, 21:31
I'm in the same boat...
I am currently trying to decide between an '04 SRT-4 and a used '00 S2000 with 11K miles on it. Both cars are the same price, with the Honda being out of warranty. I have been able to test drive both of them back to back in the same day, believe it or not with each dealer encouraging me to drive very hard (I took a half hour ride in the Honda).
I race a Suzuki GSXR1000 motorcycle in the summer months, so I am akin to the addictions of acceleration. That little SRT-4 is FAST. Faster than the S2000 in most of the rpm range. But the S2000 was ten times the overall machine. I can't see the SRT-4 lasting long at all, especially how it begs to be driven. If fastest is your only goal on the track - not driving pleasure, the SRT-4 with suspension mods probably will get you what you want. But trust me, that dodge reeks of depreciation value and repairs.
"The sluggish nimble sewing machine vs. the fast sloppy beachball..."
12th Nov 2004, 07:53
OK, so you don't like to drive then? The idea of being on a race track is shifting gears to keep your engine in it's optimum rev range and keep it "on the boil". I've had everything from hot-cammed, 400cu in Trans Ams, Taurus SHO, Peugeot GTIs, Fiat Cinquecento Abarth, etc. and the last of my steeds has been the Impreza WRX.. all I can say is if you really want grunt and be able to outrun anything in any weather than get a US spec WRX STi. Period. Forget SRT4s - there is more to life than 0-60 times. The WRX can be used daily in all weather and then crush pretty much anything on the race track. Ditto for the Mitsubishi EVO (British MR FQ400 version is killer). Happy driving!!
8th Jan 2005, 15:24
Everyone seems to bring up re-sale value... One Question. Are you going to get a car to sell it again later, or to drive it. Pick One.
30th Apr 2005, 21:26
I am basically a honda fan for 1 main reason, these cars can last... may not be very fast, but I'm not looking for it to be, I just want something responsive, economical, smooth and reliable... and believe it or not the dodge will let you down 2 out of the 3, guess which ones? Even though it's your money... I say do with it what you want.
23rd Jul 2005, 15:40
Last time I checked the 2004 S2000 does not redline at 9K rpms. This inaccuracy makes me question the entire review.
25th Jan 2006, 09:47
I'm a female with no racing blood in my body. I purchased a 2001 s2000 nearly 2 yrs. ago. I chose the car because of the sleek body appearance, just to cruise. now it has a whinning in the rear-end of transmission. it has only 25k miles. as anyone else experience this defect?
7th Mar 2006, 19:38
The Honda S2000 has class, reliability and style. This car is an instant classic it's not meant to be the quickest car on the road, just a great looking, fun roadster. This is not a track car, I don't recall ever hearing Chrysler winning an F1 championship, Honda is not just an economy brand they build fast bikes too.
14th Mar 2006, 17:02
You have purchased the wrong car for you, I think. The S2000 is not a drag car by any means, and is not for drivers who do not wish to learn how to really drive. I have owned many high performance vehicles in the past 35 years and would say that the S2000 is the best of a good bunch. To compare what is in essence a hot-rodded economy car with a purpose-designed high performance sports car is a losing proposal.
11th Apr 2006, 00:11
To compare the S2000 with a SRT-4 is ridiculuous. Totally different cars.
But I will give the superiority to the S on the track. You cannot compare a rear wheel drive car to a front wheel drive car. Ill take a rear wheel drive car any day around the track. Better handling capabilities and predictability. Of course you have to know how to drive an S. Someone in here mentioned they traded for a SRT-4 because they could not keep up. Bogus. they didn't know how to drive it. if they did, everyone one else would've been trying to keep up to him at the track in a comparative situation.
20th Apr 2006, 16:09
I agree with the guy who was talking about having a big v8. In my opinion it's just better to have a bigger engine than a smaller one any day of the week. Plus if you know how to power slide, you cannot only keep the power to the ground, but also keep the car right where you want it. I've seen a fair amount of v8s and other big engine cars take out both srt-4s and s2000s at the track using this technique. Again just my opinion.
2nd May 2006, 00:05
Fellas, fellas, okay. don't be upset with the S. who cares if it gets beat stock by an srt4. I run 7psi off a gr eddy turbo, for 3500 bucks and smoke em all. plus the other car is still a dodge freaking neon.
29th Jun 2006, 22:09
I owned an '04 S2K and I hated it. It seemed way too slow. I even considered putting a turbo on it, but decided against it. Now I have an '05 SRT-4 ACR edition with an AGP 50 trim turbo. Best decision I ever made.
12th May 2007, 21:32
In response to the comment about the car not having a 9k redline: 2000 through 2003 had the 2 liter motor, which redlined at 9k. 2004 and newer have the 2.2, which redlines lower.
28th Sep 2007, 22:51
I drove a 2003 s2000, and it was awesome! No, I have not driven an F1 car, but I don't need a car that goes 0-60 in 2 seconds. The S2000 is reliable, and relatively fuel efficient, not to mention its amazing suspension setup, the turbo like Vtec kick, and overall very sexy and sleek styling. Rear wheel drive and a precise, quick-shifting six-speed make it nearly perfect. If you like turbocharged front wheel drive Dodges, or heavy, gas-guzzling V8's be my guest, but I'd really enjoy owning a car that makes me happy without feeling any regrets on the track or at the pumps. It's all about having fun!
24th Feb 2008, 15:32
I got a 2000 S2000 Vortech Supercharger. It dynoed at 355hp at the wheels at stock boost. I got a new supercharger pulley, should put the car at about 400hp at the wheels. Either one is HP-O-Plenty.
I get revved on by SRT4's, but once they hear the blow off and blower whine, they talk smack and slowly drive away.
The car was a great idea, cheap, fast, good performance, but the people that bought those things are usually also cheap and immature. The SRT4 is still JUST A NEON.
13th Jun 2008, 11:19
I've had an 04 s2000 for about 4 months and would have to say its the best decision I've ever made.. I just raced and srt4 the other day and the s2000 came out on top which even surprised me a lil just from how much smack every1 talks about srt4s... not anymore.
5th Aug 2008, 11:55
There are two kinds of people in this world: People who like Dodge SRT-4's, and my friends.
13th Jan 2010, 19:17
You have to decide... a cheap built SRT4, which in fact is just a NEON, or a way better built Honda with a much higher resale value. Performance is almost the same. Honda is not even a turbo engine. Better stability for Honda. RWD. Way better trans, and you can use it as convertible. Good luck with your decision. Drove an SRT4. Own an 06 S2000.
8th Feb 2010, 20:43
The S2000 should have a turbo if it costs over 30k. The SRT-4 gets close to equal gas mileage and is cheaper to upgrade.
It basically sits at this:
Cheap, upgradeable car for street and track racing - The SRT-4 won't get beat.
More expensive, better re-sale, stylish with convertible, more expensive to upgrade, and has Honda VTEC - the S2000 is nice.
4th Jul 2004, 22:37
I was surprised too. it's a good enough car, don't get me too wrong, but not good enough for what I paid for it... especially considering what I've been (and the other guys in the S2k club I'm in) getting beaten by.