Honda S2000....

[ProjectM96]

Interior is much tighter than a Boxsters. Less trunk space. It accelerates slower than a base 986 but matched the 155mph top speed. It also matches the Boxster S 3.2L 0-60mph time.

My friend had an S2000 and when he drove the 987 05 Boxster base, he said the 987 felt more balanced and quicker than his car.

[qstoria]

Honda make some terrific motors but my opinion is that the cars they put them in weigh just that little bit too much to make them quick enough and therefore a viable alternative to the Boxster.

The NSX motors were all great as is the F20C from the S2000, not to mention the K20 series.

If Honda just got a bit more out of the S2000's motor, OR shed some weight from it then the current car could be considered a genuine rival to a 986. Of course the lack of torque from 4 cylinders and 2 (or 2.2) litres is evident in a car that weighs 1250 odd kilograms..

[papasmurf]

the reason why the S2000 feels sluggish...it is the torque curve of the motor. The S2000 I think was rated at 240 hp which is on par with the boxster S and the weight is likely very similar. The S2000 was using only a 2-2.2L motor....supposedly one of the highest output's per liter of a NA engine when it was in production. With the peaky Vtec system, it was tuned for top end power only. A friend of mine bought one a few years after they came out and let me drive it. It had one of the best gearboxes I have ever used. The power band was very peaky and I found my self shifting it at 6500 rpm because I did not want to "dog" his new car even though that is where the engine finally starts to come into it's own.

[Duffy3074]

Originally Posted by papasmurf

the reason why the S2000 feels sluggish...it is the torque curve of the motor. The S2000 I think was rated at 240 hp which is on par with the boxster S and the weight is likely very similar. The S2000 was using only a 2-2.2L motor....supposedly one of the highest output's per liter of a NA engine when it was in production. With the peaky Vtec system, it was tuned for top end power only. A friend of mine bought one a few years after they came out and let me drive it. It had one of the best gearboxes I have ever used. The power band was very peaky and I found my self shifting it at 6500 rpm because I did not want to "dog" his new car even though that is where the engine finally starts to come into it's own.

This is exactly right, the S2000 comes to life at 6.5K and you really have to thrash it to get the best from the engine, albeit between 6.5k and the redline it is simply astounding. Outwith that zone however, the engine is coarse and unresponsive and just plain old hard work , there's just no sense of occasion or drama with the car for 99% of a drive.

Day in, day out, the Boxster is a much better car (I would however have the gearchange quality from the Honda in my Boxster anyday!)

[BYprodriver]

In early 2003 after eliminating Corvettes from consideration, that left Boxsters & S2000 on my short list. I had extensive seat time in all new Porsches & Corvettes from my job but had never driven a S2000. I was concerned about Boxster cost of ownership & being a previous Honda Prelude Si owner, I was confident in Honda reliability. So I rented a 2003 S2000 for a day. (unlimited miles) I had a blast! (1st rule of stunt driving, Never use your own car!) Put lots of miles on the car. IMO as a paid test driver Honda's have the best shifters, but I tired of the nonstop shifting this car requires. The spartan interior makes the Box seem like a luxury car. Yada,Yada in the end the S2000 is a street legal spec racer, whereas the Boxster is a practical daily driver & the funnest device ever invented by man.

P.S. During a Media track day event @ Willow Springs I saw a journalist spin & roll a S2000 stopping upsidedown. It took about 15 minutes for the saftey crew to get him out & he walked away unharmed. S2000 rollbar is simular to Boxster's.