why did you buy your S
05-04-2003, 03:12 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why did you buy your S
The old introductory thing's probably been asked a million times but I think it's always interesting to find out some info - plus there's always new people logging onto the site!
Why did you buy your S? What do you do for a living and what other cars did you consider? I guess I'll have to start...
Optical
--------------
Occupation: Senior Designer (Web)
Other Cars Considered: Mazda RX-7, Toyota Supra, BMW 323ci, Mercedes SLK 230
Why did I choose the S: Unique, one of the best looking cars around and has great performance.
Why did you buy your S? What do you do for a living and what other cars did you consider? I guess I'll have to start...
Optical
--------------
Occupation: Senior Designer (Web)
Other Cars Considered: Mazda RX-7, Toyota Supra, BMW 323ci, Mercedes SLK 230
Why did I choose the S: Unique, one of the best looking cars around and has great performance.
05-04-2003, 06:35 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other cars concidered: Boxster (2.7L), Boxtser S, Elise, older NSX, older M3.
Why: To start of I eliminated all the cars that were 'older' as I wanted a new car (or close to it). Then I eliminated the Elise as I liked all the other cars better (in terms of performance as well as practicality). Then I decided that I really want the Boxster S out of the two Boxsters because of the added power, brakes and gearbox. So I was left with Boxster S and S2000. From those two I chose the S2000 because it is close to Boxster S in terms of ultimate perfromance, looks better (IMHO) and is almost 1/2 the price. If money was no object would have chosen the Boxster S.
Why: To start of I eliminated all the cars that were 'older' as I wanted a new car (or close to it). Then I eliminated the Elise as I liked all the other cars better (in terms of performance as well as practicality). Then I decided that I really want the Boxster S out of the two Boxsters because of the added power, brakes and gearbox. So I was left with Boxster S and S2000. From those two I chose the S2000 because it is close to Boxster S in terms of ultimate perfromance, looks better (IMHO) and is almost 1/2 the price. If money was no object would have chosen the Boxster S.
05-04-2003, 07:13 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had to be a convertible.
1. Standard boxster too slow
2. Boxster S too expensive
3. Elise (then Series 1) too impractical
4. MX5 - had 2 previously...bored now
5. Z3, SLK - too hair dresser
1. Standard boxster too slow
2. Boxster S too expensive
3. Elise (then Series 1) too impractical
4. MX5 - had 2 previously...bored now
5. Z3, SLK - too hair dresser
05-04-2003, 07:51 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why: convertible (replacement for my MX-5), RWD, lightweight, 2 seater, sportcar origins and a 176Kw 2.0L NA engine screaming at 9000RPM! The more I read about the Honda the more I was impressed with it. The MX-5 was great fun, it just needed more balls so the S2000 fit the bill perfectly. It also carries a certain presence that was missing from the Mazda. Plus it looks fantastic too.
considered: MX-5 Turbo (filled the void missing from the first car, but still an MX-5. I thought this was too 'aftermarket' for my tastes)
WRX STi (great power and grip but decided the image was not for me. not a good looking car either)
200SX (again great power and fun RWD handling however a little rough around the edges and not a convertible. also really despised the tail lights)
Elise (needed daily driver so this was ruled out quite early)
and also thought of holding out for the...
350Z (great car with good credentials, however not convertible, too heavy for me and looked a little too bulbous)
RX-8 (very tempted to wait for this one, loved the interior, exterior grew on you and looked like a serious contender. however it was the not convertible clincher again. If I needed 4 seats however, this would've been it).
occupation: distribution & web/graphic design
The S does not do anything exceptionally better than the above cars (actually it is slower and tougher to handle than most of the above cars) however the total package is greater than the sum of its parts and there's more to ownership than can simply be gained from looking at the performance numbers. She has a big heart (the F20C), has a distinct dual-personality (above/below 6000RPM), commands that you respect it (no electronic driver aids to save driver error mid-corner). has great legs (handling is "sports car" all the way), brilliant eyes (HIDs) and she looks damn sexy with her top up or down. Best of all, treat her well and drive her well and she will give you the biggest sh!t-eating grin you ever had.
considered: MX-5 Turbo (filled the void missing from the first car, but still an MX-5. I thought this was too 'aftermarket' for my tastes)
WRX STi (great power and grip but decided the image was not for me. not a good looking car either)
200SX (again great power and fun RWD handling however a little rough around the edges and not a convertible. also really despised the tail lights)
Elise (needed daily driver so this was ruled out quite early)
and also thought of holding out for the...
350Z (great car with good credentials, however not convertible, too heavy for me and looked a little too bulbous)
RX-8 (very tempted to wait for this one, loved the interior, exterior grew on you and looked like a serious contender. however it was the not convertible clincher again. If I needed 4 seats however, this would've been it).
occupation: distribution & web/graphic design
The S does not do anything exceptionally better than the above cars (actually it is slower and tougher to handle than most of the above cars) however the total package is greater than the sum of its parts and there's more to ownership than can simply be gained from looking at the performance numbers. She has a big heart (the F20C), has a distinct dual-personality (above/below 6000RPM), commands that you respect it (no electronic driver aids to save driver error mid-corner). has great legs (handling is "sports car" all the way), brilliant eyes (HIDs) and she looks damn sexy with her top up or down. Best of all, treat her well and drive her well and she will give you the biggest sh!t-eating grin you ever had.
05-04-2003, 09:16 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually it is slower and tougher to handle than most of the above cars
Hey Blackie,
I agree with the 'tougher to handle' about a lot of those cars on your list, but disagree with the 'quicker' comment. I pressume you're talkign about quicker in the straighline but from my experience (or knowlege) this is how things go:
- 200SX - the S2000 is quicker (I have a friend with one - I did detailed comaprisions).
- STi - if you're talking about the new one (ie. not the original shape), then again the S2000 is not slower. It is just as quick. I've been now on the track with these 3 times and when you get onto the straights neither car gains/pulls away.
- 350Z - remains to be seen. But I've heard reports that it is not too much quicker than S15 200SX. Also from the numbers I have seen so far it seems about as quick as S2000 (or vica versa).
- RX-8 - this one looks slower than the S2000. I've read now 2 tests in UK magazines and they manayed 0-160kph in 15.5 and 16.0 secs respectively. That's good 1 - 2secs off the S2000 time as the S2000 get get just bellow 14secs here on a good day.
Hey Blackie,
I agree with the 'tougher to handle' about a lot of those cars on your list, but disagree with the 'quicker' comment. I pressume you're talkign about quicker in the straighline but from my experience (or knowlege) this is how things go:
- 200SX - the S2000 is quicker (I have a friend with one - I did detailed comaprisions).
- STi - if you're talking about the new one (ie. not the original shape), then again the S2000 is not slower. It is just as quick. I've been now on the track with these 3 times and when you get onto the straights neither car gains/pulls away.
- 350Z - remains to be seen. But I've heard reports that it is not too much quicker than S15 200SX. Also from the numbers I have seen so far it seems about as quick as S2000 (or vica versa).
- RX-8 - this one looks slower than the S2000. I've read now 2 tests in UK magazines and they manayed 0-160kph in 15.5 and 16.0 secs respectively. That's good 1 - 2secs off the S2000 time as the S2000 get get just bellow 14secs here on a good day.
05-04-2003, 10:02 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey,
Almost everyone here who answered is in the IT industry.
I bought mine because I liked the styling and it went quick.
Other cars considered:
Alfa Romeo Spyder (Too slow)
BMW M3 Roadster (Too expensive)
I work in IT security
Almost everyone here who answered is in the IT industry.
I bought mine because I liked the styling and it went quick.
Other cars considered:
Alfa Romeo Spyder (Too slow)
BMW M3 Roadster (Too expensive)
I work in IT security
Trending Topics
05-04-2003, 10:09 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Sunder
Hey,
Almost everyone here who answered is in the IT industry.
Hey,
Almost everyone here who answered is in the IT industry.
05-04-2003, 10:26 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melb
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Cars Considered: MX5, Audi TT
Why did I choose the S: Had to be convertible, I like the looks & feel of it, better quality than my last car (MGF), like the sound when you take off.
CD
Why did I choose the S: Had to be convertible, I like the looks & feel of it, better quality than my last car (MGF), like the sound when you take off.
CD
05-04-2003, 11:40 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
Other cars concidered: Boxster (2.7L), Boxtser S, Elise, older NSX, older M3.
Why: To start of I eliminated all the cars that were 'older' as I wanted a new car (or close to it). Then I eliminated the Elise as I liked all the other cars better (in terms of performance as well as practicality). Then I decided that I really want the Boxster S out of the two Boxsters because of the added power, brakes and gearbox. So I was left with Boxster S and S2000. From those two I chose the S2000 because it is close to Boxster S in terms of ultimate perfromance, looks better (IMHO) and is almost 1/2 the price. If money was no object would have chosen the Boxster S.
Other cars concidered: Boxster (2.7L), Boxtser S, Elise, older NSX, older M3.
Why: To start of I eliminated all the cars that were 'older' as I wanted a new car (or close to it). Then I eliminated the Elise as I liked all the other cars better (in terms of performance as well as practicality). Then I decided that I really want the Boxster S out of the two Boxsters because of the added power, brakes and gearbox. So I was left with Boxster S and S2000. From those two I chose the S2000 because it is close to Boxster S in terms of ultimate perfromance, looks better (IMHO) and is almost 1/2 the price. If money was no object would have chosen the Boxster S.