RS4will

hey tete, how old r u. if ur older consider the subaru b4, its got much nicer interior from what i remember at last tears motor show. why not go for a used sti, they seem like a bargain nowadays and much nicer then the current years, also they're 2 doors or four if u really want.

TeTe

I am 30 years old so the B4 is not really my type of car at this stage. I did considered a used STi but once I asked about the insurance I dropped the idea right away. No one likes to insure a limited model STi. I got a much cheaper quote on the new STi then with a used limited two or four door model. The S2000 is again even cheaper so at this stage I am biasing towards the S.

suit36

If you want to drive fast easily, buy the STi

If you want to drive fast and enoy it (and have to think about it), buyu the s2000.

From all reports, and this seems generally consistent for all AWD cars, the experience in an STi is a little de-sensitised. Conversely, the S2000 is the more traditional lively rear end RWD.

At 32, I also struggle with the WRX stigma. And there is nothing quite like top-down motoring in Sydney!

toms2k

Sti and S2000

hmm, apple and orange....comparison is difficult.

Sti's are 4wd while s2000 are rwd. Sti's can be a family car and while S2000 is only 2 seaters....

Although I'm a S2000 owner....I must admit, sometimes it is not very convinient to have a 2 seaters. Luckily I have another CRV for those more ppl and carrying days (ie wont accomodate 2 full sets of golf equipments in the golf bag for 2 people)

Well, IMHO, unless you have another car and dont mind 2 seaters...go s2000.

Sti's are fast and goes harder and prolly accomodate 3 sets of golf sets and 3 extra passenger.


During raining season, you prolly want a STi while in the summer, you prolly want a S2k...



my 2 cents...

Tom

TeTe

Yesterday I went and test drove the BMW Z3 2.8 and 3.0 as a comparison to the S2000. Reason is used ones are in about the same price range as the S2000. I was very impressed. Frankly the cornering ability of the Z3 is nothing to write home about but I don't plan to race the car on a track often so its not a major concern. It doesn't mean they corner bad but just not as sharp and precise as the S2000. The ride is good but the engine...they are a gem. Any rev on the dial beyond two grand gives a hard slam in the back. I was driving up a steep hill and both car were already pulling hard in 3rd at about 50kph. The 3.0 engine is the one I truely want but the 2.8 is not far behind in terms of performance. Now I am really giving them a very serious thought.

2kturkey

Yeh but the Z3 is so ugly espec. those ridicluous standard equipment 1980's La croix stickers (crocodile jaws ) on the front mudguards.

wilch

I agree

short, stumpy, low to the ground already, yet soooo much "air" between the guards and the wheels. They give the impression of a "long" roadster. But when put next to an s2000 they fail in comparison.

That push in the back you're feeling would be the torque. You need to make the s2000 scream to do that, but I like screaming. If you read some of my other posts, you'll find that I love screaming.

The z3 4 banger was a piece of crap. Which is the main reason why I hate the car. 0-100 in something like 11 secs. I wonder why they stopped making them.....

wil..

DavidM

My friend had the Z3 2.8 about 2 years ago .... sold it for an Elise. Was a very nice car - but a definate GT (ie. a cruiser) so it never enetered 'my' mind as an option. The engine was very nice though.

The 3.0 engine is trully great and lifts the whole car another level. If you're not after an all out sportscar you can do worse the either 2.8 or 3.0 Z3. Though, if you're not concerned with outright perfromance and handling then why not look at the TT (and Roadster) ... they are both striking (inside and out) cars and have abundance of torque (ie. trackability). Or what about the SLK - that car has class.

ps. 3rd gear acceleration from 50kph? I'd be surprised if the 2.8L Z3 can match the S2000 in that regard .... S2000 pulls pretty hard in 3rd at 50kph (it actually still impresses me). I use often 3rd around 30kph+ corners in the S2000 beucase it still has OK pull there ... at 50kph+ it's verry responsive in 3rd.

I don't have the exact figures here but I did find this in a Z3 3.0 vs S2000 vs TT Roadster article:
80 - 100kph (in 4th) = 3.6 vs 3.2 vs 2.9 (S2000 vs Z3 3.0 vs TT-R)

As you can see this in 4th, the 3.0 Z3 and at 80kph (which is much worse then 3rd at 50kph for the S2000) and the Z3 is quick, but the TT is the 'torque monster' here.

In another S2000 article they have 3.4secs for the 80-100kph sprint in 4th for the S2000.

RS4will

or u can go real obscure and get a tvr. seen a few around north shore, they are a car that u definetely have to do a "double take" to make sure if u know what it is coz u certainly don't see many at all. however there are the asscociated problems of servicing and parts. but we may be stretching the budget here as i have no idea what they sell for, couldn't be much more than $100k could they?

my brothers mate had a 2.8 z3, got rid of it for a s2k in about 2 months. didn't have enough punch and felt it was a little "girly", the clutch travel in the z is very long, nice cruiser though. would have to get the m roadster if any, how much do these sell for second hand now?

DavidM

tvr ... i have no idea what they sell for, couldn't be much more than $100k could they

I have a friend with one (4.0L) and he got it good 3 years ago for just over $80k (knows a guy at a delership).