S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

2000 S2K vs '97 BMW M3

Thread Tools
 
Old 11-18-2001 | 01:00 PM
  #1  
ZoominLude's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Florence
Default 2000 S2K vs '97 BMW M3

As I start my search for a car to replace my Prelude next summer I've narrowed (at least for the time being) my choices down to a slightly used (2000/01 less than 20Kmiles) Honda S2000 or a used (97 less than 45Kmiles) BMW M3. I know the two are slightly different but has anybody compared these two head to head. I live in the south so snow/traction is usually a non-issue.
Old 11-18-2001 | 02:49 PM
  #2  
WRS2K's Avatar
Registered User
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,425
Likes: 0
From: Kirkland
Default

M3: You are thinking about plunking down $25K+ for a 4-5 year old car and assuming that you're like most of the people on this board, you will drive this car for three more years. Add in maintenance costs for a European car.

S2000: You are thinking about plunking down $28K+ for a limited new model car that will easily look good for 5+ years down the line. Add in maintenance costs for a Japanese automobile.

My choice: Save up for the new M3.
Old 11-18-2001 | 03:10 PM
  #3  
ZoominLude's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Florence
Default

IMO, the M3 still looks great (the previous gen) and will for years to come. I love the S2K as well. The only thing I think that the M3 would have over the S2K is torque.
Old 11-18-2001 | 03:13 PM
  #4  
WRS2K's Avatar
Registered User
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,425
Likes: 0
From: Kirkland
Default

In AL, I'm sure an '89 Chevy pickup still looks good.
Old 11-18-2001 | 03:32 PM
  #5  
ZoominLude's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Florence
Default

Ah, I see humor runs rampant on this board. I do agree though to an extent. A few weeks ago, a friend and I were noting the ratio of pick-ups (including SUVs) to cars (including station wagons and minivans). It turned out after about twenty minutes to be 8:1. Disturbing.

Back on my topic, which car (bone stock) is going to do better or say an auto-x?
Old 11-18-2001 | 03:33 PM
  #6  
ZoominLude's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Florence
Default

As far as saving up for a new M3, that is not an option, either financially or time wise.
Old 11-18-2001 | 05:51 PM
  #7  
joe_s2k's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,821
Likes: 0
From: HouStook TX
Default

Since your financially sound, I would suggest that you test drive both cars to determine which is the right one for you.

The S2000 is a wonderful car that has rendered me completely biased when people pose these questions. If you ever get to drive one, you'll know what I mean. It is a car that has kept me smiling for 15 months. You won't be disappointed with this one.

I've been privileged to have had a chance to ride in the new BMW M3 and can tell you that it is an incredible machine too. The power is engulfing, but the handling is still not near as nimble as the S2000. You probably won't be disappointed with this one either.
Old 11-18-2001 | 06:32 PM
  #8  
jzr's Avatar
jzr
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,821
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Default

Originally posted by ZoominLude
Back on my topic, which car (bone stock) is going to do better or say an auto-x?
The S2000 is quicker in the atuocross, no doubt. As in any racing though, it's up to the driver to prove it so - the M3 and S2000 are close enough to be in the same "class". Unless you're a pretty hardcore racer that really shouldn't be a deciding factor.

A test drive of each is all you'll need to decide. Good luck!

Jason
Old 11-18-2001 | 07:41 PM
  #9  
integrate's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,079
Likes: 0
From: Irvine
Default

If you find an older M3, be sure to find one in good condition. I'd go with an S2000 because I love the look, it's a convertible, and brand new. Both car's handle well but I think the S2000 edges it out a bit because of the lighter weight. I also love the high revving of the S2000. M3 has obviously more torque. M3 can fit 4 people, S2000 only 2.

In my opinion, I'd go with the S2000.
Old 11-18-2001 | 09:05 PM
  #10  
Louie's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: Saskatoon
Default

Zoominlude:

You are in a similar situation as I was two years ago. I replaced my 97 Prelude SH with a 99 M3. I had wanted and could have bought a 2000 S2000 but due to circumstances beyond my control, I had to get a car with a back seat for practical reasons. I loved the torque of the M3 as well as the practical features. I had also driven the S2000 and it is a completely different car. People are right when they say the performance numbers are similar in these vehicles. It all comes down to the driver. My friend who owns a S2000 actually got a better quarter mile time in my M3 than in his S2000 (same day track conditions!) although the difference was not by much.

The bottom line is what car do YOU really want at this time. You can't go wrong with either because both are great cars. The only mistake is to get a beat up M3 or S2000. Chances are, both these types of vehicles were driven hard in the past and maintenance/repair bills for a used one can add up.

Personally, I would not buy a used S2000 or a used M3. If possible, save up a year or two and buy new and baby it!

That is what I am doing- My 2002 S2000 Suzuka Blue should be here in two weeks. The M3 is gone and yes, I do miss the M3, even knowing the S2000 is on its way!

Louie


Quick Reply: 2000 S2K vs '97 BMW M3



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:34 AM.