2000 S2K vs '97 BMW M3
#1
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.
#2
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.
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.
#5
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?
Back on my topic, which car (bone stock) is going to do better or say an auto-x?
#7
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.
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.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally posted by ZoominLude
Back on my topic, which car (bone stock) is going to do better or say an auto-x?
Back on my topic, which car (bone stock) is going to do better or say an auto-x?
A test drive of each is all you'll need to decide. Good luck!
Jason
#9
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.
In my opinion, I'd go with the S2000.
#10
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
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