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

Does the convertible top matter?

Thread Tools
 
Old 11-06-2002 | 06:31 AM
  #11  
acx's Avatar
acx
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Default

I was looking for a convertible, but I judged all of them by these criteria:

1. Was it well made.
2. Did it shift and handle well.
3. Did it look good.
4. Did it have outstanding brakes.

A great engine was icing on the cake.

In my case the S2000 was number one in all my criteria. I wanted one ever since I saw the conceptual drawings in 1995.

Many people have asked me if I would prefer the new 350Z and my first answer is the Z is not a roadster!
Thus a convertible top does matter a lot to me. Then they ask me if I would want a Z3 and I inform them that the chassis of the Z3 is two generations old (back to my handling criteria). Finally they say what about the Boxster and I say the Boxster S is a great car, but I sleep better at night knowing I saved $20,000 by not buying a Boxster S.

Just my humble opinions.
Old 11-06-2002 | 07:48 AM
  #12  
rai's Avatar
rai
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,981
Likes: 10
From: mount airy
Default

I was actually NOT looking at the S2000 because it was a convertible. I had owned a Z3 and loved the top down aspect didn't like driving with the top up. I spent a lot of time with the top up because it was my only car.

I was going for the 350Z because it had a fixed roof, but my wife started bugging me to look at convertibles.

I now have the hard top and most of the benifits of a fixed roof car, great for fall and winter when I don't put the top down anyway. But when the weather warms up I can enjoy the top down motoring.
Old 11-06-2002 | 07:53 AM
  #13  
Legal Bill's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,112
Likes: 109
From: Canton, MA
Default

Roadsters only for me.
Old 11-06-2002 | 08:25 AM
  #14  
Lajster's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
From: Wanna be in Philly-stuck in MD
Default

I got spoiled by going to the beach in my TR-6 (when it actually would go). This car had to be a roadster!
Old 11-06-2002 | 08:56 AM
  #15  
Tegs2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
From: Tracy,CA
Default

I would have bought my "S" even if were only offered as a hardtop coupe. The performance for the price and also it being a Honda (reliability) was my deciding factor. The fact that it is a ragtop is an added bonus. I've never owned a convertible before and from now on there will always be room in my garage for one.
Old 11-06-2002 | 09:21 AM
  #16  
jeffbrig's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,535
Likes: 100
From: Fort Lauderdale
Default

For me it was the 2.0L, 240-hp, 9000rpm, 6-speed, great handling, and price. That it's a convertible was a bonus (a huge bonus really), but it wasn't the reason I bought the car. But, I drop the top every day on the way home unless it's raining. And I still have the original 9/99 Autoweek issue that made me want to buy one.
Old 11-06-2002 | 10:11 AM
  #17  
DaveFromSydney's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 3
From: Sydney
Default

For me it had to be a roadster.
I was considering a Miata, Triumph Stag (from the 70s), or a 2nd hand Z3.
Couldnt make up my mind - none was very exciting.
Heard about the S2000, took a test drive, bought a new one the same day.
Only learned later all of the great things about them, including this board.
Old 11-06-2002 | 10:55 AM
  #18  
b0mbrman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
From: CA.WA.[TX].VA
Default

I was in the market for "sporty" coupes and had more or less decided on getting an Arctic Blue RSX Type S because I liked Honda reliability and the availability of parts...

The best OTD price for a new one of these was $24.3k...I figured I might as well check out some used S2000's since S's of the used variety were being sold for around $26k at the time.

Anyhow, I testdrove one, fell in love, paid $25.1k for it and haen't looked back since
Old 11-06-2002 | 11:24 AM
  #19  
S2Thizzle's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 1
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

So there is some truth to my theory!

It seems like a tiny bit more than half of you were looking for a roadster, while the rest were interested in all the other good qualities of the S2000. I thought of the convertible top as an awesome "bonus." One reason I forgot to mention: I was looking for a sports car at the time I purchased the S2000. It's common knowledge that fixed hardtop cars have greater structural rigidity than convertibles, so I was worried about body flex. However, once I hopped into an S2000 and took it for a spin, I found that the chassis was VERY solid. That test drive did it for me.

To think about it, I used to remove the t-tops from my Camaro Z28 all the time. So maybe, like others mentioned, I really enjoyed driving open-roof cars. Would I still buy an S2000 if it was a coupe? Hell yes!
Old 11-06-2002 | 11:34 AM
  #20  
ralper's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 32,734
Likes: 1,496
From: Randolph, NJ
Default

This is sort of related to a discussion that is going on in another thread. I wonder how many of us who only wanted roadsters grew up with the old English roadsters? How many who wanted roadsters never had one before.

I know for me, I had a few old roadsters when I was younger and I had to have another one. Nothing comes close to top down driving! I was bitten by the bug years ago.


Quick Reply: Does the convertible top matter?



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:31 AM.