Couldn't find anything about this in a search so forgive me if it's been mentioned before.

May issue of Smart Money magazine rated 5 "midpriced sports cars". S2000 came in last! Their order was 1. Audi TT Coupe Quattro, 2. 350Z Touring, 3. BMW Z4 3.0, 4. Infiniti G35 Coupe, 5. S2000. They really downgraded the S2k for Interior design and comfort (1 out of 5 stars) and Exterior Styling (2 stars). The reviewer said "The S2000 can be fun on a brief, fast ride, but the key word is brief". Said the car is "cramped, with a choppy ride and a rough suspension."

 

Yes... well, IMO, this ==> O <== (being "a hole in the ground") and this ==> O <== (being "the reviewer's ass)...would lead me to conclude that the reviewer doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground!

 

What a joke. I sold my S to my dad a few months back and bought a new TT quattro coupe. I'm currently trying to get rid of the TT (at a huge loss) so I can get my S back. I don't feel the TT is a sports car. Its beautiful and the interior is very nice, but a sports car it is not. Way to much body roll for my liking. You live you learn.

 

Considering the who the reviewer works for I would say his opinion is right. The majority of those who read Smart Money would be place comfort and styling over anything else.

I would say reviewers from mags valuing performance and handling would rate the S2000 much higher!!!

 

Styling!?!?!? This is the biggest joke of the review. The S2000 has better styling than all of the coupes mentioned. I can't believe this joker. Oh well, everyone has a right to their own opinion.

 

Consider the source. "Smart money" magazine? I've admittedly never picked up this magazine, but, from the title, these guys probably don't have that much experience with cars aside from daily driving. I could be wrong though. I'll stick with Road & Track for car tests, thanks.

 

You hit the nail on the head, Dave

Maybe the mag should change their name to Not So Smart Money

 

It's amazing that they randomly compare cars like that in the first place. They pick a couple of roadsters, a couple of coupes, some which are new and one that's been around, relatively unchanged for four years. They give some pudgy couch potato the privlelege of test driving these vehicles (as a favor for dating the editor's homely daughter), and he picks the cars that most remind him of his oversized recliner. Reviews are great when they are objective, but this review is obviously not, since they're comparing new apples to old oranges (or should I say cherries!). Ironically, reliability and fuel economy are almost in the exact opposite order!

 

"Smart Money" magazine? If I'm not mistaken, the "S" is holding it's value pretty well compared to many high-end autos out there....expecially after J.D. Powers gave it an excellent rating with regard to reliability and other benchmarks. As far as that comfort description, I find that cirticism totally bogus. Their driver must have had arthristis, lombago, and PMS when he took it for the 10 minute test drive. I intentionally took my "S" for a day's drive last Friday and put 600 miles on it. I found it to be very comfortable and the suspension was top-notch. What it boils down to probably is personal tastes. The "S" is not for everyone. If personal tastes lean toward a soft and super quiet ride, the "S" will will fail miserably. If the driver likes to DRIVE, the "S" will shine. I'm very very happy with my '03. What the magazine fails to place value on is the "fun factor".

 

I agree... "comfort" is subjective. I have also driven the S as much as 500 miles/day without complaint (with a portion driven by cooperative spouse )

This reminds me of visit to the Philly auto show in Jan 2003. A bozo sits in the Spa S on the floor and complains to his buddies: "These seats are awful... side bolsters are too tight... I would never buy this car!!" He is about 5'-6" tall and weighs at least 250#.... DUH