01 a good buy, or 02 much better?
08-12-2010, 12:43 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 a good buy, or 02 much better?
Reposted this in UK section as found it might be a UK specific issue!
Hi guys, decided to ditch my *yawn* audi and get something more exciting again. Suddenly thought S2000 and realised I could afford an early one!
Found a nice 2001 with 57,000 miles. Having done some reading however, seems like a lot of scare stories with being pretty poor at the limit. Im not a test driver and if things do get out of shape, I'd like a car that isn't goign to put me into the bushes leaving me thinking "thats what they were talking about"
Question is, should I stick out for a 2002 model to come up. Nothing around at the moment but it seems they made alot of suspension type changes and apparently the handling is much improved?
What do you think, oppinions greatly appreciated!
EVO ARTICLE:::
It's on record that we at evo aren't big fans of the S2000. Way back in the summer of '99 we drove three sports cars to the car's launch party in the south of France to help discover just what sort of roadster Honda had created. We weren't sure whether we were going to find a back-to-basics sports car, a high-quality sophisticate or a brawny, raw thrills rag-top, which is why our trio of gate crashers was the Elise, Boxster and Griffith, evo icons all.
Our expectations were high, fuelled by an uncompromising and downright thrilling on-paper specification...
However, it was soon clear that although Honda's engineers had cracked harder puzzles, the mid-engine layout with the NSX, the fiercely potent front-driver with numerous Type-Rs, they had fumbled the most straight-forward. Despite boasting all the right ingredients, the S2000 was rather half-baked, and its chassis left us feeling unsatisfied. Cheated, even.
Our principle gripes were numb steering, dull turn-in and rear suspension that felt squirmy under load. This made the S2000 rather woolly and tricky to drive hard, especially if the surface was bumpy. Oversteer was a challenge without reward, the rear-end breaking away and regaining grip untidily, and even in brisk driving the chassis' general lack of crispness made that screaming engine hard to exploit.
It was a missed opportunity, a shot stubbed wide of an open goal after superb build-up play. The S2000 should have plugged a gaping hole in the sports car market between the Elise and Boxster and become the stand-out choice for enthusiasts among a group of under-achieving soft-tops, namely the Z3, SLK and TT Roadster.
The great news is that the new, 2002 model year S2000 has the ability to kick some flabby German ass. In fact, once we'd tried it, we realised we could save ourselves the effort of group-testing it against its price rivals (Z3 3.0, SLK 230K and 180bhp TT) and simply benchmark it against the class of the field, the 2.7-litre Boxster.
Precisely what has changed on the S2000 wasn't initially clear. Official 2002 UK cars are arriving as you read this, and dealers are promoting it on the basis of more goodies.
No mention is made of chassis improvements, apart from a slightly more deeply dished wheel design. Even resorting to the web I could find only one comment relating to the '02's dynamics, on an American chat room which opined that they were 'as before'. Well, maybe they are for US S2000s but they certainly aren't for European cars. We drove an '01 car as recently as last September and it didn't take more than a few miles in the '02 to sense very worthwhile tweaks.
This car is a personal import that cost Chris Metcalfe (friend of, but no relation to, Harry) an incredible £22,500. He can't believe his luck. 'I knew you guys at evo didn't rate the S2000 dynamically but driving it back over some great roads I thought "Hang on, this is pretty bloody good!" I was wondering if I'd lost the plot!'
He hadn't, and a bit more pressure on the Honda UK press office finally turned up some quite significant chassis changes. Essentially they are: thinner anti-roll bars, beefed up springs, re-calibrated dampers and 'matured steering feel'. The aim of the mods is 'more linear response', which we take to mean more predictable handling. Initial impressions are very positive but the real test will be to see if the S2000 can shine alongside the Boxster, itself improved since that first meeting, from sweet-spinning 2.5 into gutsier and more satisfying 2.7. Game on.
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...e_boxster.html
Hi guys, decided to ditch my *yawn* audi and get something more exciting again. Suddenly thought S2000 and realised I could afford an early one!
Found a nice 2001 with 57,000 miles. Having done some reading however, seems like a lot of scare stories with being pretty poor at the limit. Im not a test driver and if things do get out of shape, I'd like a car that isn't goign to put me into the bushes leaving me thinking "thats what they were talking about"
Question is, should I stick out for a 2002 model to come up. Nothing around at the moment but it seems they made alot of suspension type changes and apparently the handling is much improved?
What do you think, oppinions greatly appreciated!
EVO ARTICLE:::
It's on record that we at evo aren't big fans of the S2000. Way back in the summer of '99 we drove three sports cars to the car's launch party in the south of France to help discover just what sort of roadster Honda had created. We weren't sure whether we were going to find a back-to-basics sports car, a high-quality sophisticate or a brawny, raw thrills rag-top, which is why our trio of gate crashers was the Elise, Boxster and Griffith, evo icons all.
Our expectations were high, fuelled by an uncompromising and downright thrilling on-paper specification...
However, it was soon clear that although Honda's engineers had cracked harder puzzles, the mid-engine layout with the NSX, the fiercely potent front-driver with numerous Type-Rs, they had fumbled the most straight-forward. Despite boasting all the right ingredients, the S2000 was rather half-baked, and its chassis left us feeling unsatisfied. Cheated, even.
Our principle gripes were numb steering, dull turn-in and rear suspension that felt squirmy under load. This made the S2000 rather woolly and tricky to drive hard, especially if the surface was bumpy. Oversteer was a challenge without reward, the rear-end breaking away and regaining grip untidily, and even in brisk driving the chassis' general lack of crispness made that screaming engine hard to exploit.
It was a missed opportunity, a shot stubbed wide of an open goal after superb build-up play. The S2000 should have plugged a gaping hole in the sports car market between the Elise and Boxster and become the stand-out choice for enthusiasts among a group of under-achieving soft-tops, namely the Z3, SLK and TT Roadster.
The great news is that the new, 2002 model year S2000 has the ability to kick some flabby German ass. In fact, once we'd tried it, we realised we could save ourselves the effort of group-testing it against its price rivals (Z3 3.0, SLK 230K and 180bhp TT) and simply benchmark it against the class of the field, the 2.7-litre Boxster.
Precisely what has changed on the S2000 wasn't initially clear. Official 2002 UK cars are arriving as you read this, and dealers are promoting it on the basis of more goodies.
No mention is made of chassis improvements, apart from a slightly more deeply dished wheel design. Even resorting to the web I could find only one comment relating to the '02's dynamics, on an American chat room which opined that they were 'as before'. Well, maybe they are for US S2000s but they certainly aren't for European cars. We drove an '01 car as recently as last September and it didn't take more than a few miles in the '02 to sense very worthwhile tweaks.
This car is a personal import that cost Chris Metcalfe (friend of, but no relation to, Harry) an incredible £22,500. He can't believe his luck. 'I knew you guys at evo didn't rate the S2000 dynamically but driving it back over some great roads I thought "Hang on, this is pretty bloody good!" I was wondering if I'd lost the plot!'
He hadn't, and a bit more pressure on the Honda UK press office finally turned up some quite significant chassis changes. Essentially they are: thinner anti-roll bars, beefed up springs, re-calibrated dampers and 'matured steering feel'. The aim of the mods is 'more linear response', which we take to mean more predictable handling. Initial impressions are very positive but the real test will be to see if the S2000 can shine alongside the Boxster, itself improved since that first meeting, from sweet-spinning 2.5 into gutsier and more satisfying 2.7. Game on.
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...e_boxster.html
08-12-2010, 01:18 PM
#2
Originally Posted by MrMagica,Aug 12 2010, 09:43 PM
Having done some reading however, seems like a lot of scare stories with being pretty poor at the limit.
Question is, should I stick out for a 2002 model to come up.
Question is, should I stick out for a 2002 model to come up.
The car isn't.
01 to 02, no difference that you will notice.
Just do it.
Or buy a Boxster...
08-12-2010, 01:50 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one difference that will notice, the glass screen in the 2002 soft top won't crack in the winter...
Also I do think that the 2002 is more predictable I find mine very planted and not as 'twitchy' at the rear as the earlier ones.
All IMO of course
Also I do think that the 2002 is more predictable I find mine very planted and not as 'twitchy' at the rear as the earlier ones.
All IMO of course
08-12-2010, 11:13 PM
#4
From the FAQ thread: https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showt...0&#entry5798524
There are a few differences between the MY99 - MY01 models and the MY02 - MY03. The MY04-MY05 and MY06-MY07 have further changes and a slight facelift from the earlier models. Note: The wind deflector became standard from MY01 onwards.
MY02 differences
� Glass Rear Screen
� Cd player with tweeters built into the door
� Slightly restyled polished alloys
� Chrome rings around the rear lights and chrome front light surrounds
� A softer suspension setting which makes the car slightly less "pointy"
� Repositioned headlamp washer switch
Some like the suspension changes and others do not, it is probably best to try both cars if you are in the market for a used S2000.
There are a few differences between the MY99 - MY01 models and the MY02 - MY03. The MY04-MY05 and MY06-MY07 have further changes and a slight facelift from the earlier models. Note: The wind deflector became standard from MY01 onwards.
MY02 differences
� Glass Rear Screen
� Cd player with tweeters built into the door
� Slightly restyled polished alloys
� Chrome rings around the rear lights and chrome front light surrounds
� A softer suspension setting which makes the car slightly less "pointy"
� Repositioned headlamp washer switch
Some like the suspension changes and others do not, it is probably best to try both cars if you are in the market for a used S2000.
08-13-2010, 12:16 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although there is absolutely no basis in fact for this statement, I have a sneaking suspicion there's a grain of truth in this.
I wonder if between MY01 and MY02 the factory tolerances for the Geo/Alignment were tightened up and improved.
I've read a lot of articles written at the time (like the one quoted) that talk about a massive difference between 01 and 02 in driving style and 02 being much improved.
But these days most people say there's very little difference or that 02 is worse, which makes me wonder if it was the settings rather than the hardware.
As for which car to buy.
If it's a year round daily drive then the glass roof and improved speakers are a very nice feature.
I think it was around 04 that VSA (traction control) became an option.
If it were me and it was a daily drive I'd be looking for a decent glass roof – perhaps a replacement rather than the original (costs about £700 for a good one.)
Decent Engine and running gear and well maintained of course.
Perhaps 17" wheels, although 16" are perfectly good.
If you can get one that's had the geo bolts greased that's a good thing and could save you some trouble in the long run.
Make sure you check the inners of the tyres for wear.
I wonder if between MY01 and MY02 the factory tolerances for the Geo/Alignment were tightened up and improved.
I've read a lot of articles written at the time (like the one quoted) that talk about a massive difference between 01 and 02 in driving style and 02 being much improved.
But these days most people say there's very little difference or that 02 is worse, which makes me wonder if it was the settings rather than the hardware.
As for which car to buy.
If it's a year round daily drive then the glass roof and improved speakers are a very nice feature.
I think it was around 04 that VSA (traction control) became an option.
If it were me and it was a daily drive I'd be looking for a decent glass roof – perhaps a replacement rather than the original (costs about £700 for a good one.)
Decent Engine and running gear and well maintained of course.
Perhaps 17" wheels, although 16" are perfectly good.
If you can get one that's had the geo bolts greased that's a good thing and could save you some trouble in the long run.
Make sure you check the inners of the tyres for wear.
08-13-2010, 01:18 AM
#7
UK Moderator
VSA was from 2006 only, all in the FAQ.
When I bought mine (6 years ago now) I chose an 02 because of the glass screen/speakers.
The drving differences between the two are much exaggerated IMO. Seeing how much difference different geo settings have made to my car, I'd suggest that was a bigger factor.
When I bought mine (6 years ago now) I chose an 02 because of the glass screen/speakers.
The drving differences between the two are much exaggerated IMO. Seeing how much difference different geo settings have made to my car, I'd suggest that was a bigger factor.
Trending Topics
08-13-2010, 02:19 AM
#8
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having owned both (well MY00 and MY03 which are as the OP's question)
The MY00 always seemed like the better car, however the cosmetic changes on the MY03 make it a much nicer place to be.
I actually preferred the plastic rear screen as it lets more light into the car whilst the roof is on, however the worry that it will crack one day was enough for me. To keep it clean is fairly easy and I wonder if regularly treated would stop the cracking risk?
The MY00 always seemed like the better car, however the cosmetic changes on the MY03 make it a much nicer place to be.
I actually preferred the plastic rear screen as it lets more light into the car whilst the roof is on, however the worry that it will crack one day was enough for me. To keep it clean is fairly easy and I wonder if regularly treated would stop the cracking risk?
08-13-2010, 02:34 AM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thankyou for all the replies...It seems as though perhaps their is not so much of a difference between 01 and 02 cars as EVO Magazine would suggest.
Question: How hard and costly is it to change the geometry setup in an 01 to match the changes in 02, notice any difference?
Question: How hard and costly is it to change the geometry setup in an 01 to match the changes in 02, notice any difference?
08-13-2010, 02:37 AM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by simonprelude,Aug 13 2010, 02:19 AM
The MY00 always seemed like the better car, however the cosmetic changes on the MY03 make it a much nicer place to be.
Wern't the only cosmetic changes the glass rear screen and stereo?