I prefer the hardtop look also. If Honda had ever produced a coupe version (like the Z4M) that's surely the one I would have bought, but I'll settle for a choptop with a cover

Gaz

 

The S2000 isn't slow, it's just that everything else is catching up now.

Don't forget it's a 10 year old design - pretty much unchanged

 

Must be that Honda isn't interesting in playing the power game.
After all how difficult could it be to add some form of FI to the engine and beef up the transmission, brakes etc ?
btw most 2l + fi = 240 - 260 hp
F2000 engine + fi at least 350 hp

 

It is a health check that turned out to be worth the 30 odd quid it cost.

And a half decent photo that fits there nicely

 

While many turbo 2 litres are of the power you say, its doesn't mean its all they can get

I think its that they don't choose too.

Take the FQ400 as an example. A car which can be taken to 500 with not much work. A car which is turbo already is setup for it and can be made to have bigger figures for much less money if that's your thing.

I'd bet Honda wouldn't go much over 300 bhp if they wanted to turbo / sc the S2000 - not to say they couldnt go to 400.

Moot point anyway

 

Jesus you should try driving my Dad's TR5 in the wet, it's a joke, absolutely no traction, the chassis of the S2000 is capable in the wet the tyres on mine are not.

Most sports cars would have ASR TCT TCP VD & HIV that prevent the antics that shock people in the S2000.

I don't drive mine when it rains, I get no enjoyment out of it, I just use the other car. Although it can be very entertaining pulling out of junctions.

As for the performance, it's a fast sports car, if you want as "sports car" thats quicker, spend twice as much.

The same can be said about an Elise, boxster, 350z, vx220 etc etc etc

 

[QUOTE=Nick Graves,Jan 15 2008, 11:14 AM] Jan 15 2008, 09:01 AM

 

That's just your interpretation of it, personally I don't have a clue what he was saying.

 

I went for the translated version - although my American is pretty poor too.