Why You Don’t Want a Honda S2000 April 19, 2008
Posted by Tim in Cars.Tags: Driving, S2000
trackback
I love to drive. More specifically, I love to drive fast. Because of this, and because I was 40 years old at the time, I bought a bright-yellow 2001Honda S2000.
If you have read my blog for any length of time, you’ve been assaulted with pictures of me behind the wheel, mugging for the camera like some drug-crazed lunatic. I do not apologize for such behavior, because driving this car is a mind and mood altering experience, on par with any drug I’m familiar with.
However, this car is not for everyone. In fact, many of the attributes of this car that make it so attractive to me, are likely to be the very things that would cause others to walk away (stiff suspension, low to the ground, and so on). What if these attributes are attractive to you too? Does that mean you should rush out and snap up an S2000 from the nearest Honda dealer? Not necessarily.
Here is a quick review of what I believe to be this car’s weaknesses. Based on my discussions with other S2000 owners, I’m not alone with these complaints. Read on, and you can decide for yourself if the short list of annoyances is enough to push you toward a different car.
The Short List
For me, the list of things that are “right” about this car is very long, and includes things like the seats, the headlights, the suspension, the gearbox/transmission (arguably the best 6-speed manual transmission in any mass-produced, sub-$50K passenger car), and the incredibly smooth and high-revving engine. (The 2001 version of this car redlines at 9000 RPM, and produces 240 horsepower from 2 liters of displacement. At the time, it had the highest horsepower/liter ratio of any normally aspirated automobile.) There’s more to love, but you get the idea.
Here then, is my official “Short list of reasons to not buy an S2000″:
- Worthless sun visors (there is no useful position for these)
- No rain gutters on the convertible top (guaranteed wet knees when entering/exiting the car)
- Incorrect “Day/Night” angle of the rear-view mirror (how many years has Honda been building cars?)
- Expensive to improve performance (Honda squeezed all the easy performance out, so you have to shell out several thousand dollars for even modest improvements)
- It’s small for anyone taller than 6′ (if you’re 6’2″, like me, you’re certain to get much more wind in your face than you really want)
And that’s pretty much it.
Are there other reasons to not own this car? Probably. You could argue that it doesn’t get the gas mileage that you’d expect for a 2800 lb car with a 2.0L engine and an (apparently) aerodynamic shape, or that the OEM tires wear out too quickly, or that the radio is sub-standard. In each case, you’d be right.
Along Comes Merry
And then, a sunny day comes along and the outside air temperature hits the mid-60′s F. At that point, the top goes down, and all of the reasons on the list above seem incredibly petty and foolish. You turn onto a twisty road, traffic clears out, you put your foot down, and you get to listen to what sounds like a Formula One engine racing toward the redline. You feel the surge of power when the RPM passes 6000, because that’s where the little engine that can (the one under the hood) starts singing a song that begs for repeated choruses.
That’s when you completely forget about the sun visors, because you’re already wearing sunglasses. You forget about how wet your knee got the last time it rained, because with the top down, it’s hard to clearly remember those days of Fall and Winter when the weather was so bad. Since it’s daytime, you’re able to completely ignore the oddity of a Day/Night rearview mirror that gets the angles all wrong, and seems incorrectly adjusted at night, no matter what position you put the mirror in during the day. The performance of the car on this mythical day is so strong that you forget how much you would have to pay to improve the acceleration or top speed.
That leaves you to ponder the wind in your face, and figure out if it’s excessive. As you ponder the wind, you downshift, accelerate up through the next turn, and watch the flickering of sunlight through the leaves of the trees as you pass through. Maybe you’re too tall for this car. Maybe it’s too much wind. You go through another downshift/accelerate cycle.
It isn’t.
I’ve always been impressed by the engineering that goes into the S2000, and there’s no compelling reason not to like it. I do, however, feel that it lacks heart and character, much like the NSX.
And I agree, Honda has never made a day/night mirror that functioned correctly.
Mad Scientist,
The really amazing thing (to me) is that I’ve owned Honda’s before, but never have I seen the Day/Night thing so out of whack. How complicated can it be to do this?
WRT the lack of heart/character, I dramatically prefer this car to the ’73 Z28, the ’85 RX7, and the ’91 Probe GT that I’ve owned previously. This car doesn’t feel “sterile” as I’ve heard the NSX described. It will bite you if you lift, but the balance is extremely tight, so you can exit “tail out” if you want at any time, without having to do so by generating ridiculous, power-induced slip angles like I had to with the Z28.
To me, talking about “heart” and “character” is like talking to an audiophile about “warmth” and “height of soundstage.” Those terms are so ambiguous, one can argue that my buddy’s Geo Metro has “heart” and “character.” Using that definition, I’d stick with “heartless.”
– Tim
Tim,
While I can’t disagree about the ambiguity of the terms, I’m using them in my own self-defined terms (defined during years of driving and tuning, and seemingly impossible to nail down in words). I specifically added the words, “I feel” because of the impossibility to nail down exactly what it is I feel or don’t feel for the S2000. I also can’t explain exactly why the CRX is my favorite Honda made (it isn’t necessarily the best designed or engineered, but it’s my favorite just the same) for the same reason.
I’m big on driving a car because you enjoy it and because it feels “right” to you, and I absolutely prefer the feel of FC RX7s to the S2000, even though the S2000 has (slightly) more stable handling characteristics and a more finely tuned engine (rotary engines have multiple pros and cons, but the S2000 only needs to be above 5500rpm to induce an ear-to-ear smile).
I think your complaint about height is one that you’ll have with almost every Asian-built car that has any hint of styling (meaning two doors, sorry STi and EVO owners). I’m pretty short (5’6) so I squeezed into the S2000 easily, moved the seat forward a bit, and let the controlled tornado work. It felt like the S2 demanded little of me. I could push it, or lay off, and it felt very sedate. There was no violent thrashing, it was just controlled the whole time. I like when a car demands respect of its driver.
All that being said, I think the S2000 is a marvel of modern design, it’s a beautiful (yet ugly, somehow) thing. I liked driving it, but it’s not a car I’d buy. It’s just excessive enough that you don’t want to drive it in the rain, but sedate enough that it doesn’t feel like it should be bad for you.
I really enjoyed this post though. It was fun to read and hit on all the points that I’d consider important. Keep ‘em coming, and consider me subscribed.
That makes sense (the explanation of “heart” and “character”). There’s part of me that still longs for the ridiculous torque of the Z28, including it’s ability to break the tires loose going into second gear (it was an automatic).
Similarly, I loved the RX7′s balance, and the sewing machine feel of the engine at all RPMs. However, that car was way too small for me. Anything more than an hour drive was going to be downright painful. I might have had fonder memories if I’d had the 13B instead of the 12A, but most of my 13B friends complained even more about the gas mileage than I did, so I’d have probably loved the improved torque, but complained anyway.
The Probe GT was actually a surprisingly good compromise. It had a back seat, so when I had small kids that was the reason for moving up from the RX7. It was much faster than the (listed) 175 hp rating, and all in all, felt… right. The only problem with that chassis was some pretty nasty torque steer, which made me wish for 4-wheel drive.
When they brought out the new Probe body style (in ’93?), there were rumors floating around that the SHO group had stuffed the Yamaha 3.0 liter from the Taurus SHO into a probe chassis, and somehow found the pieces to make it full-time 4-wheel drive. If that car had ever been produced, I would almost certainly have bought it. As much as I love the F20C, the Yamaha engine is just… (looking for the right words that are suitable for a G-rated audience, but also express the profound lust that I continue to have for that engine) wow.
I briefly became a sedan-guy, and enjoyed the heck out of a ’97 Nissan Maxima. (That’s another engine that I really enjoyed driving and working on.) The wonderful feel of that car convinced me that the torque steer of the Probe GT was a function of insufficient engineering, and not something inherent in front-wheel drive. If you’ve seen my review of the ’06 Hyundai Azera, it’s “feel” struck me the same way as the Maxima.
(Note to lurkers: I’m fully aware that torque steer is a complicated animal to address, and that the power/weight ratio of the Probe GT was a factor in how much I “felt” that when exiting tight turns.)
I have briefly driven a mid-70′s Vette, and if you want something that demands respect… that thing demanded focused attention ALL THE TIME. I’m OK with something demanding respect, but I’m not crazy about always wondering if a minor loss of attentiveness is going to make me a lost ball in high weeds.
Thanks for taking the time to read, and I’ll keep an eye on the CRX 2.0 project. I find most of the people doing mods on the S2000 to be wasting time, and generally tell my friends that instead of throwing another $10K into that car, you should probably be looking at an M-Roadster or maybe a base Ariel Atom 2. (Which, by the way, is ugly as home-made sin, but I would absolutely not care.) – Tim
It’s interesting that the Probe interested you more than the RX7. I can see where you’re coming from, though. I’m putting CRX 2.0 on hold for a month or so while I solidify my daily driver (v8-powered 240z) and get it to a point where I can realistically rely on it.
As for the mid-70′s Vette, think of my datsun as the same thing (I actually have a 327 that I think is out of a C1 Corvette) with about 1000lbs shaved off it. Talk about a hair-raising experience!
I really don’t see a reason to do anything more than a cam in an F20c. A good (crower, anybody?) set of cams will really bring it to life, you’ll see a notable difference, and you can expect to spend around $500 for a ~25-50hp peak gain. I’ve seen superchargers, I’ve seen carbon fiber this’n'thats, I’ve seen dual 4″ exhaust outlets, and I haven’t seen a marked point to any of them. The engine is built! It’s good! We (meaning consumers) do not have the means to out-engineer Honda. The s2000 really is their crowning achievement in engineering, and they hit the nail right on the head. That doesn’t make it any less ugly, to my eyes
On the Ariel front, I love the purity of the cars and the fact that they do exactly what they do… perfectly. I’d still rather have a sportbike. That way you get more perfection for less money (and save money on tires). I neither love nor hate the styling of it. It’s a set of wheels with an engine. It commands my respect.
Jesse,
I was reading about your 540Z yesterday, and it reminded me that I inherited a ’72 240Z for a couple of months. It was a stock engine with the SU side-draft carbs, but my buddy had gone completely through it to rebuild the body/chassis. All of my friends complained about riding in it because “it’s so rough over bumps,” but I just couldn’t get enough of it. There are days that I wish I still had that car.
However, that can’t compare to the beast you’re looking at.
I haven’t talked to anyone who’s cammed an F20C and been happy with the results. Where’s the torque peak on that, and what are you sacrificing to get that?
My assessment has been that the most cost-effective performance enhancement would probably be a quicker diff gear. I agree completely with the exhaust comments, and feel the same way about intake upgrades. What’s the point? The thing is ridiculously efficient from a volumetric standpoint.
Ariel vs. Bike for me, comes down to a matter of keeping my wife from freaking out about it. Sad, but true. – Tim
Tim,
You think your wife won’t freak out about an Ariel Atom? You’ve got a keeper there!
Back in NH (bad place to own an S2000) I had a buddy who got a pair of Crower cams for his S2, and was very happy with the results other than a marked decrease in gas mileage. It wasn’t as huge a deal in 2003 as it is now, and the power increase (if I started spewing numbers, I’d be making it all up) was noticeable. The idle sounded rough and angry, and overall I’d say it was worth the $400 or so he paid (again, assuming mileage isn’t a big concern.
My 240z has what amounts to cut springs, and it has about 1″ travel before it hits the bump stops. I’m taking the suspension from the 260z in my garage and putting that in (hopefully this weekend), which should really straighten out the ride. That 260z still has the stock motor with two sets of SU side-drafts. It isn’t assembled, so isn’t running, but I think I’m just going to sell all that as-is after I get what I need from it.
I haven’t worked through the part where I have to tell my wife about “the Ariel Plan.”
I work in NH a lot, and I can’t imagine driving this car there except for about 6 months out of the year. The only thing I can imagine you’d add with a cam change would be boosting the torque at the low end, which would explain the idle roughness you described. I found some Toda cams that sound like they have this characteristic, but still have to wonder if swapping out the rear gear wouldn’t have more impact/$.
You definitely need to swap those springs. The added weight in the front of the 260 made the stock springs stiffer, but you might want to go stiffer than that based on the 2600/350 weight delta. Even so, it sounds a bit like the “Monster Miata” that a friend used to have. – Tim
cool post, very interest considering I was planning to get a used honda s2000, maybe there at 04 year.
Well for what it’s worth I have had my s2000 since 2002. I had to have a blue on with a glass rear window, and that’s when it became available. I love everything about the car, and any issues I had, I have rectified.
It has an upgraded suspension, sound system, and a supercharger.
I worked out the mirror issue long ago. Reverse the way you would normally use the mirror.
Use the night mode for day and once you have set the angle, the other position
Isn’t it difficult to be in love with a car like this. Makes you think though… If Honda spent any more time improving the rear view mirror. Or added a top of the line stereo or any of those other features that BMW and Mercedes tell you you need, would they have missed something on the transmission or the engine or the suspension. I’m happy they didn’t.
I own a 2007 S2000. ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! It’s as close as I can afford to get to a Formula 1 car. Only 2 complaints. The first is I love the way it runs at 8000 RPM. But I wish it would rev to 17000 rpm I keep bumping the limiter just when it really gets going. MORE MORE MORE is all I think of when I shift to the next gear. Second and definitely the most disheartening is the amount of torgue steer this car has. Step of the throttle and the car goes left. Let off the throttle the car goes right. You can steer this car down the highway with the throttle alone. That to me is a major design flaw from Honda’s engineernig team. Why it does it I have no idea!
For those of you who drive WRX’s, NSX’s or any other “so called” sport tuner….. An S2000 is a wild animal (Under $35,000) that wants to run. It is difficult car to drive around without sticking your right foot through the floor, gripping the wheel, slamming the gears and wandering when the police are going to take you to jail.
I find it nearly impossible NOT to run the snot out of it.
Sure, I’ve driven a Z06 and had the opportunity to be driven in a 911. But for $35,000 you’ll find nothing even close.
Bill, it sounds to me like there is definitely something wrong with your car. Typically, the term torque steer is used to describe a characteristic of a front-wheel drive car, and is usually a design issue. Unless you’ve got some major problems with the rear suspension, I can’t imagine a properly aligned rear end causing the kind of steering issues you’re describing.
Granted, in a turn, you can definitely hang the tail out (or bring everything around) if you hit the V-TEC point in mid-curve, but your comment about steering it down the highway makes me think that something is seriously wrong. I would have that checked out.
I agree wholeheartedly with all of your other comments. It’s amazing that I’ve not been ticketed in this thing, because it just begs for more and more throttle. Thanks for stopping by. – Tim
what is your opinion of buying a 2005 s2000, or a 2007 with the wire throttle and stability control? are the improvements made on 2006 enough to get that year or later, or is the 2005 a better car without those improvements?
Roger, I don’t have any first-hand experience with the 2006 and later cars, but I have to say that I’ve been in a couple of situations with mine (caught by surprise in the snow) where stability control would have been extremely useful. Unless there were questions about the condition, I would probably opt for the newer car.
Thanks for stopping by! – Tim