S2000 vs. STi

what car is better the sti or s2k

which is better over all

sti.

Depends how you like to drive...

Mine would be the S2000, no question.

The STI's 300-hp high-boost turbo boxer engine = Death to S2000's 240-hp

Death to any reasonable driving experience too then. I've always though that the S2000 has a little something else, that makes it magic and special to drive. Its a real feeling of controll and power. If you are obsessed with 0-60 times, and AWD, go for an STi, but I much prefer the down to earth sports car routs, and damn sexy good looks of the Honda.

its pretty hard to daily drive an s2000, some people do it, but I doubt I could. Of course the STI rides stiff and is loud, but not much stiffer or louder than alot of modified cars out there.

The STI is a whole ton faster and is a little quicker around an autocross course.

Why is the S2000 not a good daily driver?

doesnt the S2000 have better handeling tho..and if you Put a turbo in it it would b better then the STi?

No, the S2000 does not handle better than the STi. And no, you can't just slap a turbo on that engine, you'll blow it up FOR SURE. The STi is the better performer, end of story, and that's why I'd take it.

id have to agree... yes the sti is faster but how much fun is the ride itself?

Death to any reasonable driving experience too then. I've always though that the S2000 has a little something else, that makes it magic and special to drive. Its a real feeling of controll and power. If you are obsessed with 0-60 times, and AWD, go for an STi, but I much prefer the down to earth sports car routs, and damn sexy good looks of the Honda.

I disagree with your statement there, the STi's all around performance is on par or better than the S2000. I mean you act as if the STi is an absolute bore to drive, please the STi is a blast to drive (the EVO is better though). The STi can handle just as well, can stop just just as well or better, has AWD (so when it rains the fun doesn't stop). The STi out accelerates the S2000 by a good margin (not just to 60MPH, but through the 1/4 Mile and to 100MPH). The STi has 300 Lb/Ft of torque compared to a measily 153 Lb/Ft of torque put out by the S2000, and to get the S2000 to run 12s, you need forced Induction or Nos or a hell of a lot of engine work, to get a STi to run 12s you need about $2,000 or less. Don't get me wrong, the S2000 has some favorable qualities too, but when you look at the numbers it's the STi hands down. When you say the S2000 has a reasonable driving experience and the STi does not, it seems like your statement is based more off of a personal preference than actual factual numbers to back up that claim. The point is, that if you bought a S2000 and I bought a STi my reasonable driving experience will come from walking all up and down your S2000.

doesnt the S2000 have better handeling tho..and if you Put a turbo in it it would b better then the STi?

It's never that simple, and the S2000 and STi handling abilities are about the same, yet the handling feel is different. Why is there two threads of this?

Threads merged.

I'd take the STi over the S2000 any day.

id take the S2000 and a lot of other cars over any fast four door sedan. sorry but an sti and an evo can have the performance of a ferrari, but their looks kill it all for me.

S2000 is not even close to a STi. have you ever driven a STi? i have a friend with a S2000 and i have a friend with a STi. the S2000 can never take those turns at 140mph like my friend does in his STi. also the STi will murder a S2000 in a road course. remember a STi is a supra, nsx, evo, skyline fighter. the S2000 is not even in that league.

I'm probably alone on this one, but I actually like the STi's looks more than the S2000's. I've always appreciated aggressive-looking sedans.

also for the money, i would never ever buy a S2000. its too slow, and theres no potential. how da hell are you goin to make a car that only sees a 2whp gain from intake, headers, exhuast, and a mugen chip. that is just pure retarded. since hte car is not fast enough for me stock, i'm not goin to throw money to mod it unless i turbo or super charge it, becuase if i just do bolt ons, its worse then me whipping my ass with 100 dollar bills. also the S2000 does not handle like a STi. esp the older pre 04 ones. tires are too narrow. and the S2000's ride is harsher then a STi's.

I disagree with your statement there, the STi's all around performance is on par or better than the S2000. I mean you act as if the STi is an absolute bore to drive, please the STi is a blast to drive (the EVO is better though). The STi can handle just as well, can stop just just as well or better, has AWD (so when it rains the fun doesn't stop). The STi out accelerates the S2000 by a good margin (not just to 60MPH, but through the 1/4 Mile and to 100MPH). The STi has 300 Lb/Ft of torque compared to a measily 153 Lb/Ft of torque put out by the S2000, and to get the S2000 to run 12s, you need forced Induction or Nos or a hell of a lot of engine work, to get a STi to run 12s you need about $2,000 or less. Don't get me wrong, the S2000 has some favorable qualities too, but when you look at the numbers it's the STi hands down. When you say the S2000 has a reasonable driving experience and the STi does not, it seems like your statement is based more off of a personal preference than actual factual numbers to back up that claim. The point is, that if you bought a S2000 and I bought a STi my reasonable driving experience will come from walking all up and down your S2000.

Its just my driving style. While I do see the advantages of 4 doors, 5 seats, and AWD, I much prefer the driving style of the S2000. It not down to power and speed either, I just want an entertaining drive and while i appreciate that the STi may exite some people, Its not my cup of tea.
If it were my cash, the S2000 would be my choice. I'm also not a fan of the "boyracer" image of the evo and STi, and prefer the looks of the Honda.

speed isn't everything. it's how well packaged a car is as a whole and for what's its purpose is. and that the s2000 hits on target. as a roadster, the S2000 has everything you ask for in a roadster. not just a sports car. the sti is a sedan.

haven't spent much time behind the wheel of the s2000. but i have in the sti. i won't argue against the FACT that the sti outperforms the s2000. i just don't care for the looks at all, i dont' care for the overall 'cheapness' of the car. the harsh ride and road noise just makes the car feel like you're riding a skateboard. you can make a high performance machine without that. not tryin to take away any glory from the sti as a performance car. but as a car with 4 doors, a back seat and a trunk, i have to say for all practical purposes, the sti falls short. you dont' buy a roadster for practicality in the s2000's defense.

but if you're simply just looking for a fast car. the sti will do you just fine. my personal preference is for a little more class than the sti can provide. not to mention, in my experience i would say the s2000 is the bigger chick magnet of the two :icon16:

The STi looks bad-ass, and it's fun as hell to drive. I don't see what the problem is...

Two good cars with very different audiences will attract many different opinions. If you add up the numbers of the two, the Sti will look better on paper. What you can't put on paper (IMO), is where the S2000 will excel. The S2000 has a sort of richness in its character that many people wouldn't care for. A 2.0L that revs to 9000 is very unique in my book (in fact I think its the only one). And of coarse you cannot forget about rwd. A rwd car has what I (and many others) would call a more involving experience vs. awd. It really lets you feel connected to the car in a sense that isn't there in an awd car. I guess you can see where my personal preference is leaning towards. I would take the S2000 due to its unique and more involving driving experience.

The STi looks bad-ass, and it's fun as hell to drive. I don't see what the problem is...

There isn't a problem. I just wouldn't but one. Matter of oppinion.

There isn't a problem. I just wouldn't but one. Matter of oppinion.

exactly. not everyone has to like the sti just coz it's an sti. what we may see as weak points, others may see them as strong points. i personaly think the sti's looks are its greatest weakness, but obviously there are those that love the look. not sayin the S2K is without weaknesses, it has its fair share of it. all cars do.

I don't like the STI nor the S2000, but judging both, i'll take the STI anyday of the month. Honda cars are always lighter and built for speed. Pretty bad handling and braking on most hondas models including this one as they tend to forsake such factors. Squat and dive affects the whole car's performance quite a margin. The STI's AWD deals with these problems with ease. The Honda's seriously just a chick magnet. It's built to sell its looks. Girls love it. And the other good point... check out its redline on the rpm. Not much good in the car actually. Convertables have really bad handling. Take a loaf of bread, remove the three centre pieces and leave the layer of skin at the bottom... there... you have your S2000 convertable.

I found the STi goofy looking, while I love the looks of the S2000. It took a good 6 months of owning the car before the looks of the STi grew on me.

That having been said, I bought the STi and don't regret it. Braking is good, it has double the torque of the S2000, and can do 0-60 in about 7 sec in 4" of snow.

The S2000 is probably more fun to drive in the dry with more neutral handling than the STi has, but the STi is far more practical on a daily basis.

I don't like the STI nor the S2000, but judging both, i'll take the STI anyday of the month. Honda cars are always lighter and built for speed. Pretty bad handling and braking on most hondas models including this one as they tend to forsake such factors. Squat and dive affects the whole car's performance quite a margin. The STI's AWD deals with these problems with ease. The Honda's seriously just a chick magnet. It's built to sell its looks. Girls love it. And the other good point... check out its redline on the rpm. Not much good in the car actually. Convertables have really bad handling. Take a loaf of bread, remove the three centre pieces and leave the layer of skin at the bottom... there... you have your S2000 convertable.

I hate to be blunt, but you don't know what your talking about. Take a few minutes to do some research before you make a post as unsound as this one.

what do you mean kurtdg19? Sorry if what i said sounded like a bunch of crap. It's just a personal thought, don't take it to heart. I drive both these cars alot, (though i don't quite like them) so i feel the STI performs a little more towards my liking. (though i like the playfulness of a rwd). Do you drive a S2000? I'd like to know more about your experiences also.

for being mostly fwd cars, hondas are very capable handlers. the S2000 has perfect weight distribution, lightweight and nimble. the powerband is what hurts this car the most. coming out of a corner with enough oomph is not this car's forte. you have to possess a certain amount of skill to extract the full potential from this honda. it's powerband isn't the most forgiving. with that said, the average drive does not have the skill to get the most of what an S2000 is capable of. with the sti, it's easy because it's awd and has the power to pull out of a corner quickly. each car just requires different skills. you can't expect to spend hours driving an sti, then get into an S2000 and expect the same performance. they work in different manners.

Convertables have really bad handling.
1). Lotus Elise
2). Caterham
3). Vauxhall VX 220
4). MazdaSpeed Miata
All of those cars are convertables that outhandle hardtops that cost much more then they do. To simply say that convertables have really bad handling is sadly mistaken.

The STi isnt known as exactly "godly" in the handling department either. Everyone I know whose drivin this car remarks that theres at least a little understeer.

The S2000 has "Crisp responses, world-class gearbox" (Car & Driver). And from experience, I know that the S2000 has one of the finest transmissions of any car under say... $70,000-$80,000 (BMW as an exception of course :) ).

i think these are 2 different cars made for 2 different reasons, i agree with that one admin in making better comparisons, but then again all the good comparisons have been overkilled, for example

evo vs sti
celica vs rsx
celica vs tiburon
rsx vs tiburon
supra vs skyline
evo vs corvette
etc etc

Dinan M3 S2, you're right. The cars you've mentioned have good handling. 50/50 on the miata, and the rest are known for performance. But it would have been a better car if they weren't convertables. If you don't believe me, try searching for a top gear episode on convertables and their downside. Top gear's mentioned it, evo magazine has mentioned it, hot4s mentioned it, even discovery has mentioned it. It's a proven fact. That's why ferrari took that long to come up with the spider. I'm not trying to put you down or anything. But...er... try searching on the net on convertables.

"All convertibles shake and shimmy on bumpy roads. Some - like Volvo's C70 and the Saab 9-3 - also do it on smooth roads. It's an inevitable consequence of a roofless structure with compromised twisting and bending characteristics."
Taken from MyNRMA car reviews.

Hardtops will always handle better than the equivalent soft-top. Fact of life.

That's not to say there aren't any good-handling convertibles ;)

"All convertibles shake and shimmy on bumpy roads. Some - like Volvo's C70 and the Saab 9-3 - also do it on smooth roads. It's an inevitable consequence of a roofless structure with compromised twisting and bending characteristics."
Taken from MyNRMA car reviews.
That's true, if the convertible is badly engineered, such as the C70 and previous 9-3 (It was a Vectra though, so no surprises)


But some such as the Boxster, Z4, S2000 and Elise you don't notice a lot of flex, which is good.

Yah.. come to think of it... there are actually fun convertibles to drive. The Z4's a nice ride. Power wise and playfulness. The Boxster as well. You only feel the twitchiness at high speed open hairpins. So you're right to say that crazayjay, and good picks Jimster! Though i personally feel that the S2000 is most uncomfortable among the group.

The S2000 is a pretty tight fit, that's for sure. And at 6'0, im not exactly a giant...

:)... i'm not too big myself. Average i would say. But i was referring to its behaviour actually. I'm always not very comfortable pushing it to its limits. Have you guys driven an Evo Mr before? My... push it all you want, it smiles back at you. If you ever see one, beg the guy for a test drive, steal if he refuses.

You can't group all cabrio's together like this. Some handle brilliantly, some really dont. It depends on the structure of the car. There is no diferance bettween Elise and Exige, And I never noticed a difference bettween M roadster and M coupe. BMW's 3 series cabrio, isn't perfect, but as far as big 4 seater cabrios go, its the best I've ever driven.

The S2000. I don't really think that you can say that that car dosn't handle, or perfom. Its a good all rounder, and with the roof up, I scarsely notice its a rag top.

...The cars you've mentioned have good handling. 50/50 on the miata, and the rest are known for performance. But it would have been a better car if they weren't convertables. If you don't believe me, try searching for a top gear episode on convertables and their downside. Top gear's mentioned it, evo magazine has mentioned it, hot4s mentioned it, even discovery has mentioned it. It's a proven fact. That's why ferrari took that long to come up with the spider. I'm not trying to put you down or anything. But...er... try searching on the net on convertables.

Of all the Miatas I have ever corner weighted (10+), none has ever had a 50/50 weight balance. It's usually about 54% front weight, and if you try to set up the car on corner weights, it usually doesn't handle very well. The Miatas are much more sensitive to ride height and alignment than corner weights.

Note that tha vast majority of the good handling convertibles are designed as convertibles from the start, and most are two seaters. The Miata has a structural reinforcement that goes behind the dash to help redice chassis flex, and the structure of the rear package tray is designed for inctreased rigidity. I imagine the S2000, Z3, Z4, Boxster, and Lotus Elise all have similar design structures built in. This extra rigidity makes up for the lack of a roof. If you think that performance hard topped vehicles don't have much chassis flex, try this experiment:

Find an E36 BMW (318, 325, 328, M3, it doesn't really matter which one)
Measure the height from the side skirt to the ground in 3 places: just in front of the rear wheel, in the middle, and just behind the front wheel
Jack the car up at the middle measurement point and repeat all 3 measurements.

The changes in the front and rear points relative to the center will show how much chassis flex these cars really have.

the S2000 has an extremely stiff chassis, hard top or not. my friend owns one, and they are waaaaay more solid then my 240. also if you notice when you sit in the passenger seat, it has parts of the frame rails and re enforcement braces protruding into the passenger side of the tranny tunnel into the floor board. this bad boy is stiff as fuck. that is why the freaking thing weights over 2800lbs for a car that size. all of the weight went into the chassis.

my pick though, is still an STi. maybe its our skill level, but we can drive the STI wwaaaaaaaay faster then we can drive the S2000.

Mtang36, I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude, but I knew you would of been called out on your thoughts. There are very many knowledgable people that post here, and everybody knows how capable the S2000 is. I haven't had an actual experience behind the wheel of the S2000, but when I get the chance, i'll let you know how it went :smile: (they are very very rare where I live). According to many credible sources, the S2000 seems to be anything other than a letdown of any sort. It is a very highly respect car. Of coarse this goes to say that its not for everybody, and maybe its just not your cup of tea.

:) No worries Kurtdg19. Maybe i've been driving too many awd turbos.... MY.... i've turned into a rally freak! But anyhow, yah, let me know of interesting adventures in your s2000! I might start liking it altogether!!
kfoote- sorry bout my mistake 50/50... it was a round of figure. Mazda speed 2005 miata turbo 1.8. you're right.. prob about 54 in the front. Finally... a miata that stands out! U like miatas? And my... you're a detailed person! Judging by your experiments and stuff.

kurtdg19, how much are the S2000s over at your place?

...
kfoote- sorry bout my mistake 50/50... it was a round of figure. Mazda speed 2005 miata turbo 1.8. you're right.. prob about 54 in the front. Finally... a miata that stands out! U like miatas? And my... you're a detailed person! Judging by your experiments and stuff.

Well, I own a Miata and am fairly involved in SCCA racing, both in my own car (SSB) and in the Spec Miata scene in the Northeast US. I've been working on them and doing suspension setup on them since about 2000. I race a Miata because it's fun to drive, there's lots of competition, they're inexpensive, and for the most part they're pretty reliable if you keep up with the known problem areas. That having been said, they're underpowered and not very fast. I've also worked in a couple of major pro road recing series (the last SPEED World Challenge race that both TC and GT were at was Sebring 2001). Suspension and chassis setup are my specialties, and the Miata is among the cars I have the most experience with.

If you think that performance hard topped vehicles don't have much chassis flex, try this experiment:

Find an E36 BMW (318, 325, 328, M3, it doesn't really matter which one)
Measure the height from the side skirt to the ground in 3 places: just in front of the rear wheel, in the middle, and just behind the front wheel
Jack the car up at the middle measurement point and repeat all 3 measurements.

The changes in the front and rear points relative to the center will show how much chassis flex these cars really have.
Fair point, but we're talking about a car designed around 15 years ago. Besides, it would still be stiffer than the convertible version, which is all i was saying ;)

kfoote, glad to see someone as passionate about racing as well! *shakes hand* I'm into motorsports myself. Rallies (which is my favourite), Karting, Speedfest...and...well... if it's motorsports, you have my attention. :)
I've raced NAs like the Suzuki Swift and Ignis Sport, a number of Honda models and higher performance vehicles such as the Mazda RX7, Nissan 200SX (S13-14), Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi Evo 6.5TM,7,8,8MR...
Most of ....well actually all of the cars i use for race purposes are Japanese. Don't ask me... They come, i drive.
Tell me more about your car's setup. I'd like to know more about how others set up their miatas. I've always looked past miatas, maybe now's the time to take a closer look! :)

For Spec Miata, the rules basically require 15x7 wheels, Eibach sway bars, 700 lbs/in frontand 325 lbs/in rear Eibach springs, Bilstein shocks, and a sleeve type coil over kit that you can buy for about $1200. In most divisions in the US, the Toyo Proxes RA-1 tire is required. They are definitely not the fastest cars to drive, but we're seeing fields of 35+ cars in the northeast US, and the racing is very close, and relatively inexpensive.

My Miata is basically completely stock except for a roll cage, fire system, brake pads, tires, and exhaust. It's very restrictive on what you can do.

well, you don't need to a fast car to enjoy motorsports! I first got my sponsors while doing stunts on a MPV! But anyhow, you thinking of doing up the suspension on the car? And does your roll cage play a big part in your chassis performance?

The cage is a fully custom welded cage that I aided in the design of. Though there are restrictions on how the cage can be built, it definitely does stiffen the chassis some. At this point, I am not planning on doing any suspension work until the 1999+ Miatas become legal for Spec Miata and Spec Miata becomes an SCCA National class. Once those things happen, I'll probably convert the car to SM. If I didn't have fun driving hte car, I wouldn't be doing it :)

My project this winter will be trying to get the 944 back up and running. I have a place to do it and I've sourced a spare parts car with a working engine. It's prepared to SCCA ITS specs and is quicker than my Miata. It has a full cage, stiffer springs and torsion bars, and a few other chassis stiffening tweeks. The big problem is that the "P" word triples the cost of parts over the Miata, and general maintenance is much more difficult on the Porsche.

kurtdg19, how much are the S2000s over at your place?

The only one I've ever seen was at a Dodge/Chrysler dealership as odd as it sounds. It was yellow 02 which isn't my color of choice, but it was listed at 26k. They had it back to back with a 04 SRT4 which listed at a little over 20k. Thats the only one I've yet to see at a car dealer, but there are (all in all) about 4 that I have seen in town (70mi. North/West of Indianapolis). The strange thing is that it just so happens that my closest friends next car is going to be an S2000 as soon as he can find one thats he's looking for.

Kfoote, yeah i guess you're probably gonna have to deal with a larger whole in your wallet with the Porsche! :) But for your miata, wouldn't the roll cage create a higher centre of gravity? Suspension should be a greater concern... but then again, you're a detailed person.. you probably had that figured out before the installation!

Kurtdg19, oh cool then. You'd be able to borrow it and live your dreams!:) 26k second hand? You guys should check out my post, on the most expensive cars in the world. check out this site on cars in my country. www.aas.com.sg Then go to COE and car prices. check new car prices. Then check on any make you reckon would be the cheapest.

Kfoote, yeah i guess you're probably gonna have to deal with a larger whole in your wallet with the Porsche! :) But for your miata, wouldn't the roll cage create a higher centre of gravity? Suspension should be a greater concern... but then again, you're a detailed person.. you probably had that figured out before the installation!

The cage may raise the CG a bit, and it definitely adds weight, but the net result it that the added stiffness makes up for it even if it wasn't required. I ran the Porsche both with and without the cage, and figure that with the cage it ws about 0.5 sec/lap faster on a track with about a 1:20 lap time. The Miata also has a hardtop as required by the rules of the class it runs in, but a good portion of the cage is actually below the CG of the car.

Kurtdg19, oh cool then. You'd be able to borrow it and live your dreams!:) 26k second hand? You guys should check out my post, on the most expensive cars in the world. check out this site on cars in my country. www.aas.com.sg Then go to COE and car prices. check new car prices. Then check on any make you reckon would be the cheapest.

haha, as much as I respect the car I would much rather be in my car of choice which would be a new C6 (preferably Z51 but time will tell). I thought the 26k was high, but I suspected they were taking advantage of its rarity and low milage to make a little more from it.