Our Community is 705,000 Strong. Join Us.


350z, s2000, or evo ????


mikeperformance21
04-11-2007, 03:30 PM
yea which one do you all prefer an why

blakscorpion21
04-11-2007, 04:53 PM
the z, it has the best looks and overall performance of the 3.

DinanM3_S2
04-11-2007, 06:52 PM
Interesting comparison, three cars in a similar price range that use very different methods to make the most enjoyable car.

A sedan, a coupe, and a convertable
A high revving 4, a turbocharged 4, and a higher displacement 6.

General impressions of the 3 cars in no peticular order-
Evo- Import guys begged for this car for years. High potential engine, an advanced AWD system, and rally credentials make this car very attractive for the performance enthusiast. It is also the only car in the comparison with back seats, making it a bit more usable as a daily driver. The car does have a few problems however... it is easily the least reliable of the group and Mitsubishi is known for voiding the warranties of cars that have been raced. Turbo lag is also an issue for daily driving, something the other cars won't have to deal with.

350z- The VQ engine is a gem. 3.5l V6 with good power and torque. Interestingly, the Z outraced the Evo in a C&D time trial a little while ago, showing that it is indeed in the same league as the Evo and the STi. The car is a little more refined then the Evo as well. Interior quality is a grade or two better.

S2000- I really like this car. The high revving engine feels like a smaller version of my M3's I6. It might not be the fastest of the bunch, but it is loads of fun. I would take a S2000 autocrossing or road course racing over any of the other cars. It is also the most reliable and customer's seemed to be very pleased with them as we see in the Top Gear survey.

My rankings

Fun to drive-
S2000
Evo
350z

Reliability-
S2000
350z
Evo

Power (stock)-
350z
Evo
S2000

Power (potential)-
Evo
350z
S2000

Styling-
S2000
350z
Evo (I don't think I could be seen in one)

Conclusion- It all comes down to what you would use the car for, how often you would use it, where you live, and what other transportation you have. The Evo can easily see 500+ hp, but a 500+ hp turbo 4-banger won't be very good as a daily driver. The lag would drive me nuts. On the other hand the Evo has the space for other people, and the added security of AWD for rain and snow. Dragging it down as a daily driver is poor reliability and service. The S2000 is a blast, but it might not stand up to the other two in many races. Being a roadster makes it pretty unusable in the wetter parts of the year. On the other hand it has the reliability of an Accord. The 350z is a middle ground between the two.

If I had another car to daily drive and was just looking for a fun weekend car, I would get the Honda S2000. If I was looking for a daily driver I would get the 350z. If I was looking for a car to race, I would probably get the Evo. Overall, I'm most fond of the Honda.

mikeperformance21
04-12-2007, 04:59 PM
thanks alot for the good advice and opinions dinam.. yea what i am looking for is not so much the evo anymore so take that out of the pivcture..as for the 350 and the s2k..i like the nimble aspect of the s2k better than the 350z but is is so hard to make fast since it is lighter than the 350?... and you mentioned it a little before but how are each in the rain and snow?

Gotian
04-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Ever think about an RX-8? Handles a little better than the 350 since its lighter than the 350. It's also the cheapest in base price when compared with the other three. It also has 4 seats and yes they are fully usable cause my friends have sat very comfortably in there and the insurance costs are the cheapest when compared with the other 3 (i sell insurance). The rx-8 is also the competitor for the 350 so I think you should at least test drive one with an open mind, cause even though the numbers arent the highest, it is a nice quick car that is on par with a 350 in a straight line and just slightly slower than the s200 around a road course and autocross, but for nearly 8k less than a base s2000 i would get the 8 (which I did, lol)

drunken monkey
04-12-2007, 09:43 PM
350z- The VQ engine is a gem. 3.5l V6 with good power and torque. Interestingly, the Z outraced the Evo in a C&D time trial a little while ago, showing that it is indeed in the same league as the Evo and the STi.

I recall the US spec evos aren't actually the same as in the rest of the world; has this changed at all since then?

Anyway.
Of the 3 you list, the only one that would get my money is the S2000.
I loved spending a weekend with one.
from the very first time I droped my arse into the seat of a 106 rallye, i've been in love with high revving engines and this one gave me more than enough to play with.

never driven the other so really I have no comparison.

I have test driven an RX-8 (only the 190bhp car though) and it was better than I thought, Interior was a bit gaudy (red trim....) but the engine took a bit of getting used to; it being a bit quiet. On the whole though, if it were between an RX-8 and the S2000, I'd go with the RX-8 just for that smidgen extra practicality (and because if i were to get a high revving honda, it'd be an Integra)

But being in the UK, I also have other tempting choices in the same price bracket.

DinanM3_S2
04-12-2007, 11:14 PM
I recall the US spec evos aren't actually the same as in the rest of the world; has this changed at all since then?


I believe that ours are a bit different then everyone elses in some respects. Mostly engine tune I think.

GForce957
04-13-2007, 01:44 AM
fq-450...

Gotian
04-13-2007, 09:06 AM
I recall the US spec evos aren't actually the same as in the rest of the world; has this changed at all since then?

Anyway.
Of the 3 you list, the only one that would get my money is the S2000.
I loved spending a weekend with one.
from the very first time I droped my arse into the seat of a 106 rallye, i've been in love with high revving engines and this one gave me more than enough to play with.

never driven the other so really I have no comparison.

I have test driven an RX-8 (only the 190bhp car though) and it was better than I thought, Interior was a bit gaudy (red trim....) but the engine took a bit of getting used to; it being a bit quiet. On the whole though, if it were between an RX-8 and the S2000, I'd go with the RX-8 just for that smidgen extra practicality (and because if i were to get a high revving honda, it'd be an Integra)

But being in the UK, I also have other tempting choices in the same price bracket.


You tested the 190bhp one? so i take it either the 5 speed or automatic, go test the 232bhp one now, It's night and day between them. and yeah the s2k is good and everything but saving that extra 8 grand i coould do so much more.

mikeperformance21
04-13-2007, 05:18 PM
thanks guys but i dont think the rx8 is for me.. im confused about which one is the better choice b/t the 350 and s2000 because i like the go cart feel of the s2000 but the power of the 350z is also appealing.. what would be the better choice.. go for the 350 and upgrade handling as well as power, or s2k and upgrade the power and some handling??

DinanM3_S2
04-13-2007, 07:30 PM
thanks guys but i dont think the rx8 is for me.. im confused about which one is the better choice b/t the 350 and s2000 because i like the go cart feel of the s2000 but the power of the 350z is also appealing.. what would be the better choice.. go for the 350 and upgrade handling as well as power, or s2k and upgrade the power and some handling??

It would probably be easier to upgrade the 350z. The S2000's engine runs at a pretty high compression in stock form. High compression engines and forced induction usually don't work together too well. You are asking to damage something.

I would just drive the two and figure out which one you like the most. Are you willing to live with a convertable?

mikeperformance21
04-14-2007, 11:53 AM
It would probably be easier to upgrade the 350z. The S2000's engine runs at a pretty high compression in stock form. High compression engines and forced induction usually don't work together too well. You are asking to damage something.

I would just drive the two and figure out which one you like the most. Are you willing to live with a convertable?

what about if i forged the internals (i know it would cost thousands).. and yes i love the convertible aspect of it but i would def get the hardtop attachment

blakscorpion21
04-14-2007, 12:40 PM
this might be helpful, even though you can get a z for under 30 grand.

http://pacer.calpoly.edu/tri/pacer/rx-8comp.html

drunken monkey
04-14-2007, 05:57 PM
wait-a-minute...
solution to your problem = 350Z convertible.

DinanM3_S2
04-14-2007, 06:22 PM
wait-a-minute...
solution to your problem = 350Z convertible.

I've never liked how the 350z roadster looks. I usually don't like it when a company makes a coupe and then turns it into a roadster. A roadster should start its life as a roadster.

drunken monkey
04-14-2007, 06:29 PM
i don't actually like the look of it either but if he's torn between the S2000 as a roadster and the 350Z's engine then maybe the 350Z roadster is a good enough compromise.
Audi TT shouldn't be overlooked in convertible form either, not to mention the Z4. Top quality 3 year old boxsters should also be around the price he's looking at as well and while they might be more expensive initially, they also hold their value better in the long term.

Gotian
04-15-2007, 07:42 PM
this might be helpful, even though you can get a z for under 30 grand.

http://pacer.calpoly.edu/tri/pacer/rx-8comp.html


the MPH for each gear is off on the rx-8 in that chart you have. 2nd gear goes to 71 3rd gear goes to 94

BlackGT2000
04-16-2007, 09:37 AM
I am not the biggest EVO fan, so that would not be my choice. 6 Months ago I would have outright said 350Z, but since I have moved to a beach my opinions have changed about the S2000. I was never a convertible guy, but sometimes I wish that I had one now. There are few cars that can pull off being a convertible to me, and the S2000 is one of them. The only thing I wish the S2000 had was a little more power. It does seem more difficult these days to keep up with the HP wars these days.

blakscorpion21
04-16-2007, 07:51 PM
More like torque wars is what the s2000 needs to worry about.

mikeperformance21
04-16-2007, 09:28 PM
More like torque wars is what the s2000 needs to worry about.

haha yea the s2000 could use a bit more torque..anyway..

the aftermarker for the 350z is so much larger than the s2000's... is the lack of an aftermarket for the honda due to the fact that the small 2.0L and 2.2L is difficult to puch to higher hp?..and people keep saying the s2000 is so fun to drive..why cuz convertible or handling? what is it? why isnt the 350 as fun to drive as the s2000?

alphalanos
04-16-2007, 10:21 PM
The s2000 is more of a track car then a daily driver. The Z is more of a streetable car. Both perform well. Personally I like smaller cars so I'd take the S2000. But if you want something thats a little more robust in terms of total power and driveability, take the Z. The S2000 is really geared towards racing more then driving around town.

stick99
04-16-2007, 10:39 PM
this might be helpful, even though you can get a z for under 30 grand.

http://pacer.calpoly.edu/tri/pacer/rx-8comp.html


anyone know if the breaking specs given for the s2000 is correct? I found it odd that the s2000 was the slowest for breaking in both 100-0mph and 60-0 mph. Or if it has improved since '04 when those specs were created?

To answer the forum question, I most likely would take the s2000 because I like lighter track cars over straight line speed. however i have never driven either one, so i can't say for sure (I have driven an '03 Acura NSX and loved it).

alphalanos
04-16-2007, 10:47 PM
sport compact car says 60-0 is 113ft.

Gotian
04-17-2007, 08:42 AM
The s2000 is more of a track car then a daily driver. The Z is more of a streetable car. Both perform well. Personally I like smaller cars so I'd take the S2000. But if you want something thats a little more robust in terms of total power and driveability, take the Z. The S2000 is really geared towards racing more then driving around town.


Thats why I suggested the RX-8 cause it is both a street car and A track car. It also doesnt follow the same compression rules as piston cars do. But he doesnt want to give it a shot, oh well.

mikeperformance21
04-22-2007, 06:40 PM
Thats why I suggested the RX-8 cause it is both a street car and A track car. It also doesnt follow the same compression rules as piston cars do. But he doesnt want to give it a shot, oh well.

hey the rx8 is a great car i think with some room for improvement, but most cars need that anyway.. but the s2000 and the 8 are similar but i like the looks of the s2000 better and hardtop convertible feature to go with it

drunken monkey
04-22-2007, 07:20 PM
i hope you're not mistaking the optional hard-top of the S2000 to be a convertible hard top.

DinanM3_S2
04-22-2007, 09:46 PM
i hope you're not mistaking the optional hard-top of the S2000 to be a convertible hard top.

Indeed, the hardtop on the S2k is really just a removable roof that goes over the canvas top. It isn't like a Mercedes SLK/SL, Lexus SC430, Pontiac G6 Convertable, or BMW E93 3-series Cabrio. All S2ks are soft-top cars. The hard top only helps sound reduction, probably helps against the rain, and aesthetically improves the car.

mikeperformance21
04-23-2007, 09:56 PM
i hope you're not mistaking the optional hard-top of the S2000 to be a convertible hard top.

yes i know the details on the hardtop.. it give it better handling and also looks so very nice and different from the others

Carfans
05-04-2007, 09:49 AM
So that car buyers have the option to choose whether they go 4 a coupe or a roadster. I will prefer coupe, stronger chasis...

3000ways
05-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Interesting comparison, three cars in a similar price range that use very different methods to make the most enjoyable car.

A sedan, a coupe, and a convertable
A high revving 4, a turbocharged 4, and a higher displacement 6.

General impressions of the 3 cars in no peticular order-
Evo- Import guys begged for this car for years. High potential engine, an advanced AWD system, and rally credentials make this car very attractive for the performance enthusiast. It is also the only car in the comparison with back seats, making it a bit more usable as a daily driver. The car does have a few problems however... it is easily the least reliable of the group and Mitsubishi is known for voiding the warranties of cars that have been raced. Turbo lag is also an issue for daily driving, something the other cars won't have to deal with.

350z- The VQ engine is a gem. 3.5l V6 with good power and torque. Interestingly, the Z outraced the Evo in a C&D time trial a little while ago, showing that it is indeed in the same league as the Evo and the STi. The car is a little more refined then the Evo as well. Interior quality is a grade or two better.

S2000- I really like this car. The high revving engine feels like a smaller version of my M3's I6. It might not be the fastest of the bunch, but it is loads of fun. I would take a S2000 autocrossing or road course racing over any of the other cars. It is also the most reliable and customer's seemed to be very pleased with them as we see in the Top Gear survey.

My rankings

Fun to drive-
S2000
Evo
350z

Reliability-
S2000
350z
Evo

Power (stock)-
350z
Evo
S2000

Power (potential)-
Evo
350z
S2000

Styling-
S2000
350z
Evo (I don't think I could be seen in one)

Conclusion- It all comes down to what you would use the car for, how often you would use it, where you live, and what other transportation you have. The Evo can easily see 500+ hp, but a 500+ hp turbo 4-banger won't be very good as a daily driver. The lag would drive me nuts. On the other hand the Evo has the space for other people, and the added security of AWD for rain and snow. Dragging it down as a daily driver is poor reliability and service. The S2000 is a blast, but it might not stand up to the other two in many races. Being a roadster makes it pretty unusable in the wetter parts of the year. On the other hand it has the reliability of an Accord. The 350z is a middle ground between the two.

If I had another car to daily drive and was just looking for a fun weekend car, I would get the Honda S2000. If I was looking for a daily driver I would get the 350z. If I was looking for a car to race, I would probably get the Evo. Overall, I'm most fond of the Honda.

This is a good post, but honestly I think this comparison is a pretty bad one.
The most important part of your post was that you pointed out that it all depends on what a pontential buyer is looking for and all these cars could have some advantages and some disadvantages over the others when it comes to what a pontential buyer is looking for. Honestly if somebody is looking for a new car and they are cross shopping the EVO with a 350Z, then they shouldn't buy an EVO because they are looking at the EVO for all the wrong reasons, and the same can be said of the 350Z. I mean some of you people will bitch about things on the EVO that you don't like, that 90% of people who buy EVOs couldn't care less about.

EVO-
The Good- AWD, extremely quick steering, and a back seat that is rather roomy. Awesome potential, honestly it is not even close between the three. $1,500 to $1,600 is all that is needed to run deep in the 12s with trap speeds ranging from 109mph to 114mph on pump gas. If your a great driver you could hit 11s. To do the same in the 350Z you will need a FI'd of some kind (which isn't cheap). Handling, I don't understand why so many people do not realize how great of a handling car the EVO is, it grips the pavement like a tiger and easily has the strongest of the brakes of the three. Both the S2000 and 350Z also handle very nicely, but the EVO just makes you feel like in your such control, that even novice drivers start feeling like Michael Schumacher. The EVO is geared for quick bursts which is very good for tight road courses with smaller straights. Stock if driven correctly the car is good for 12.9-13.4@102-106mph 1/4 mile times, pretty impressive for a stock car. The interior is just ok, but the seats are great, very supportive and attractive. Also the EVO has a rather large stock turbo, while this has some drawbacks, it does have many benefits, meaning you do not have to upgrade the turbo to run some very fast times, a guy just yesterday ran a 11.4@118mph on the stock turbo and pump gas, impressive but nothing new. The EVO's 4G63 2.0L stock block is capable of 600whp, only one other 4-Cylinder is capable of even coming close to that, and it isn't the S2000 or STI. Styling is in the eye of the beholder, but I would say while not the most attractive car, the EVO does look purposeful and while people can keep sayin' oh I wouldn't be caught dead in an EVO, I just wonder what the judges where thinking once again, when they gave my buddies EVO best in show at a local, but huge car show, he can add that trophy to his collection, I guess maybe there are few people who wouldn't mind being seen in an EVO. But I wonder how many Dinan M drivers would want to be seen in their BMWs after they get absolutely left behind by a $30,000 4-Door Salon with $3000 to $3500 worth of mods. What if you put $3000 to $3500 on the M series, sorry you'll still get left behind.

The Bad- With good there is always some bad, and while the EVO has 4 door as very adequate room for 5 full grown adults, it is no way meant to be a family car. Of the three cars the EVO probably has the bumpiest ride. The EVO RS is the worst and the EVO MR not so bad, but still bumpy. Also with the EVO large stock turbo, there is some drawbacks, the EVO boosts 20PSI stock, and that means some turbo lag. Hit the gas at around 35mph in 5th gear and you are going no where fast. With Mivec the EVO IX has better low end power than the previous EVO VIII, but it is still no Grizzly Bear down low. But once the turbo kicks in the EVO pulls very hard. The stock turbo holds boost well but at around 6500RPM the boost starts to taper and drops about 3 to 4PSI. So at redline the EVO is boosting 17 to 18PSI. The EVO short gearing also means that it sacrifices some power at speeds above 105mph. It doesn't sit down and die, like some people would like to think, but it does not pull as hard from 105 to 125mph as it does from 85 to 105mph. The EVO is also not the most areodynamic car, and this also hurts it at speeds above 100mph. Styling, I do not think the EVO is a ugly car, but in stock form, it sure isn't gonna win any beauty contests either. Most people who don't know EVOs, probably won't think twice about it, until it blows by them at insane speeds. Quality of build is also an issue, I know Mitsubishi trys, but I wish they could work on somethings a little more, like why do the steering wheel pieces start to fall off, I would expect more from a company like MOMO who builds EVO steering wheels. Also the EVO is expensive to maintain, Brembo brake pads last about 20,000 miles, and cost a premium to replace. Yokohama tires are awesome but they only last 25,000 to 30,000 miles and really cost a premium to replace. Oil changes are expnsive, service is expensive, and insurance prices are just crazy high. Like I said, the EVO may be 4-Doors, but it is no Camry or Accord. Also the EVO is a favorite of criminals, who would just love to take your EVO, so keep your doors lock, and when the dealer asks if you want lo-jack, you say yes.

350Z-
The Good- The 07 HR 450Z is by far the quickest and fastest 350Z ever. The car is very quick, able to achieve mid 13s@102-105mph bonestock. The 350Z also has a very large aftermarket and there plentiful parts available. The 350Z also has potential, it might cost you an arm and a leg, but once you go Forced Induction the 350Z has the potential to be one of the most intimidating cars out there. The interior cabin has also improved for the 07 models, with more user friendly buttons and less plastic material. The 350Z only has two seats, but if you are looking for an affordable sports car than why would you want back seats. The 350Z is also a very nice looking car, and while not a Ferrari one cannot deny that the 350Z is an attractive car. The handling is also good, the tires held the previous 350Zs back, but have been improved for the 07 models. The 07 350Z also has HR now which a wider RPM power band. The 350Z does not suffer from any turbo lag, and has power down low and up top. You can still feel the power in 5th gear at 35mph. At speeds above 100mph the EVO starts to slow, but the 350Z continues to pull hard. How hard, while I believe from speeds below 100mph the EVO has the upper hand, when speeds reach tripple digits the 350Z should start to pull. So road courses with longer straights are a great match for a 07 350Z.

The Bad- My question is, who the f*ck doesn't own a 350Z. While some may think that is cool, means the 350Z is popular, I on the hand think the 350Z has lost some of it's exclusiveness. I mean being a sports car is part of a exclusive club, but while what's exclusive about a club that has your neighbor in it and your neighbor's neighbor in it. Potential, the 350Z has it, but it will cost you an arm and leg. To hit 400whp, you need to spend a lot and you will need Forced Induction of some kind. Those Twin turbo set ups are not cheap by any means. Even the cheapest one's cost over $3000 a lone and your going to need all the supporing mods. Meaning your spending close to $7000 to $8000 to do what an EVO can do for $2000. Who needs a back seat? Well some people do, I know we are talking sports cars, but since somebody decided to add the EVO into this, then you cannot ignore the fact it has room for 5 adults while the 350Z has room for 2 adults. The 350Z has a nice interior, but that's all can say about it, nice. Nothing original, nothing spectacular and bfore you say, well what do expect from a $35,000 sports car, well GTO, VW R32, VW GTI, Miata all cost $35,000 and lower and have nicer interiors. Also the 350Z does handle nice, does have nice brakes, but it is less pure in its pursit of sportiness than the 4-door EVO, in fact, the 350Z feels more Grand Touring than Sports Car in my opinion.

S2000-
The Good- Proven track record. The S2000 is a autocrossers dream. The S2000 is the lightest of these three cars by over 300Lbs. Also it's styling may be the oldest, but it still looks damn good, even after 7 years. It just looks like a sports car should look. It also is fun to drive when driven hard. The 350Z feels like a GT when driven hard and the EVO is just to easy when driven hard, but the S2000 feels like a sports car. The S2000 is the least powerful and the slowest of the three, but it's still fast. I mean drive it right and you can hit high 13s@99-102mph. Faster than most cars on the road. The brakes are awesome incredible with short stopping distance. The interior of the S2000 is honda quality an honda friendly. All the buttons are easy to reach and everything is to read. Honda also builds quality cars, and the S2000 is no execption. One of the best things about the S2000 has to be it's shifting, just ultra smooth. Both the 350Z and EVO gear changes can be clunky, while the S2000 shifts silky smooth.

The Bad- Where is the torque? You think the EVO feels like a bore when not driven hard because of turbo lag, try the S2000 and you will have a new idea of boredom. Infact when not driven hard, you'll wonder if the S2000 is even a sports car. It doesn't wake up till like 6000RPMs and how many people wish to drive that hard just to feel their car's power. The S2000 has the least aftermarket part potential. Does it have plenty of parts, sure does, but that doesn't mean it will make a lot more power. Infact the K20, another Honda engine has much more potential than the S2000s engine. Bolt on a couple of grand worth of modifications and don't be surprised to see power gains of 5 to 7%. The S2000 just will never be a great highway race car, unless you go FI. But who buys a S2000 for that, I hope nobody does, because you will be disappointed. Also the S2000 has went through just minor detail changes in 7 years, and is just getting old. While other cars keep getting more and more powerful, the S2000 somehow in 7 years found a way to be rated lower in Horsepower than when it was first introduced (new SAE standards). Still it just tells you that the S2000 is just down on power. The brakes are nice, but they fade fast, very fast. This confuses me because the S2000 has the least amount of weight to stop, but yet it has the brakes that fade the fastest. I mean Honda has had 7 years to improve the S2000 and I have my doubts on a brand new S2000 being much of improvement at all over the previous AP1 S2000. I mean I really like the S2000, but it's way past it's prime, and will and has pretty already has suffered the same fate as another great Honda sports car, the NSX.

So in the end, all these cars offer something good, but something bad. It all depends on what the potential buyer is looking for. You can fault the EVO for not being sports car enough, but who ever said the EVO was a Sports Car. You can fault the S2000 and 350Z for not having a back seat, but if you want a back seat why are you even considering a sports car. Seriously these cars are just way different from one another, and not good comparison. I mean you can say one is better than the other at something, but how can you fault a car for not being built for that purpose. It is like comparing a 350Z to a Toyota Prius, and saying well the Prius gets better gas milage. Huh, well of course it does, that's what it was built for. I hope you see my point, if you want to compare the 350Z to another car compare it to its intended competition, and the same goes for the other two. Before you bash a car for not be in strong in one area, ask yourself, was it built for that purpose?

Add your comment to this topic!