M3 vs S2000

[del]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

Variable valve timming is definately the wave of the furture. A lot of cars are now begining to adopt that technology. I even heard the C6 vette is going to incorporate it in their new engine. Awww.....the magnificent power of technology. I think honda does a great job of incorporating this technology together. Using the smallest engines to push unbelivable power very efficiently has been a trademark for what their known for (in my opinion). Doesn't the S2000 hold most n/a hp per liter over any other production car. Smaller engines are lighter engines, which definately cuts off quite a few pounds to your vehicle, which can be handy at times. I gotta respect them, BMW, and every other motor company for their contributions to newer, more enhanced technology.
The future for cars look real good.

technically i think the rx-8 now pushes the most hp per liter. but now we're talkin about two different kinds of engines. for traditional piston and rod engines, yeah the s2000 still puts out the most hp per liter.

[disco192]

Yea the rx8 has it beat, but even in racing circuits they dont consider a rotary by its natural displacement. The 20g motor (2.0L triple rotor) in the LeMans i believe was rated much higher than 2L.

Just a funny story: i once talked to a guy that had VTEC in his rx7. LOL. Almost as funny as the time the ford dealer told me that the new powerstrokes had advanced spark plugs.

[Kurtdg19]

Yeah i guess that would even make the new S2000's hp/per L a little bit lower than the older one. If the old one holds the name S2000, then shouldn't the new one be named the S2200? hehe

[OoNismoO]

Originally Posted by disco192

Honda invented variable valve timing and lift, but BMW has the upper hand in technology right now.

Look at the 745i, it controls its entire intake system using a continuous valve timing system. It is the 1st car in history (to my knowledge) that doesnt have a butterfly valve.

McLaren is making a new F1 ?

no, when the mclaren f1 first came out.

[Iced_Earth]

Originally Posted by tegdude

if your looking for speed and exceleration get a wrx sti be faster than both for a little cheaper than an s2000

True, sti's are faster off the line than a s2k, but after 65 - 70mph the s2k (properly tuned) would pull away the m3 would just slaughter the sti, sti's are ment for rally, not drag. awd is great for rally, but they just loose power after 70 mph's. My buddys 11 second '03 SVT Mustang killed the sti.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by disco192

Yea the rx8 has it beat, but even in racing circuits they dont consider a rotary by its natural displacement. The 20g motor (2.0L triple rotor) in the LeMans i believe was rated much higher than 2L.

Yeah I think theirs some truth behind that. I gotta buddy who owns an RX-7 1.3L, and the displacment is about twice the size over what its rated i.e. 1.3L=2.6L. Thats what he told me, but then again, I'm not very knowledgable with rotaries. So I took his word for it.

[TatII]

Originally Posted by Iced_Earth

True, sti's are faster off the line than a s2k, but after 65 - 70mph the s2k (properly tuned) would pull away the m3 would just slaughter the sti, sti's are ment for rally, not drag. awd is great for rally, but they just loose power after 70 mph's. My buddys 11 second '03 SVT Mustang killed the sti.

errr not true. the evo and the S2000 is a pretty damn close match from 80-100mph +. i have a friend who owns a evo and a friend who owns a S2000, the EVO raped the S2000 from a launch, and even after that when they were rolling, the EVO continued to pull on the S2000 hard all the way until 100mph. the evo took the S2000 by 2 cars off the line, and continued to pull 3 more cars atleast once they got rolling. even from the highway, the EVO should take the S2000. now your goin to compare the highend of a S2000 to an even faster STi? the STi also has 6 close ratio tranny just like the STi so aceleration would be more brisk then the evo's, and also the STi puts down alot more power at all 4 wheels, and about double the torque. the S2000 has a slightly higher top speed becuase of the way its geared. but the STi will pull really freakin hard up to its top speed.

edit: and yoru talkin about an 11 second mustang here. put that same S2000 against it and i garantee the ownage will be just as bad if not worse.

[papz]

if u have the money, buy an m3, it is so refined and well engineered it seems perfect when you drive it. s2000 is a great car but it loses to the m3 in practically all categories. These two cars shouldnt even be compared, though.

[MexSiR]

I have a suggestion, you want fast, good looks not as expensive.
Why dont get an s2000 with the comptech supercharger, all around 36,500 dollars and youll be running low 12s. Killing m3s and most other fast cars.

[Drop-2nd!!]

s2k is better than 95-98 m3's not the new ones, no way but comparing the 2 is really stupid!

[syr74]

Yeah, I will chime in and say that I don't think these two cars are ever gonna see much cross-shopping. I would say IMO that the one someone picks says more about their personality and likes than which car is actually better. The missions and approach really are so different it is weird to compare the two.

As an everyday driver the M3 is gonna kill the S2000. Not that the S2000 is an uncomfortable car as the seats are actually quite nice IMO and it rides better than you might guess. It's just that the M3 is so amazingly comfortable you wont believe it is a high po car on the highway.

Performance, yeah, I am sure the S2000 is gonna win at Firebird Intl, but, I hope you like the rev it til she scream form of fast because that is the only kind of fast the Honda knows. Nothing wrong with that as many like it. But some folks don't like to have to rev it into the stratoshpere to go fast at all either.

Just to qualify I got a ride in a S2000, but never got to drive it...But, it isn't hard to tell she likes to be cranked down on even from the wrong side of the car. And, she rides from one side just like she does on the other. This is a rev happy car for rev happy people. Sounds better than a four should though. But I don't like the thing in yellow and everyone seems to have yellow. I cannot speak first hand for handling but I am certain it is stellar and have yet to hear a bad word about it.

On the other hand, awesome as the M3 is, I think the chassis must be spending it's evenings sneaking out of the garage looking for a 4.4L DOHC Hi Po V-8. As nice and quick as the car is, it always seems like it wants more motor. ( I got a one time, generosity drive in an M3 from someone I now consider a very, very good friend )

He dynoed his car that same day and it rang up something like 266hp at the wheels if I recall. You can drive one to the corner and back and tell it can take waaaay more hp than that..and wants it. I can also tell you dyno testing an M3 sucks....If you have never seen it ask someone who owns one. BMW should have thought about the enthusiast on that one a little bit more.

Even so, I would pick the M3 if I had to choose between those two and I had the cash. It just suits my personality a lot better than the Honda. The ? is which suits yours???.

[TatII]

M3 hands down. you just get alot more car for the money. the S2000's seats are too stiff. you can see the frame structure protruding into the floor of the car, the transmission tunnel takes up more interior room. the seats are too stiff, and the CD player came out of a honda civic. how can they do that to a 30K car?!?!? atleast give it a better sound system. while the M3's interior is not all that comfortable either. its still much much better then the S2000 plus the M3's exterior looks alot more menancing.

[del]

hondas generally don't have very good sound systems, cept for the one in the new 04 tl, which i hear is like nothing out there. and of course the s2000 is going to be a tight fit compared to the M3. that goes without saying, or at least it should be. and of course the seats aren't going to be plush, this is a sports car, not a luxury car. i happen to find the seats quite supportive, not ideal for road trips though. and the car gives you a perfect driving position. you're complaining about creature comforts in a honda roadster. go for a z4 or slk if you want to be pampered. the s2000 is a driver's car, not one to show up to the grammies in.

[240VZA]

thanks everyone for all the comments; as a follow up to the original question of S2000 vs M3; say it is Sunday morning and you were to drive one or the other of the above for about an hour just around town or some country byway, which would give you a "satisfied" driving hour? sort of an enjoyable hour behind the wheel.

[del]

i think the S2000 is funner to drive than the M3. so for a sunday drive, i think i'd choose the S2000. drop the top and just cruise.