M3 vs S2000

for those that have driven both, i'm wondering about your driving satisfaction for each (in a way, i'm also wondering if you would pay the $ difference; shouldn't be a concern for an enthusiast but it is in my case). thanks for your comments and guidance

The M3 kicks the S2k's butt in everything...but then again...it is almost 20k more...

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

Well, you can't really compare the two can you? The S2000 is a two-seat roadster with a 2.0L inline 4. I BELIEVE the M3 (02+) has a 3.3L pushing 333hp. Mind you, the S2000's engine has the highest output per liter than any other production car in the world. It can run flat 14s in the 1/4 with an N/A 2.0L!!! No other car with that displacement not using forced induction even comes close. M3 is a magnificent car and fast as f***, but comparing these two cars is comparing apples and oranges. How S2000 vs. 350z roadster? That sounds a little better. :biggrin:

Correction: I said nobody comes close to the N/A 2.0L running flat 14s. Well, I forgot about the Elise. :p sry.

S2000 now runs a 2.2 liter...same HP but a bit more torque...

actually ford racing made a focus wit the 2.0 liter pumpin out 304 horses so i think that takes the most hp per liter title for that size..but then again idk if it was evr production..and it was a ford so it realli dusnt count...lol

o yea...in my opnion nothin beats german engineering for evryday sports cars.

:naughty:
I agree totally
GERMAN CARS ALL THE WAY BABY


:rofl:

I'd have to disagree on that one. German engineering (especially on an M3) is absolutely beautiful. BUT for practicality issues, mainly money, they are just too expensive to maintain. Not saying they are unreliable, but anyone that knows cars knows that the Honda stamp of approval means cheap parts and an engine that will last a reeeeeeeeeally long time.

my $.02

[QUOTE=chicago_guy]actually ford racing made a focus wit the 2.0 liter pumpin out 304 horses so i think that takes the most hp per liter title for that size..but then again idk if it was evr production..and it was a ford so it realli dusnt count...lol

Yea, but was that focus using some sort of forced induction?

Everyone should know by now how reliable a Honda is. Anyways...What exactly are we comparing these two cars in, or is it just an open discussion of anything between the two. I would most definatly think an M3 could take an S2000 given that is has over 100hp on it. I like the S2000's, but were talking about the same M3's they compare with Z06's and such. I don't think the S2000 is quite up to that par, not in my opinion.

Correction: I said nobody comes close to the N/A 2.0L running flat 14s. Well, I forgot about the Elise. :p sry.

which runs mid to high 13s depending on model anyway :)

actually ford racing made a focus wit the 2.0 liter pumpin out 304 horses so i think that takes the most hp per liter title for that size..but then again idk if it was evr production..and it was a ford so it realli dusnt count...lol

o yea...in my opnion nothin beats german engineering for evryday sports cars.

isnt that the ford focus fr200? if it is then its turbocharged.

for those that have driven both, i'm wondering about your driving satisfaction for each (in a way, i'm also wondering if you would pay the $ difference; shouldn't be a concern for an enthusiast but it is in my case). thanks for your comments and guidance

ok so for driving satisfaction would i pay the difference, no i would not. if money is a concern, than i would definately get the s2000, its like 20 grand less. the s2000 is more of a sports car, its better balanced, lighter, two seats, and you can put the top down. its more nimble, lighter cars get that handling edge, and feel that a heavier car cant get even with suspension tuning. i would get the bmw if i really need the room, and want better acceleration, but the new s2000 with the 2.2 liter shouldnt be that far behind. so id go with the s2000.

ok so for driving satisfaction would i pay the difference, no i would not. if money is a concern, than i would definately get the s2000, its like 20 grand less. the s2000 is more of a sports car, its better balanced, lighter, two seats, and you can put the top down. its more nimble, lighter cars get that handling edge, and feel that a heavier car cant get even with suspension tuning. i would get the bmw if i really need the room, and want better acceleration, but the new s2000 with the 2.2 liter shouldnt be that far behind. so id go with the s2000.

:werd: brotha, I think the S2000 is worth every penny.

which runs mid to high 13s depending on model anyway :)

Road and Track says: Elise 190hp/133ft-llb torq. 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 12 flat. Yes, I said 12 flat. 190 horsepower, 12 flat. :bigthumb:

for those that have driven both, i'm wondering about your driving satisfaction for each (in a way, i'm also wondering if you would pay the $ difference; shouldn't be a concern for an enthusiast but it is in my case). thanks for your comments and guidance

The best thing for you to do would be to...test drive both, and see which one you feel better driving. The S2000 is a cool car, not putting it down but...its a toy compared to the M3.

Road and Track says: Elise 190hp/133ft-llb torq. 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 12 flat. Yes, I said 12 flat. 190 horsepower, 12 flat. :bigthumb:


Thats for an Elise 190, which is a very RARE factory model with 190hp.
That most common series one car only has 111hp, and all the cars that have been run down the 1/4 here have run something around a 13.8.
But this is getting o/t, and the Elise is not a car that was ever designed to go anywhere near the 1/4 mile, but then niether were the S2000 or the M3, all of them are drivers cars, and your not driving unless your useing all the cars controls, exploring all its limits, and that means going around corners.

http://auto.joins.com/upboard/pds/pdst/BestMotoring_350Z_TsukubaBattle.asf

I forgot the results, but it's between a 911, 350Z, S2000, and a M3.

that's a pretty sweet video. here's the results:

1. 350z
2. M3
3. S2000
4. Porche

The S2000 stayed in 2nd for a greater portion of the race but thanks to the driver going into one turn too fast, the M3 was able to pass and hold 2nd until the end. the 350z stayed in 1st throughout the race. the porche, well it was left in the dust.

i was actually surprised by the way the M3 handled the course, it seemed rather sloppy during times. perhaps that's just the driver. but none of the cars seemed to be able to catch the 350z
:sunglasse

i dont know dude, its keiichi tsuchiya who drove that m3, hes one of the best drivers, but then the track was a little wet, so maybe that could of been part of it. i think hes the guy that everyone calls the drift king, the guy who drifted in the corners to win some race back in the 80s.

yea the guy in the s2000 went in the turn too fast, started sliding, and made it slow down too much, so the m3 was able to pass it. otherwise seems like the s2000 would of been able to stay in 2nd place.

I have that same video as well. I too think the S2000 (biased? maybe) would've stayed in second had he taken the apex in that particular corner. On the straightaways though the M3 was a beast. Simple matter of those 333 horses showin' thier stuff. I must stress again though, I don't think it's a "true" comparison between the two cars because of the fact that they are in two completely different classes. And, of course, the obvious power advantage of the M3 over the S2000 just kind of puts a damper on any comparison of the two cars speed wise. Handling? That's a little more debatable.

the m3 is more of a luxury/sports car and is more "realistic" with its rear seats...while the s2000 is more strictly a sports car with its 2 seat design and the ignition button :biggrin:

if money is not a concern, i would take the m3 but for the more modern day person s2000 all the way =)

the whole thing about german engines being better, i think that german and japanese engines have about the same reliabuility and both put out nice power but german cars are just too damn expensive...

im goin to have to go to the s2000 the m3 is great car and all but if it were to be a realy sports car it wouldn't cary all that luxury stuff etc. if i had the money i would still buy the 2000 becuase its more smaller and its the most powerful NA 2ltr 4 sounds good to me. i've even seen turbo charged versions pumping out over 350 hp

This is definately comparing apples and oranges. If you want a sports car only, then i would get the s2000 becuase it is without a doubt a magnificient piece of machinery. But if you have a family or need to drive it with more than one woman (you all know what i mean.... you get the chicks with a m3) than i would get a m3.

They are both drivers cars, but the real question is.... how much do you want to pay for luxury and the prestige of the m3 ??

It is wonderful what honda and BMW are doing to the car market. SO much technology... iVTEC + valvatronic :eek: No throttle bodies = amazing, props to BMW

and amazing props to honda, you know honda had the more effective valve timing system before bmw. maclaren even went to honda first for their new car mclaren f1, cause at the time they were doin good in f1 racing with honda engines, so it made sense to go with them, but honda turned them down. honda couldnt, or didnt want to do that job for some reason, so mclaren turned to bmw.

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 ?

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 ?

:banghead:

honda didn't invent variable valve timing. honda has just been the company that uses it to the extent that they have. they perfected it, now other companies have put their own variation in their cars and are just as good if not better than VTEC.

I say Honda invented VTEC in the same way that Bill Gates invented the PC.

They may not have been the ones the create it (i dont know) but they were the 1st to introduce variable valve timing in a production car.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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???.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

id say s2000, i think it would be more fun to drive on a sunday morning with the top down.

id say s2000, i think it would be more fun to drive on a sunday morning with the top down.

S2000 would be my choice for a sunday cruise. It would be so fun going down the twisties and throwing it around the turns. To me it would be more satisfying than the M3.

The S2000 is a nice motor and BUT THE M3 IS IN A BIGGER DIFFERENT LEAGUE IE PORSCHE 911 CARRERA,M-Benz CLK AMG,JAG XKR,Lotus Exige,Maserati 3200GT ETC.A CLEAR COMP would be something like Honda S2000 VS BMW ZM ROADSTER/COUPE OR VS NISSAN 350Z OR VAUXHALL VX220T/LOTUS ELISE TT190 .Now you can have a fair compairsion. Now compare all of these are 2-door 2people moters that i personally think are in the same category as the S2000 . I would go for the ZM COUPE .But if SUNLIGHT IS MY Major i would take the ZM Roadster over the S2000.Personal between th S2000 and the M3 , i would go for the M3 wheither convertable or coupe , it a much better car all together. I driven the M3 its A MAD RIDE, EVEN THROUGH THE SPEED HAS IS Restriced to 155mph.

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.
What the hell are you talking about? In the 1/4 mile, the STI easily does low 13s, high 12s, will the S2000 barely does a 14-flat.

The STI would also stomped on the S2000 on the track, and the M3 too.