S2000 vs. 350z Roadster

Putting an S2000 against the 350z coupe seems to be a common comparison not because they are in the same class, but because of their very similar performance numbers. Putting the S2000 against the 350z Roadster is a tad bit more of a fair comparison because of the fact that they are both drop tops and that will put the 350z's chassis to the test. So, post what you will ...1/4, top speed, slalom... very comparable vehicles.

-Stu

S2000- the 350Z drop-top is just a posers 350Z- I have little doubt that the S2000 would make a much better Thouoghbred.................I wouldn't get a roadster solely for the purpose that you can get the amazing Coupe.........

even though the S2000 posted up faster 1/4 mile time, faster slalom speed, higher cornering G's, and better braking, the Z convertable still was over 1 second faster on the track then the S2000. why you ask? csaue the Z has a better engine thta can pull the car out of any low speed corner where in the S2000 once you hit a 20mph corner it fall off v-tec in first gear, and then the car falls flat on its face and it takes a while for it to get back into the powerband

where in the S2000 once you hit a 20mph corner it fall off v-tec in first gear, and then the car falls flat on its face and it takes a while for it to get back into the powerband

Interesting...........Perhaps sometthing a VTEC Controller could fix????

well we all know that you can't alter the v-tec engaugement point by too much or else it will hurt performance. most people only change it by around 800 tops. (thinking of which that is still a damn lot) hmmm but anyways we're comparing stock cars here, and even then the S2000 doesn't make its peak power till 8300. and its puny weak peak torque until 7500. the new S2000 with the 2.2 liter might do alittle better since its geared better and has around 10% more tq. and it makes like 165 ft of tq which is still kinda little cause the car has gained some weight in the process

350z vs. S2000 is about as even of a comparo you can get. Hrmmm..............ehhhhhhh.........well i.........damnitt I just don't know! On one hand the S2000 seems to be better on paper, but in a sense the V-tec that gives the S2000 the edge on its competitors, also seems to hurt it as TatII explained.

350z Roadster > S2000 in hp & torque hmmm.... I wonder, does the 350z roadster come in the same trim styles that the coupe does? I guess I would say the comparison would be better off ruling out any other trim besides the track trim. 18" wheels, the brembo brake setup, aren't there underbody air diffusers on track models as well??

S2000 all the way. Faster, better handling, insanely short throw between shifts, ageless styling, and the fact that it's a Honda (reliability :iceslolan )

even though the S2000 posted up faster 1/4 mile time, faster slalom speed, higher cornering G's, and better braking, the Z convertable still was over 1 second faster on the track then the S2000. why you ask? csaue the Z has a better engine thta can pull the car out of any low speed corner where in the S2000 once you hit a 20mph corner it fall off v-tec in first gear, and then the car falls flat on its face and it takes a while for it to get back into the powerband

because the engine has more power and more torque because its obviously bigger, does that make it a better engine?
im a bit confused here...

because the engine has more power and more torque because its obviously bigger, does that make it a better engine?
im a bit confused here...
Well depends on what you mean by better.......The 350z is more powerful and torquey than the S2000- while the S2000 holds a massive edge in technology- I'd perfer a VQ35 to an F20C- but thats just me..........

I vote s2000. Better technology, faster, handling, and honda reliability.

They arent the same size car, so why would they need the same HP for similar ET's?

The old s2000's are very rev happy if that is not your thing, but the new ones are a lil more peppy in the lower half of the powerband, but in general it isnt significantly faster tha±ðe 2003 model.

The s2000 outperforms the 350z in everything. That person who said the 350z was better on the track, well...Ive read 3 comparisons and the s2000 always smacks the 350z, as well as the TT, the boxter, and the Z4.

it'd also be safe to assume a 3.5L V6 has more torque and power than a 2L n/a 4 cylinder. :rolleyes:

True, but MexSiR is right. Read the comparisons in SCC, Road and Track, and Car and Driver. The S2k, even with less hp and torque and a much smaller engine, still outperforms the Z in most areas.

i have no clue on what yoru talkin about but the 350Z is PROVEN to be faster at the track then a BMW E46 M3. the M3 is faster in every aspect but the Z was just overall faster. also, about the person sayin that the VQ35DE is a inferior engine. yes in the hp per liter aspect but you gotta remember when you go road racing, you also need torque. have you ever driven a S2000? the car is a freakin slug when its off v-tec. when the Z has got more balls. and guess when is the v-tec engagement point on that car? 6K. in a road race on the slow corners where your required to downshift to 1st. or in a turn where your stuck in the off v-tec range in 2nd the S2000 falls flat on its face. don't believe me? go drive one and you'll see what i mean. it feels like a civic off v-tec. plus can you list some articles where the S2000 was faster at the track time? the road and track showed that it was faster then the S2000 by atleast 1.5 seconds. and that was with a heavy ass 350Z roadster. with the regular track model Z, it would leave the S2000 for dead even more. and another thing. watch the bestmotoring video where they introduced the 350Z track model. the Z destroyed the jspec S2000 which has 250hp, and lighter wheels. and beat the E46 M3. so there i have showed my sources. now show yours.

the M3 is faster in every aspect but the Z was just overall faster.

Maybe I missed what you're trying to say, but if the M3 is faster in EVERY aspect, how can the Z be faster "overall?" That's like saying that if you're opponent scores all the points and wins the game, you're still better. Doesn't make a lot of sense. And notice I said that the S2k outperformed the Z in NEARLY every area. I agree, there are some tests in which the Z was faster, but numerically, concerning handling and speed, the s2k won more tests, and therefore outperformed the Z.

the S2000 wins in the instrumental test almost everytime. but that is in a controled environment and only tells part of the whole picture. when you take it out to a track, or drive it in the real world. that is where everything comes into to play. and in this case. the S2000 loses. how can a car be faster in aceleration test, and have a higher cornering gripe, and better slalom speed lose to a slower car by over 1.5 second? ( thats atleast 10 cars behind in a road course ) simple, the Z is more balanced with its power gripe, and agility. the S2000 is harder to drive, having unpleasant oversteer at its limit for a suprise when the Z is designed to slightly understeer at its limit. the same with the M3. the harder you push the M3 the more it tends to over steer thus causing a unwanted tail slide. that is why the Z can beat them both at a race track. also the Z has waaaaay more power under its power curve. having most of its torque down low, and having peak power come on quick. while the S2000's peak power doesn't come until 8300rpm and its pathetic peak torque doesn't come until 7500rpm. the only thing that i can think of that an S2000 has over the Z is that is freaking fuel efficent. my friend can get around 200 miles per tank in city driving and thats with a freakin small ass 13 gallon tank. plus even thought the S2000 is quick, its not as fast as you think it is.

the S2000 is harder to drive, having unpleasant oversteer at its limit for a suprise when the Z is designed to slightly understeer at its limit.

I agree, the S2000 is harder to drive, but it's meant to be that way. It was designed as a purist's sports car; not the most practical car in the world, nor the most hp per dollar in comparison to other cars in its class, but one in which the driver must harness a lot of technical driving skills in order to push the car to its full potential. The Z, on the other hand, is more of a cruiser sports car; probably better for road trips than the S2k, but, in my opinon, just not as much fun to drive. Perhaps this excerpt from Car and Driver sums it up best: "Mated to a close-ratio, six-speed manual transmission (the only gearbox offered), this powertrain is pleasingly conducive to intense driver involvement, which, after all, is what sports cars are all about. For that reason, the S2000 isn't for everyone. But for those who savor the unique pleasures of a pure sports car with knife-edged handling, there's no better choice."

Thepeug well put.

I am not basing my discussion on opinions but on things ive read. Car and driver, one of the best car magazines compared many roadsters and the s2000 came out to be the best one.

You want facts? here it goes

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6846&page_number=1

"This is a scalpel-quick sports car when you keep it boiling, quickest of the bunch around the BeaveRun road course, barely behind the Z4 in acceleration, even though it gives away a full liter of displacement. Think intensity. Think fury.

Think...could I stand this as an only car?"

S2000 all the way. Faster, better handling, insanely short throw between shifts, ageless styling, and the fact that it's a Honda (reliability :iceslolan )


couldnt have said it better. and il also be biased. :grinno:

as mexsir also said...its been compared by car and driver and the s2k stands out among the rest.

S2000- the 350Z drop-top is just a posers 350Z- I have little doubt that the S2000 would make a much better Thouoghbred.................I wouldn't get a roadster solely for the purpose that you can get the amazing Coupe.........

I agree...I never really liked convertables.

350z Roadster > S2000 in hp & torque hmmm.... I wonder, does the 350z roadster come in the same trim styles that the coupe does? I guess I would say the comparison would be better off ruling out any other trim besides the track trim. 18" wheels, the brembo brake setup, aren't there underbody air diffusers on track models as well??

Roadster comes in Enthusiest and Touring only. Track gets lightweight 18s, rear underbody diffusers, and a rear spoiler. Coefficient of drag for the Track is incredible .29, and .30 for all others except the roadster with .34.

S2000 all the way. Faster, better handling, insanely short throw between shifts, ageless styling, and the fact that it's a Honda (reliability )

Faster, no...5.8 for the 2K vs 5.4 for the Z to 60. Better handling, not by much really....2K gets .9 lat g while the Z gets .89. Short throw shifts? I guess you've never driven a new Z...if they got much shorter, it'd be an automatic. Ageless styling...I like it. Reliability? I had an 86 Z for 3 years and NEVER had trouble with it. Wonderful cars. I doubt the hondas can be much better then The Nissans. The Lat G info was off www.jbcarpages.com.

Better technology, faster, handling, and honda reliability.

See above.

I've stated my part. It's pretty damn close. I think the Z looks better though. I like the 2K a lot though.

Maybe you guys would think I'm silly, but I have a thought about why a Inline4 can compare with a V6?

^---- :) crazy honda technology :p . This girl in my class wants a s2000 and i want a 350z. I kept telling her that if we raced, I would win, but she insisted that he car "OwnZ", lol. I think its safe to say that it would be a driver's race between these two..... Too bad she can't race stick :thumbsup:

(I should race her for pink slips) :iceslolan

I've heard The Z is easier to drive, too. The S2K has to be driven a certain way or it feels like a Civic due to the very high reving I-4 and no power down low.

I agree, but some (myself included) would say that the greater demand on the skills of driver is what makes the s2k so exciting. The Z can be driven as a cruiser with little effort on the part of the driver, whereas the s2k demands a constant attention to detail (particularly the powerband) in order to harness and experience its full potential as a sports car. The s2k demands to be driven aggressively. For this reason, it's not for everyone, particularly those who prefer an automatic but like the look of a sports car. I'm not saying that the Z is a cruiser meant for people who want to look cool but don't care about performance. The 350 has as much potential for performance as the s2k, but it appeals to a broader audience, enthusiasts and weekend yuppies alike. The s2k, however, caters specifically to those who want an involving, technically demanding ride.

^---- :) crazy honda technology :p . This girl in my class wants a s2000 and i want a 350z. I kept telling her that if we raced, I would win, but she insisted that he car "OwnZ", lol. I think its safe to say that it would be a driver's race between these two..... Too bad she can't race stick :thumbsup:

(I should race her for pink slips) :iceslolan
Sorry to be off topic...
but I just couldn't understand the meaning of "pink slip". And that made me completely out from reading this post...because that word is the whole main point...
pink=color close to red...but lighter in tone.
slip=a kind of lady's dress...
pink slip=...? :uhoh:

I know what you mean. Kinda like how playing a video game on hard is more satisfying [sp.] then when you play on easy. I just think the Z has more where it counts...and DAMN revs willingly...just TAP the gas and it'll rev up to 4K-ish...almost like it reads your mind. I found it very surprising how quickly the engine revved the first time I drove one. Same thing goes for the 90-96 Z32.

I know what you mean. Kinda like how playing a video game on hard is more satisfying [sp.] then when you play on easy. I just think the Z has more where it counts...and DAMN revs willingly...just TAP the gas and it'll rev up to 4K-ish...almost like it reads your mind. I found it very surprising how quickly the engine revved the first time I drove one. Same thing goes for the 90-96 Z32.

Haha, nice analogy about video games. Honestly, I've never driven a Z; I've just read about them, so I can't subjectively compare it's rev capabilites to those of the s2k. I'm sure it can climb like a champ, though.

Sorry to be off topic...
but I just couldn't understand the meaning of "pink slip". And that made me completely out from reading this post...because that word is the whole main point...
pink=color close to red...but lighter in tone.
slip=a kind of lady's dress...
pink slip=...? :uhoh:

A pink slip is like a deed for a house, except it applies to automobiles. When one races for pink slips, he's racing for ownership of his opponent's car. Personally, I'd never race for slips unless I knew I could win; I can't afford to lose a car in a single race. I'm sure it'd be quite an adrenaline rush, though.

well the S2k might win in the 1/4 mile, but once they get goin higher then that speed, the Z will walk on the
s2k. since this is the type of racing that i do, ( highway ) the S2K can't keep up with a Z for long once they hit 100 mph. and how would i know? simple, my friends S2k and my friend EVO 8 is very similar on the high end. however, my friends EVO would get walked on easily by a Z. and plus the Z has a higher top speed ( 155mph ) that is limited by a governer. with the governor taken out, it has the potential to hit 170mph. the S2K tops out close to 150mph.

Can't argue with that one. If the Z has a higher top speed, it has a higher top speed. How often do you actuallly get the opportunity to go that fast, however? Probably not too often. I'm an autox fan myself, in which top speed isn't really a factor. By the way, in highway racing, how far do you race if you don't run a 1/4? Do you just keep going until one of you has an unsurmountable lead?

well the S2k might win in the 1/4 mile, but once they get goin higher then that speed, the Z will walk on the
s2k. since this is the type of racing that i do, ( highway ) the S2K can't keep up with a Z for long once they hit 100 mph. and how would i know? simple, my friends S2k and my friend EVO 8 is very similar on the high end. however, my friends EVO would get walked on easily by a Z. and plus the Z has a higher top speed ( 155mph ) that is limited by a governer. with the governor taken out, it has the potential to hit 170mph. the S2K tops out close to 150mph.

Truth be told: S2K barely loses 1/4 mile...14.4 to 14.0...for the most part, they're the same. You're right about the Z having a higher top speed. Z will hit ~155 stock. S2K top speed is 147. Maybe little more or less for either depending on conditions and whatnot. But, the Z is drag limited. A stock Z won't do 170...sorry. As for the S2K and the EVO...ehh...no. The EVO has about the same top speed as the Z at 157.

Freeway racing: just go as fast as you friggin can. You know when it's over. There usually is no start line...there usually is no finish line...hell....most of the time you don't even know the people. Someone passes you going fast, so you catch up...the race insues...you guys know when it's over. Damn fun...damn dangerous...especially in traffic and bad weather...I plead the fifth...

Cool, thanks for the info. So it's a lot like racing on the Wangan in Japan? Personally, I would never do it in traffic or in bad weather. That's a definite recipe for disaster.

the 14.4 is the time that most ppl were seeing in the 2000 s2k.

from 2001-up they were more like a 14.0-1 car (so it'd be about even like u said.)

honestly, its all jus personal opinion guys. on paper, the s2k can out-perform the z in some ways. on other paper, the z can out-perform the s2k in some ways.

both are amazing cars (have only had the chance to drive the s2k, not the z yet sadly), and overall its pretty much a tie.

obviously its jus going to come down to loyalty. i understand that nismo freaks will back their cars to the end, as will i for hondas.

so...in conclusion to this pointless post...s2k is my pic...

Well said :bigthumb: . I'm backing the s2k because I'm a Honda fanatic, but I agree that when it comes down to performance, the s2k and the Z are pretty much even. An s2k offers a vastly different driving experience (a more challenging and exciting one, IMO) than a Z, but it all boils down to preference.

I am going to go with an S2000, especially the new one with the 2.2L engine. Supposedly it is going to help deal with getting out of the powerband on slow turns. You get your torque peak at 6500rpms now and hp @ 7800rpms. These numbers are still high but I do believe they are a little lower than the past few years.

I'd pick the Z. I'm a diehard Nissan guy, but that doesn't influence my choice. I believe the Z is a more solid performer. The Z seems a bit less....ummm....fragile??....touchy??....ya know??....the S2K just kinda seems a little....testy....the Z....mash the gas and go.

I'll never forget blasting away from that light in that black Performance 350 I drove (right in front of a cop, never the less) with the sales guy in the car clinging for dear life to every oh-shit handle he could reach. It was great. That car is just so precise...so responsive...largely regardless of RPM. It just has a connection with the driver that is almost subliminal...almost like it know what you're going to do before you do it....even before you know.

I'd love to drive an S2K just for comparison purposes. I just can't shake the impression or the performance of the S2K that it has imposed apon me...having to romp the hell out of it to get it to go, having to keep the rpms goin like a damn motorcycle...stuff like that...granted it's fun, I just think it would become exhausting.

Touchy, testy, and demanding? Yes. Fragile? No. A subliminal connection with the driver? No more drugs.

Ha...You know what I mean...point being: It is EXTREMELY responsive.

I agree, and I also agree that the s2k can be a bit "exhausting" at times. For that reason, it's not for everyone; it's for those who are looking for a specific type of driving experience (sorry, I know I'm begining to repeat myself).

Ha...You know what I mean...point being: It is EXTREMELY responsive.

:werd:

u'll do a 180 in a turn in a touch of the gas (found out when i was playin around in my buddy's.)

its definately not something u'd want to learn to drive in, and like peug said, its an enthusiasts car.

damned fun to drive tho...

350Z - I fit in it. I can't fit in the s2000 so i'll take the car I fit in.

Beeing tall (6'3", tall in the torso)as taken a lot of cars off my list. The 350z coupe (curled my neck) and viper (converatble was to short, i could see over the glass, hard top, my legs jamed togeter), for example. And no, I dont want a truck and half of them dont fit me either. Sure, chicks dig the big dudes but if you cant fit in the ride, its just not goning to help you.

Haha, I feel your pain. I'm not a big guy, but one of my friends is 6'3", 250 lbs, and he can't fit into half the cars out there, so he resigned himself to an F-250.

Nissan guy, look at the BLOW DRYERS comparison in Car and Driver. The s2000 outperforms the 350z in every test...in the track, 0-60 and quarter mile. It also beat the z4, boxer, tt...
I dont know if somebody sees or has seen TOP GEAR on BBC, best car show on the world...they tested the 350Z and vastly critiziced it, said it was to american, no emotion. When they drove the s2000 they said it was a pure bread drivers car.

Nissan guy, look at the BLOW DRYERS comparison in Car and Driver. The s2000 outperforms the 350z in every test...in the track, 0-60 and quarter mile. It also beat the z4, boxer, tt...
I dont know if somebody sees or has seen TOP GEAR on BBC, best car show on the world...they tested the 350Z and vastly critiziced it, said it was to american, no emotion. When they drove the s2000 they said it was a pure bread drivers car.

"They're so close you wouldn't choose between them just for numbers." --That artical in referance to the Z vs the S2K.

They loved the Z. They couldn't find anything significant wrong with it except bad blind spots. Zs are notorious for that and always have been, but you get used to it.

I'm kind of baffled by a couple things, though: "This car fits drivers of all sizes better than the others.", "Ride smoothness tops all the others.", "Cockpit drafts are least bothersome of the group.", etc...I wonder why they DIDN'T pick the Z.

Also, how did you get the 0-60 and quarter times they observed? The artical says it was the fastest around the track, which doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't say anything about it's relation to the Z in 0-60 and it says nothing at ALL about 1/4 mile times for ANY of the cars, from what I read. Maybe I missed it by not reading the whole artical (ok...I admit it...I skipped the other 3 cars...it's late...gimme a break...:D) or maybe it was because I read it online...I'd imagine all of that's in the actual artical.

The BIGGEST thing that erks me is -->this (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=1938&page_number=1)<-- The Z won in this artical against 2 of the same cars...the S2K and the TT IN THE SAME MAGAZINE. In that artical, the Z has the best 0-60, 1/4, and track times of the S2K and Z. The shitstain...er...mustang beat them both at 0-60 and 1/4 because that's ALL it can do. Did the S2K change between the '03 and '04 model years? Only thing I can think of is that the S2K vs Z coupe...Z wins. S2K vs Z roadster...S2K wins.

Anyone know...is the S2K still the most powerful normally aspirated I4 in the country?

Did the S2K change between the '03 and '04 model years? Anyone know...is the S2K still the most powerful normally aspirated I4 in the country?

I don't know whether or not the F20C still claims that title. Between '03 and '04, it gained 0.2 liters (it's now at 2.2) and 8 pounds of torque, and the redline dropped (to 8200?).

Well each has its own advantages and disadvantages...

Honda S2000...

0-60:5.8 seconds

1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds

Weight Distribution: 49:51

Curb Weight: 2810 lbs

Nissan 350Z

0-60: 5.4 seconds

1/4 mile: 14 seconds

Weight Distribution: 53:47

Curb Weight: 3188 lbs

Ok so the S2000 isn't the fastest of the two, however its weight ratio and curb weight out class the 350Z. However one of the reasons for this is because the S2000 only has a 4 cylinder engine compared to the 350Z's 6 cylinder engine. But the 350Z's power over the S2000 makes it a hard decision. But one major set back of the S2000 (for me anyway) is that the engine is so well tuned that when you add parts to it, it some times loses power. So you have to completely retune it to make it perform better.

So I have come to the conclusion that I would have to pick the Nissan 350Z because of power and the fact that modifying the S2000 would be a hassale (I think I spelled it wrong) to retune it everytime you put in a new part.

-nissan240sxdude

Well each has its own advantages and disadvantages...

Honda S2000...

0-60:5.8 seconds

1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds

Weight Distribution: 49:51

Curb Weight: 2810 lbs

Nissan 350Z

0-60: 5.4 seconds

1/4 mile: 14 seconds

Weight Distribution: 53:47

Curb Weight: 3188 lbs

Ok so the S2000 isn't the fastest of the two, however its weight ratio and curb weight out class the 350Z. However one of the reasons for this is because the S2000 only has a 4 cylinder engine compared to the 350Z's 6 cylinder engine. But the 350Z's power over the S2000 makes it a hard decision. But one major set back of the S2000 (for me anyway) is that the engine is so well tuned that when you add parts to it, it some times loses power. So you have to completely retune it to make it perform better.

So I have come to the conclusion that I would have to pick the Nissan 350Z because of power and the fact that modifying the S2000 would be a hassale (I think I spelled it wrong) to retune it everytime you put in a new part.

-nissan240sxdude


believe it or not, some people actually buy cars withOUT the intention to modify anything at all but rather just leave the car as is out of the dealer lot :eek: i do agree with you that dollar for dollar, the S2000 responds less to engine mods than the 350 would, but don't start assuming one car is inferior because it's "less modable" than the other.

believe it or not, some people actually buy cars withOUT the intention to modify anything at all but rather just leave the car as is out of the dealer lot :eek: i do agree with you that dollar for dollar, the S2000 responds less to engine mods than the 350 would, but don't start assuming one car is inferior because it's "less modable" than the other.

If I got an S2000, I'd leave it completely stock except for wheels, tires, and an OEM hard-top. You don't have to mess with that car; it's already a thing of beauty. BTW, for 240sxdude, 'hassle' is the correct spelling, I believe.

There is always that time when the rush you get from accelerating starts to wither and every other car just seems faster....for some....this is not ignorable.....for others......they're happy with their car and have nothing to prove. Either way....what ever floats your boat. To me, "modding" a car and it LOSING power says that it's maxed out.

i dunno but the S2K's acceleration is not fast enough for me. and the worst thing is, bolt ons do shit for that car. with a intake and exhusat, the car gained a total of 2 whp yippee what a nice way to throw over 1000 dollars away.

As with most high-end cars, mods don't do a lot. In general, people don't buy expensive cars to mod them. That's why you pay more money for an s2000 than a civic. You're already paying for performance parts so that you don't have to add them yourslf. Think about it: do people mod Ferraris? Usually, no. The car is already maxed out. I'm not saying that the S2000 is in the same league as a Ferrari, but you get my drift.

Basically you can't really make a desicion on either one of the cars with out knowing what you are going to do with it. If you wanted to keep it just stock than sure it is a toss up on either one. But if you wanted to modify the car then the 350Z is the smarter choice. You can gain a lot more extra power for your buck and don't have to retune it every time you put in a new part.

If you want more info look at my previous post on this thread to really have a good comparison. There is one thing that I think was stupid of both Honda and Nissan, why didn't they give the S2000 and 350Z turbos to start. Oh well you can't have everything.

-nissan240sxdude

Basically you can't really make a desicion on either one of the cars with out knowing what you are going to do with it. -nissan240sxdude

:werd: :iagree: The 350 isn't much more tunable than the s2000, though. It takes a lot of money to get any extra hp out of either of those cars.

There is one thing that I think was stupid of both Honda and Nissan, why didn't they give the S2000 and 350Z turbos to start. Oh well you can't have everything.

The reason Nissan didn't put turbos on it from the start is because they wanted to keep the price down so the new Z won't take the path of the old Z. Price was a major contribution to the demise of the Z32 generation of Z cars...in the mid 90s, a new TT Z could be over $40,000! That's a LOT of money...especially for that time.

The 350 isn't much more tunable than the s2000, though. It takes a lot of money to get any extra hp out of either of those cars.

It is very much more tunable then most cars out there...even the S2K. The only reason it is so expensive to mod right now is because it is still a VERY new car and there is a lot of development going on...give it time. Look at the Z32TT...you can get a completely rebuilt and race prepped engine for under $8,000. The Z33's time will come soon. In the mean time...check these out:
Amazingly fast car on a measly ~10psi....imagine down the line when you crank it up to 15 or 20...... (http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0308_tuner_350z/index.html)
Do a search for the Top Secret TT kit or the SMZ 350Z that uses Stillen's new Roots supercharger....

Okay.. I've always wanted to know which of these two is better and still I can't figure it out. I drove the 350Z (Automatic) but I haven't driven the S2000 and I have to admit, the 350Z is fast but I guess the S2000 would catch up with the 350Z if it wasn't Manual. As for myself, I prefer the S2000 over the 350Z but don't ask why. Cuz I myself don't know why I made that preference!

So please, I want the bottom line.. Which one is better?

Okay.. I've always wanted to know which of these two is better and still I can't figure it out. I drove the 350Z (Automatic) but I haven't driven the S2000 and I have to admit, the 350Z is fast but I guess the S2000 would catch up with the 350Z if it wasn't Manual. As for myself, I prefer the S2000 over the 350Z but don't ask why. Cuz I myself don't know why I made that preference!

So please, I want the bottom line.. Which one is better?

They had several comparisons between the two in Car and Driver and Road and Track a few months ago. You could try and dig those up, or read the last four pages and then make a decision. LonglivetheZ, IMO the 350 is not more tunable than MOST cars out there. A whole slew of domestics are more tunable than the 350 because they're barely tuned from the factory. The 350 is more tunable than the s2000, but that's because of the increased displacement. And I agree: both cost a lot of money to see significant hp gains.

Do you know what was the name of the old topic?

What do you mean? The original name of this thread or the names of the magazine articles?

I meant do you remember any of the older comparison threads names??