S2000 vs. STi - Page 2

3kgt8 · #16 10-20-2004, 11:28 PM

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.

TatII · #17 10-20-2004, 11:32 PM

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.

kman10587 · #18 10-20-2004, 11:52 PM

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.

TatII · #19 10-21-2004, 12:05 AM

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.

finally_retired · #20 10-21-2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3000ways

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.

del · #21 10-21-2004, 10:00 PM

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

kman10587 · #22 10-21-2004, 10:52 PM

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

Kurtdg19 · #23 10-22-2004, 12:58 AM

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.

finally_retired · #24 10-25-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

del · #25 10-25-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finally_retired

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.

Mtang36 · #26 10-25-2004, 12:48 PM

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.

kfoote · #27 10-25-2004, 03:52 PM

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.

Kurtdg19 · #28 10-25-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mtang36

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.

Mtang36 · #29 10-25-2004, 07:58 PM

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.

del · #30 10-25-2004, 10:00 PM

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.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD