Audi TT vs. BMW M Roadster vs. Honda S2000 vs. Porsche Boxster

[VTEC V6]

its down to the M roadster and the S2000

and the s2000 is like 15k+ cheaper
and it looks way better too

i would take that then add a comptech SC and some other goodies to improve handling and styling then you'd whoop an M roadster and look better too inside and out!

[BRABUS]

No comparison here. M roadster all the way although it wasn't quite fair to compare this car to the others. I've said it before, tuned cars cannot be compared to factory cars. For example, you cannot compare the following:

BMW M5 Vs. MB E430
MB E55 AMG Vs. BMW 540i
BMW M3 Vs. MB C320

...and so on.

[Adam]

yeah, but the Z3 needs to be tuned to keep up w/ the Boxster

[texan]

Brabus- I see no reason why you can't compare the S2000 with the M Roadster, and neither do any of the automotive press. They come out almost dead equal in every measured performance test, with the rolling starts and top gear acceleration runs going slightly to the M, and the handling tests going to the S2000. However, the S2000 is over 200 lbs lighter, has a MUCH better suspension design and setup, a more engaging engine (possibly the most engaging engine ever), the best transmission, better weight distribution, a shorter length but larger width, and plenty of upgrade potential left for still increased handling through larger tires.

So having said all that, what about the M Roadster is so special here, other than the semi-trailing arm rear suspension that somehow made it's way onto a $43k car? I mean seriously, if you know suspension designs, you would know that layout was abandoned years ago for maximum performance machines, as it has certain basic design flaws making for unreliable handling traits (which is why BMW themselves ditched the design after the E30's, except for the roadster where they wanted to keep costs down at the expense of performance). I could bring up other points, but the final one is just that BMW's tuning efforts with this car remain more towards sales and looks than ultimate performance. Of course you do get that nice illuminated shift pattern, maybe that's where the other $10k worth of car went .

[BRABUS]

Originally posted by texan
Brabus- I see no reason why you can't compare the S2000 with the M Roadster, and neither do any of the automotive press. They come out almost dead equal in every measured performance test, with the rolling starts and top gear acceleration runs going slightly to the M, and the handling tests going to the S2000. However, the S2000 is over 200 lbs lighter, has a MUCH better suspension design and setup, a more engaging engine (possibly the most engaging engine ever), the best transmission, better weight distribution, a shorter length but larger width, and plenty of upgrade potential left for still increased handling through larger tires.

So having said all that, what about the M Roadster is so special here, other than the semi-trailing arm rear suspension that somehow made it's way onto a $43k car? I mean seriously, if you know suspension designs, you would know that layout was abandoned years ago for maximum performance machines, as it has certain basic design flaws making for unreliable handling traits (which is why BMW themselves ditched the design after the E30's, except for the roadster where they wanted to keep costs down at the expense of performance). I could bring up other points, but the final one is just that BMW's tuning efforts with this car remain more towards sales and looks than ultimate performance. Of course you do get that nice illuminated shift pattern, maybe that's where the other $10k worth of car went .

What I was getting was that the S2000 would be better compared to the BMW Z3 instead. If you take a look at the specs of the M Roadster and compare them to the S2000, you will see that the M Roadster holds the advantage. I think a couple others mentioned my point in their posts as well.

[texan]

but again Brabus, holds the advantage where? In torque output and tire size maybe, in everything else the S2000 is it's equal or better. And costs $10k less in the process. The S2000 has been in heads up comparos before, and in the most recent it bested the Porsche Boxter S and the BMW M Roadster on a very fast road course that favors higher power motors. It also pulled nearly identical acceleration times to the fastest car there, never being more than .1 seconds off the pace of the Beemer (and the S2000 actually had a higher 1/4 mile trap speed). Sorry, but I just don't see how the M Roadster is in a different league in terms of anything other than price. Show me how and maybe I'll be more open to the idea, because telling me how many other people feel the same as you doesn't make any of them right.

[BRABUS]

Let's take a look shall we?

M Vs. S2000

Engine: 3.2L Vs. 2.0L
HP: 315@7400 Vs. 240@8300
Torque: 251@4900 Vs. 153@7500
Top speed: 137mph Vs. 145mph
0-60: 5.6s Vs. 6.8s

Now the S2000 beats the M in the top speed category, just slightly however. The 0-60 times aren't as close as you mentioned as the S2000 is 1.2s behind. As for the horse power and torque, the S2000 loses again in this category. I don't know what tests you're looking at but it seems to me that the M roadster wins this fight.

BTW, are you admin? If not, how are you at 5 stars with less than 100 posts?

[texan]

Well possibly in Canada the M Roadster has 315hp, but in America it's 240 and that's what I was going off of (I honestly thought it was 240hp for all of North America). Also, according to R&T's September 2000 comparo of the cars (Audi TT Roadster vs. Porsche Boxster S vs. Honda S2000 vs. BMW M Roadster), the S2000 recorded 0-60 blasts in 5.5 seconds, whereas the M Roadster did it in 5.4 seconds. The quater mile run was dispatched in 14.0 seconds @ 99.5 mph in the M, while the S2000 did it in 14.1 @ 99.6. In other words, the cars are virtually dead even if you can launch them both equally well (admittedly a harder task in the S2000). Meanwhile the S2000 did the 700 ft. slalom at 65.9 mph, while the M could only muster a 63.0 effort (worst of all the cars tested). The S2000 also bested every car in the comparo with a 56.80 second run around the Buttonwillow Raceway, while the M was only capable of a third place 57.72 second run. Running nearly a second faster on a fast road course is not that easy, so it's obvious which car is quicker when driven by the same driver at 10/10ths. At any rate, I think both cars are worthy of a head's up comparo, and I think the S2000 is the clear winner whenyou are looking for the most performance for your dollar. Hell, let's see an M Roadster keep up with an S2000 after you spend that 10k you saved modifying the car!

Ps- Yeah, I'm a moderator, that's how I got the title and 5 stars . Peace!

[enzo@af]

Well, hp numbers depend on the year. The new (2001) model has 315 (same engine as in the @46 M3), but the slightly older models still only had the 240 (although slightly more scant in weight...giving it a .1 second edge in 0-60!).

As for the S2K getting a 0-60 that quick...I'm really surprised. I've never ever seen a time less than 6.0 seconds, most have been around 6.2ish, which would be about a full second more than the '98 M roadster and .9 seconds slower than the 2001 M.

But, I know the M has worse handling (lower lateral accel and not the perfect 50/50 weight distribution of the S2000). But, M for me

[BRABUS]

Hmmm...Perhaps in the comparison, the old M Roadster was put against the S2000. I was looking at the specs for the new 2001 M in which I thought it would beat the S2000. The 0-60 in 5.5 is impressive though. I wonder why it's such a big difference from my spec (I got that off carpoint). Any how, glad we figured that out.

BTW, can I be a mod?

[Heep]

overall...

4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. Honda S2000. You need to keep the engine above 7000 if you want a smile, thus drastically reducing gas mileage (like that matters when burning around), wearing your engine, and requiring constant shifting (which is fun, I just don't like HAVING to shift)

2. BMW M roadster. I don't like the clamshell hood. IMO, Beemers need the kidney grills either flat or going in at the bottom, not out. Performance wise, I'd take the BMW in a second. If this was M coupe, it would be so far ahead in my comparo that it would be...ahead.

1. Audi TT. But only if we're talking coupe, the roadster sucks. It has flawless looks to die for (IMO), and it has 200 lb-ft of torque flat from 2000 RPM straight to 5500RPM. Now that's an engine. Plus the interior is nicer than any other I've ever seen in my life.

performance...
4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. Audi TT. Even with that magnificent torque curve (plateau), it's a little mushy.

2. Honda S2000. Nice speed, but I also haven't seen any 0-60 times of less than 6.0 (stock). And you have to basically maintain redline to keep a smile on your face.

1. BMW M roadster. VROOM.

styling...
4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. BMW M roadster. I hate the clamshell hood, but I love the back, especially with the flared fenders and the new roll bars behind the headrests.

2. Honda S2000. Looks great from all angles, especially the back with the neato taillights and the big twin pipes. Looks good from the front because of the massively flared fenders and angled nose.

1. Audi TT (coupe only). A masterpiece of design.

[flylwsi]

road and track had a comparo

the boxster s won, s2k second, then m roadster, then the tt quattro...

[BRABUS]

Originally posted by flylwsi
road and track had a comparo

the boxster s won, s2k second, then m roadster, then the tt quattro...

It was perhaps the old M roadster. The new 2001 packs more punch than the old.

[enzo@af]

The "Battle of the Brands" Road and Track lists the S2000 with a 4.9 sec 0-60! Is that a typo?

In the back it gives it a 5.5 second rating. That still sounds too fast, but not so unbelievable.

[Heep]

yeah, I'd say that's a typo.

BTW, Enzo, is your friend with the 550 selling it? There is a titanium/bordeaux 550 with a Tubi exhaust for sale in duPont Registry, smoe guy named Bob selling it.