S2000 vs. NSX

[Eskamoe]

This is a tough question. I would take the S2000 because the King of roadsters is totally my style. The question being asked is unfair though. S2000 vs. NSX? Miata vs. RX-7? MR2 Spyder vs. Supra? Boxster vs. Carrera GT? Come on! No one can deny that the Latter cars are as good as their companies get. There is not a damn thing wrong with the roadsters, but they just don't compare.

[hermunn123]

ya, it's not much of a comparison to me. even with the 60K miles on the NSX i would take that in a heartbeat. it has more hp, better torque, and mid-engined. it's one of the best handling cars made. the s2000 is definitely nice and awesome and all that, but it just doesnt compare, IMO

[Jay!]

Originally posted by hermunn123
ya, it's not much of a comparison to me. even with the 60K miles on the NSX i would take that in a heartbeat. it has more hp, better torque, and mid-engined. it's one of the best handling cars made. the s2000 is definitely nice and awesome and all that, but it just doesnt compare, IMO

Technically, the S2000 is mid-engined, too, since the block is behind the front axle. That's only if you want to get really picky, though. F20C should comment on the S2K's handling...

[hermunn123]

i'm sure the s2000 handles great with its 50/50 weight distribution, but the NSX has a lower polar moment of inertia(i'm pretty sure). <--- meaning it can accelerate faster, brake harder, and handle better. the s2000 just needs some more oomph in the low rpms. to be continued...

[F20C]

1991 NSX is not that much faster than S2000. This is a proven fact and no one seems to believe it. Honda made S2000 too close in performance to older model year NSX. Standard 0-60 mph for both car is in the high 5's. S2000 does have it's engine behind the front axle for better weight distrubution. I have extensive experience with 1991 NSX. The car sits much lowered to the ground against my. Which is great for center of gravity. Faster reaction time for acceleration and braking like someone mention before. But make no mistake NSX is rear weight biased because of mid engine setup. A 50/50 weight balanced gives neutral handling. S2000 goes right where you want it to go. The tail is easy to spin around in the rain if you are not careful.

[F20C]

One more thing to add. S2000 feels much stronger built because of the high x frame.

[Racer 20]

Hey ya'll. I test drove teh S2000 recently. And I would still stay with the NSX. For a number of reasons but there is a few...

1. It just has more torque... When you see an opening on the highway you'll be there in a matter of seconds... With the S2000, you actually "need" the VTEC to get in between the traffic... With the NSX, you really don't need the VTEC unless you have a need for speed.

2. The NSX feels safer.

3. It just looks a lot better

[F20C]

There is a lot of safety feature implented into the S2000 design. Without VTEC engaging you still pass the speed limit fast.

[Racer 20]

Ya......





















But I'd rather have an NSX

[F20C]

Make no mistake 1991 NSX is still very interesting car. I would pick exotic NSX over sportscar S2000 had I not been looking for a convertible.

[Porsche]

I don't know about this year difference, this could branch off into many other things like 1986 Hyundai POony vs: 1983 Honda Civic each with 300,000 miles on them, I'd go with the NSX, though I mean it's an NSX, NSX man!

[MclarenF1]

I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:

[Chris]

About the S2000
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.

At last, someone else who read the article

[F20C]

Originally posted by MclarenF1
I remember reading about the 11 second 1/4 mile time for the S2000. It was in Car and Driver. They claim that when the car is accelerated full throttle and then shifted at 6000 rpm, immediately before the Vtec system cuts in, it does indeed take about 11 seconds. Bitch and complain all you want, but that's what they said. I just wish I knew which issue the article was in. I think it was sometime last spring.
Whatever the case, I personally would take the NSX; I've driven low dispacement Hondas for far too long and am tired of revving the bejeezuz out of them to make them go fast. I would prefer some torque, please.
:smoker:

Yes I have seen that magazine as well. I thought it was Motor Trend though. But did you know the car they test was a pre-production model? In real life it takes about 9 seconds if you shift before 6000RPM.

HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.

You can't compare a Civic to S2000/NSX. They are two different machines that behave totally different. I have driven both and I don't find NSX to be that much torquey than S2000. The torque is counterbalance by the extra weight.

Also most japanese cars require downshifting to stay in the sweet zone. If you don't like keeping the rev high why the heck are you driving a Honda? You might as well go drive a TRUCK engine. Driving at 9000RPM is the most joy I have ever enjoy out of a car so far. The car sounds like a Motorbike at the engine speed.

[GTS-4 Ben]

Originally posted by F20C

HP makes the car go fast. Torque make the driver feel fast.

Are you smoking crack?

Torque is all there is to a cars speed. HP is a mark purly made by Torque.. If you have No Torque... you arn't going far.

HP Sells engines (to idiots) Torque wins races.... (quote you were looking for.. I hope)


I would take the S2000. It is worth more money. So I would sell it and get something alse

I don't rate the older NSX. After driving one.. I wasn't that impressed. Although I have not driven a S2000 I would have it as it is newer..