S2000 vs. STi

[DinanM3_S2]

Originally Posted by Mtang36

Convertables have really bad handling.

1). Lotus Elise
2). Caterham
3). Vauxhall VX 220
4). MazdaSpeed Miata
All of those cars are convertables that outhandle hardtops that cost much more then they do. To simply say that convertables have really bad handling is sadly mistaken.

The STi isnt known as exactly "godly" in the handling department either. Everyone I know whose drivin this car remarks that theres at least a little understeer.

The S2000 has "Crisp responses, world-class gearbox" (Car & Driver). And from experience, I know that the S2000 has one of the finest transmissions of any car under say... $70,000-$80,000 (BMW as an exception of course ).

[aznxthuggie]

i think these are 2 different cars made for 2 different reasons, i agree with that one admin in making better comparisons, but then again all the good comparisons have been overkilled, for example

evo vs sti
celica vs rsx
celica vs tiburon
rsx vs tiburon
supra vs skyline
evo vs corvette
etc etc

[Mtang36]

Dinan M3 S2, you're right. The cars you've mentioned have good handling. 50/50 on the miata, and the rest are known for performance. But it would have been a better car if they weren't convertables. If you don't believe me, try searching for a top gear episode on convertables and their downside. Top gear's mentioned it, evo magazine has mentioned it, hot4s mentioned it, even discovery has mentioned it. It's a proven fact. That's why ferrari took that long to come up with the spider. I'm not trying to put you down or anything. But...er... try searching on the net on convertables.

[Mtang36]

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/convertible1.htm

[Mtang36]

"All convertibles shake and shimmy on bumpy roads. Some - like Volvo's C70 and the Saab 9-3 - also do it on smooth roads. It's an inevitable consequence of a roofless structure with compromised twisting and bending characteristics."
Taken from MyNRMA car reviews.

[crayzayjay]

Hardtops will always handle better than the equivalent soft-top. Fact of life.

That's not to say there aren't any good-handling convertibles

[Jimster]

Originally Posted by Mtang36

"All convertibles shake and shimmy on bumpy roads. Some - like Volvo's C70 and the Saab 9-3 - also do it on smooth roads. It's an inevitable consequence of a roofless structure with compromised twisting and bending characteristics."
Taken from MyNRMA car reviews.

That's true, if the convertible is badly engineered, such as the C70 and previous 9-3 (It was a Vectra though, so no surprises)


But some such as the Boxster, Z4, S2000 and Elise you don't notice a lot of flex, which is good.

[Mtang36]

Yah.. come to think of it... there are actually fun convertibles to drive. The Z4's a nice ride. Power wise and playfulness. The Boxster as well. You only feel the twitchiness at high speed open hairpins. So you're right to say that crazayjay, and good picks Jimster! Though i personally feel that the S2000 is most uncomfortable among the group.

[crayzayjay]

The S2000 is a pretty tight fit, that's for sure. And at 6'0, im not exactly a giant...

[Mtang36]

... i'm not too big myself. Average i would say. But i was referring to its behaviour actually. I'm always not very comfortable pushing it to its limits. Have you guys driven an Evo Mr before? My... push it all you want, it smiles back at you. If you ever see one, beg the guy for a test drive, steal if he refuses.

[finally_retired]

You can't group all cabrio's together like this. Some handle brilliantly, some really dont. It depends on the structure of the car. There is no diferance bettween Elise and Exige, And I never noticed a difference bettween M roadster and M coupe. BMW's 3 series cabrio, isn't perfect, but as far as big 4 seater cabrios go, its the best I've ever driven.

The S2000. I don't really think that you can say that that car dosn't handle, or perfom. Its a good all rounder, and with the roof up, I scarsely notice its a rag top.

[kfoote]

Originally Posted by Mtang36

...The cars you've mentioned have good handling. 50/50 on the miata, and the rest are known for performance. But it would have been a better car if they weren't convertables. If you don't believe me, try searching for a top gear episode on convertables and their downside. Top gear's mentioned it, evo magazine has mentioned it, hot4s mentioned it, even discovery has mentioned it. It's a proven fact. That's why ferrari took that long to come up with the spider. I'm not trying to put you down or anything. But...er... try searching on the net on convertables.

Of all the Miatas I have ever corner weighted (10+), none has ever had a 50/50 weight balance. It's usually about 54% front weight, and if you try to set up the car on corner weights, it usually doesn't handle very well. The Miatas are much more sensitive to ride height and alignment than corner weights.

Note that tha vast majority of the good handling convertibles are designed as convertibles from the start, and most are two seaters. The Miata has a structural reinforcement that goes behind the dash to help redice chassis flex, and the structure of the rear package tray is designed for inctreased rigidity. I imagine the S2000, Z3, Z4, Boxster, and Lotus Elise all have similar design structures built in. This extra rigidity makes up for the lack of a roof. If you think that performance hard topped vehicles don't have much chassis flex, try this experiment:

Find an E36 BMW (318, 325, 328, M3, it doesn't really matter which one)
Measure the height from the side skirt to the ground in 3 places: just in front of the rear wheel, in the middle, and just behind the front wheel
Jack the car up at the middle measurement point and repeat all 3 measurements.

The changes in the front and rear points relative to the center will show how much chassis flex these cars really have.

[TatII]

the S2000 has an extremely stiff chassis, hard top or not. my friend owns one, and they are waaaaay more solid then my 240. also if you notice when you sit in the passenger seat, it has parts of the frame rails and re enforcement braces protruding into the passenger side of the tranny tunnel into the floor board. this bad boy is stiff as fuck. that is why the freaking thing weights over 2800lbs for a car that size. all of the weight went into the chassis.

my pick though, is still an STi. maybe its our skill level, but we can drive the STI wwaaaaaaaay faster then we can drive the S2000.

[Kurtdg19]

Mtang36, I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude, but I knew you would of been called out on your thoughts. There are very many knowledgable people that post here, and everybody knows how capable the S2000 is. I haven't had an actual experience behind the wheel of the S2000, but when I get the chance, i'll let you know how it went (they are very very rare where I live). According to many credible sources, the S2000 seems to be anything other than a letdown of any sort. It is a very highly respect car. Of coarse this goes to say that its not for everybody, and maybe its just not your cup of tea.

[Mtang36]

No worries Kurtdg19. Maybe i've been driving too many awd turbos.... MY.... i've turned into a rally freak! But anyhow, yah, let me know of interesting adventures in your s2000! I might start liking it altogether!!
kfoote- sorry bout my mistake 50/50... it was a round of figure. Mazda speed 2005 miata turbo 1.8. you're right.. prob about 54 in the front. Finally... a miata that stands out! U like miatas? And my... you're a detailed person! Judging by your experiments and stuff.