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

[enzo@af]

The guy I know is named Duke, but that could be a nickname. Is it being sold from the San Diego area?

[Porsche]

WTF? The Porsche Boxster isn't ugly, the Aztek is ugly.

[Adam]

where did u get those figures? a little bit off..

6.2 seconds for S2k, and others are off...

[Heep]

Area code 303. Wherever that is.

[Bean Bandit]

As you guys have some problems with numbers I'll help you out The M Roadster has 321 hp. The 240 you found are the regular 3.0l Roadster(not an M). The stats for the Roadster go down to a 1.9l engine with 140hp. These are Europeans stats for a Europena car:bandit:

[flylwsi]

no offense, but we are mostly in the u.s. and your euro #s arent goin to do much here, except make us all jealous of the 60hp diff...
thanks though

[gang$tarr]

I have that road & track, and i'm positive it didn't say S2000 4.9s 0-60
because i clearly remember them sayin the M Roadster is the fastest of the bunch, they said the closest car to the M Roadster was the S2000 which was only .1s off

[Z06Lover]

Originally posted by gang$tarr
I have that road & track, and i'm positive it didn't say S2000 4.9s 0-60
because i clearly remember them sayin the M Roadster is the fastest of the bunch, they said the closest car to the M Roadster was the S2000 which was only .1s off

The accidently put the nsx's 0-60 numbers. If you check the nsx it is the same. The S2000 will run 0-60 in 5.5 if you get on it right, but if you don't ....it's more like a 7 sec car!!

[gang$tarr]

yeah but you could say that about any car, duh
that you have to get on it right

[enzo@af]

Of course you could say that about any car....but even more so with the S2000.

[Adam]

if ya look in the comment thingy page of RnT, they fix those errors

[TatII]

i also had another old CAR and Driver and they had the S2000's 0-60 in 5.8 second. the only car to top it was the M roadster at 5.5 seconds.

[Z06Lover]

both motor trend and road and track now have 0-60 as 5.3 secs for the S2000. Both magazines have issues with getting good 0-60 times because they didn't rev it to like 6.5k and dump it. The second time they tested the car they did just that.

[Euro19]

I strongly think the S2000 doesn´t compares to neither of these, aren´t we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so don´t be selfish that isn´t nice.
Anywise I´ll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

[texan]

Originally posted by Euro19
I strongly think the S2000 doesn´t compares to neither of these, aren´t we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so don´t be selfish that isn´t nice.
Anywise I´ll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

You MUST be kidding. Have you ever driven an SLK? What about an S2000? As far as which is the "driver's car" and which is the "wealthy old woman's car who wants to feel young again car", there's no arguing involved. The SLK is a poser, plain and simple. Sure they finally gave it some power with the V6 and even threw in a stick shift, but it's clear the car was never designed with real sporting intentions. The S2000 is spartan and cramped inside, it's simple and unimposing, and it's the definition of driving purity at it's core. The engine is a wonder (though admittedly low on torque), the brakes and suspension are beyond reproach, and the chassis is as stiff as roadsters get. And to top it off it costs less than 35k US, which is a serious performance bargain as far as roadsters go.

Choose the SLK if you like, but drive both on a hot road before posting here.