Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus
Parking a S2000 next to a MR2 certainly gives that impression. Especially being 600lbs lighter w/ more legroom and the engine behind your head.
|
Well, the two MR2's (1st gen and 3rd gen) that are smaller than the S2000, are certainly a lot uglier...
My only point was that the S2000 is a lot more svelte looking than the FR-S, if car "fatness" bothers you.
Quote:
|
That's why I said for a roadster. The 86 is a GT coupe and makes the rest of the class out there look like SUVs.
|
That am true!
Quote:
|
Personally I could give a rat's ass about stock power. You can make power in any car, that's the least on my worries when buying a car unless I'm not a wrench turner.
|
You brought up torque, I just pointed out that the 2.0 s2000 has as much as the FR-S, and the 2.2 has more. The FR-S has more low-end and midrange.
Quote:
|
Never said the S2000 is a bad car. I just dispute that it is a "better car in all respects" to the 86 which cost 35% less brand new. How much more love would the 86 get by 'enthusiasts' if it came w/ sticky 255 rubber in the back like the S2000 CR?
|
Personally, I think 215s all around was a good choice for stock rubber. It's the tire make/model they got wrong, not the size.
Quote:
|
Plus which S2000 are we talking about? The $35K 2900lb model or the $38k CR at 2750lb.
|
Never saw a tested weight as high as 2900. Non-CR AP2 weighed ~2850. I already mentioned that the '00/'01 also weighed ~2750 lb just like the CR, you don't have to spend $$$ to get the lightest-weight S2000.