Frs vs s2000

[tpolonyi]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Test drive both. The S2000 is a fun car to drive. With the top down, I think it's more fun than the FR-S. Both cars sit low and handle well, but the S2000 has more power and has a retractable top. It's also reliable and gets decent gas mileage. Especially living in a dry climate like Arizona, it'd probably be a good choice.

Just be sure you're ready to deal with the hassles of owning a 2-seat convertible (highway noise, possibility of theft/slashed top, lack of interior and storage space). Also make sure you do your homework and find a well-maintained car.

Well said

[tpolonyi]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

Owned two S2000s and now the FR-S.
As mirrored, the S2000 is much more edgy and tail happy and much less forgiving. You don't drift the S2000 it just spins. To drive it fast you have to be a good driver.

It is faster and in many ways feels more hard core. But...
It's a convertible, if you have winters it sucks, it's also a tight fit, uncomfortable for daily driving if you actually put on more than 12k a year. No storage.

The FR-S feels more composed, easier to drive and is more comfortable to drive all the time. And in many ways, despite it being slower, I personally think out of the box it can be driven faster with much less skill. The S2000 to me would be a good weekend project car, not so much a daily driver.

completely agree:happy0180:

I have both now, 2008 GPW/red interior and 6M white FR-S

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by veuxx

Hello I am looking at buying a new car. I love the FRS but wondering if the 200hp is underwhelming? It seems like a used S2000 might be a better car overall. Is there anyone that has driven both that could give any comments?

Thanks

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2162

Have fun.

[Zaggeron]

Originally Posted by jadewbj

I pulled a quick search on autotrader for any S2000 with less than 15,000 miles and 24 was the cheapest was 25,000 unless you go to a 2002 or older car. That was in the entire US.

The 04 and up would be a minimum requirement since that is when they switched to the glass headlights, LED tails and the larger motor.

I mentioned "modest" miles. For a seven year old car -- there seem to be quite a few 2005s around -- 15k is very low mileage. 30-50K is modest for a car that old. I wouldn't always try to get the lowest mileage one you can find. Sometimes too few miles means you'll get age based maintenance at the same time as mileage based maintenance.

[Leonardo]

My S2000.

The S2000 = Pure car The S2000 feels more powerful.

FR-S = Compromise The FR-S is much bigger and gets better mpg.

Both are great cars. Cant really go Wrong with either.

I loved the S2000, nothing has been like the 9000 rpm vtec song. But for me and my wife, the FR-S is a more practical car.

[showbe]

Originally Posted by jadewbj

I pulled a quick search on autotrader for any S2000 with less than 15,000 miles and 24 was the cheapest was 25,000 unless you go to a 2002 or older car. That was in the entire US.

The 04 and up would be a minimum requirement since that is when they switched to the glass headlights, LED tails and the larger motor.

That is why you never search on autotrader lol...

S2ks are cheap as fuck compared to fr-s's youd have to be on crack to buy a used S2k for 30+ g's

[TouchMyHonda]

Stock for stock the s2000 would always win on a track, assuming you can take both to their limits. Frs is still a better deal and won't get stolen.

[raul]

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

I don't think the s2000 retails used for 37k. A quick check on my local Craigslist netted a dozen or so modest mileage examples around 5-7 years old for under 15K. Likely be at or around 25k for a 2008-9 model with low miles -- more for the CR.

You're missing what he's saying. A car originally priced at $37k NEW vs. a 25k NEW car will be very different. A used car is only as good as it's first owner. I would take a better chassis, real roof, warranty, new, slightly less horsepower car with more interior room.

[Zaggeron]

Originally Posted by RedRocket

Well the S2000 is a much more expensive car. Buying a used car that retails for Around $37,000 vs $25,000 HUGE difference.

Is the Honda S2000 more powerful? YES. Is it the better Deal? NO.

Originally Posted by raul

You're missing what he's saying. A car originally priced at $37k NEW vs. a 25k NEW car will be very different. A used car is only as good as it's first owner. I would take a better chassis, real roof, warranty, new, slightly less horsepower car with more interior room.

Well I won't be on the other side of that argument since I bought a BRZ and not a used s2k -- perhaps if I didn't already have a roadster I would argue the point, but I wasn't saying one was better than the other.

I was simply clarifying since it was pretty clear the car is not going for 37k now and the price it was when new while not irrelevant is not very useful without the information about what they are going for now.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by veuxx

Hello I am looking at buying a new car. I love the FRS but wondering if the 200hp is underwhelming? It seems like a used S2000 might be a better car overall. Is there anyone that has driven both that could give any comments?

Thanks

I can't comment on used vs. new (only ever got one car so far ), but as for power, I think if you drop 25k on a car and are also considering used (aka possible slight problems out of the box) then it's not too much of a stretch to do a little bolton/tune stuff, and the FA20 motor is looking pretty strong. When someone makes some slightly bigger cams for it, cams and tune should let you get very close to S2000 power, if you don't mind doing that.

E85 on pretty much stock motor is almost hitting S2000 power, but there's an extra unknown reliability factor there. Tunes leaning out the fuel mix already close the gap quite a bit and massively improves top end power, but without the extra bit of specific torque that E85 gives you'll need power at higher revs. Seeing how the rods are holding up to quite a bit of boost on a high compression engine, it seems like the slight rev limit increase that Visconti is using would probably not be an issue although there's obviously no long term reliability data for that as well.

Anyways, just a tune and exhaust closes most of the power gap already which you may want to consider. The torque is pretty strong from 5000 upwards as is, so I imagine cams (when they get made) wouldn't really sacrifice much, as you can land well over 5000 on most shifts. I don't know how well S2000s respond to similar mods, but seeing how it's got 168lb-ft of torque or something on the F20C it seems like there's not much room for improvement on the S2000 engines.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by RedRocket

Well the S2000 is a much more expensive car. Buying a used car that retails for Around $37,000 vs $25,000 HUGE difference.

Is the Honda S2000 more powerful? YES. Is it the better Deal? NO.

How is it not a better deal? The S2000's already suffered the majority of its depreciation, and late models haven't been depreciating. In fact, the car generally has been appreciating, which is highly unusual...


OP: I've put well over 100k miles on s2ks, so what exactly are you looking for? To answer your question, yes, 200hp does feel rather underwhelming. A lot of people look at specs on paper, and assume that the FRS's 200hp is "only" down 20% from a s2k, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Not only does a S2k rev higher, it's geared FAR more aggressively, and these two facts are rarely conveyed. When you combine more revs, more aggressive gearing, and more power, the difference in torque delivered to the wheels is quite significant. The S2k isn't exactly a quick straight-line car anymore, but it wont have any issue pulling from a stoplight.

To put it in perspective, a FRS would have trouble pulling from a current model minivan from a stop, but how many people buy a FRS to drag race?

[TheBoogieBot]

I have driven both cars and I went with a BRZ. My reasoning behind my choice was that the S2000 just wasn't comfortable at all for me. I'm 6'1 215lbs. I just couldn't comfortably fit in the car. Same with the 370z. I can sit in them but not comfortably at all. When I saw my BRZ on the showroom floor I thought "no way i'm I fitting in that little car". The roof line honestly comes up to my belly button. Surprisingly though it actually has more than enough room for me. I have plenty of headroom to fit a helmet, enough space to stretch my legs, and with the telescoping steering wheel my arms don't have to be fully extended to steer.

Next to my MKIV this is the most comfortable sports car I've ever driven.

Oh, and it gets 30mpg!

I say if all you care about is having the best track times maybe go with the S2K, but if you actually want to drive your car everyday... FRS/BRZ.

[RedRocket]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

How is it not a better deal? The S2000's already suffered the majority of its depreciation, and late models haven't been depreciating. In fact, the car generally has been appreciating, which is highly unusual...


OP: I've put well over 100k miles on s2ks, so what exactly are you looking for? To answer your question, yes, 200hp does feel rather underwhelming. A lot of people look at specs on paper, and assume that the FRS's 200hp is "only" down 20% from a s2k, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Not only does a S2k rev higher, it's geared FAR more aggressively, and these two facts are rarely conveyed. When you combine more revs, more aggressive gearing, and more power, the difference in torque delivered to the wheels is quite significant. The S2k isn't exactly a quick straight-line car anymore, but it wont have any issue pulling from a stoplight.

To put it in perspective, a FRS would have trouble pulling from a current model minivan from a stop, but how many people buy a FRS to drag race?

I just don't think its a deal. 40 more HP, but the car is 100lbs heavier. Out of warantee. Unless your finding one with under 30k miles for 18k miles. The FR-S proforms better on AutoX. S2000 are notoriously uncomfortable, and most people don't keep them for every day drivers. Oh and 10+mpg LESS then an FR-S/BRS.

This is from Motortrend

""It only has 200 horsepower!" you may be screaming. Yes, but it uses that power respectably, reaching 60 mph in 6.4 seconds. "That's slower than the FR-S!" Yes, but this might've been due to the low number on the odometer. "The Mustang's a second faster to the quarter mile! USA!" Yes, but that gap falls to 0.4 second on the figure eight. The secret? The Mustang spends more time in transitions, giving the BRZ precious catch-up time."

I think that shows HP isn't EVERYTHING. Mustang has 50% more HP, but what good did it do?

Think about this...
Take the S2000's 37,000 USD price tag and spend that on an FRS.

Supercharger, Exhaust, Tune, Tires, and tons of extra's and suddenly you have a car with almost the same HP as the Mustang at 50% of the weight.

I'm not saying you need to do that.. the car is WIN out of the box.

But Slap on a Tune, Exhaust, Pulley, Tires, and you've beat the Mustang in a road coarse, and the S2000, and almost anything else out there.

[IrishInIsengard]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

I don't care for convertibles and the S2000 gets significantly worse mileage than the BRZ/FR-S (18/25 vs 22/30). Also, the BRZ/FR-S is a brand new design whereas the S2000 was designed in the late 90's. Annd the fact that it has more equipment standard (well, at least the BRZ does) and a decent trunk with folding rear seats makes it that much sweeter. I do like the S2000 but comparing the two I'd take the BRZ/FR-S.

Well, the "significantly" worse mileage is a bad arguement. The average MPG of a S2000 by actual ownders is more like 24 MPG (driven pretty hard). It's still less than the BRZ/FRS, but I don't think it's wide enough to complain about. The S2000 is no RX-8. That said, my S2000 gets about 23-24 city, 28 highway with the top down.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/s2000

To the OP, I would probably get the BRZ/FRS if you're dailying the car. The S2000 is really tiring every day. Plus, the upgraded tech and back seat make it much more liveable.

I am trying to get my spouse to buy a BRZ/FRS, because they need to replace their daily very soon. I love the BRZ/FRS. If I was in the market for a sporty daily, it would be the twins. For me, the S2000 is my weekend car, which I feel is more of an appropriate niche for it. Therefore, I have to get the "practical" daily.