S2000 or BRZ, I want your personal opinions

[phenoyz]

Originally Posted by jrcoreymv

.... I'll take it for sure !!!!!
THATS ONE VERY - VERY - VERY NICE ap2!!!!

[thill]

It is an utter shame that Honda does not build cars like this anymore...

The latest Civic SI is an utter disappointment. When Honda was on their game (S2000) they really built a great car.

[zberch]

Having the FT86 be a success will give Honda more of incentive to make another roadster!

What year is the ap2? 2005 with traction control?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by zberch

Having the FT86 be a success will give Honda more of incentive to make another roadster!

What year is the ap2? 2005 with traction control?

Just like the wrx revived the alltrac and 323gtx

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by zberch

Having the FT86 be a success will give Honda more of incentive to make another roadster!

What year is the ap2? 2005 with traction control?

2006+ had VSA, 04-05 AP2s did not.

I prefer the 06+ cars once VSA is turned off for autocross and track use and leave it on for the street (absolutely no reason to turn it off on the street).

[CU2MIKE]

S2k...

[jrcoreymv]

Originally Posted by zberch

Having the FT86 be a success will give Honda more of incentive to make another roadster!

What year is the ap2? 2005 with traction control?

It's an 06, so it has VSA.

[Razz]

PM me, I'm looking for a good S2000

I would pick the Honda if you like the seats.

[rice_classic]

I DD'd an '02 AP1 for a couple years and my job was managing a territory which was the state of WA. I drove that thing ALL over the state. I absolutely loved it but it was kind of like that extremely hot girlfriend that's way out of your league, great in bed but kind of a pain in the ass to put up with. Although, unlike the actual girlfriend that was like that, I never stopped missing my S2000.

Let's think about the S2k's shortcoming's as a Daily Driver; Aka the "CONS List".


CONS:
1: Non adjustable steering wheel = Too tall? Tough!
2: Noisy cabin - well duh! It's a soft top but even with the hard top, still as noisy.
3: No storage room except for tiny trunk.
4: 30+mpg... Nope Sorry. You might see 30mpg on an all freeway trip while doing the speed limit and never using vtec... but this 2.0 4cyl doesn't deliver on mpg's. (Cuz they didn't make the 6th gear a cruising gear like they should have!)
5: Say it with me now: THEFT. Hope you like aftermarket seats and paranoia! What does one S2k owner say to another S2k owner?... "So how long did you have yours before the seats were stolen?"
6: City drive-ability. Driving it in traffic without any power below 4k rpms it was kind of a pain. This is kind of better with the 2.2L of the AP2
7: AP1's only had 2 speakers. Later AP2's had speakers in the head rest.
8: Most clubs hosting track days at local race tracks don't allow convertibles unless you hack up your car to install a roll bar.

PROS:
1: PURE driver's car. Just excellent
2: Top down in the summer time. I was really surprised at how often girls flashed me on the freeway when I had the top town. Strange... but a good strange I suppose.
3: 9k rpms and 240hp! Uh, yes please
4: It is pretty... real pretty and those seats! I'd love to put S2k seats in an FRS.


So my theory is this. The FRS only slightly sacrifices some PROS of the S2k while drastically reversing the CONS.

FRS:
1: Low paranoia level
2: Rear seats and room for stuff along with larger trunk
3: Great highway mileage
4: Quieter cabin
5: Adj steering wheel so people over 6' tall can enjoy it
6: More than 2 speakers
7: Excellent drive-ability in traffic
8: Track day compliant (and there's room for your helmet!)

CONS:
1: 40hp power reduction over S2k
2: No topless girls on the freeway. (AKA, not a convertible)

And that's about it. The seats are still great and the car is stunning.

It doesn't appear as if adding close to 40hp to the FRS is going to be difficult with bolt on's and a few dyno runs.

Unless you really really really want the convertible the FRS over the S2k is an ABSOLUTE no brainer if this is your DD.

[s2_slow]

The s2000 is one of the most honest, fun and tactile cars you will ever get behind the wheel of.. at any price. Ive owned an e36 m3, evo8, 2002 ap1 s200 and now a e92 m3 and I have to say the most fun car of the bunch was the s2000. Its nearly a perfect track car out of the box. (with the exception of cracking and snapping front rotors every track day or so) All you need is a set of decent tires, and pads and you can reliably track the car with no worries of mechanical breakdowns. I feel that its a great street car as well. It rides well even on stock suspension and it is just so much fun to drive on canyon roads/ on ramps. The best part of the car is the engine. While only making 240 hp, its got amazing character and as long as you keep it in the powerband it it amazingly quick on track.
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._2440556_n.jpg
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3506168_n.jpg

But please dont think im an s2k fan boy. I happen to think the frs is the best new car out right now with only 1 major issue. The engine is devoid of all character, and is utterly gutless. People may say honda engines are gutless as well but a 2.0 revving out to 9k has a certain appeal, not to mention the glorious induction sound. The 2.0 in the frs just lacks so much. If only toyota could have stayed true to its roots and developed their own 2.0 with individual throttle bodies and like an 8500rpm redline making even 220 hp this car would have been perfect from the factory.

Everything else about the frs is perfect imho. The steering wheel feels perfect to the touch and the steering feel is better than the s2000. The seats are far better than even the evo recaros, the grear shifter is amazingly precise with very positive shifts and the chassis balance is very aggressive in stock form. Honestly the car even looks fantastic.

I think the frs could have been better/faster than the s2000 if only toyota/yamaha could have made a decent engine for it. But still, for a new car its a great value and its a hard choice between the two unless you plan to track the car a ton, in that case the s2000 is the clear winner.

[s2_slow]

Originally Posted by Boxer 86

Well I just did a little R&D for you on the good old GT5

Setup specs:

Playseats Evolution GP seat and stand
Logitec G27 with mounted H gate shifter (everything bolted to the seat/stand)
26" 1080p (~5' from seating position)
Both cars ran with sports hard tires (comparable to a high-performance all season)
Manual, no driver Aids exc abs set to 1
Tire wear & fuel consumption on
Grip reduction @ track edge real
Mechanical damage high

Three laps for best time

I just sent the '06 S2000 and '12 86 GT around Spa-Franchorchamps and here is the result I came up with:

S2000- 1:55.678
86 GT- 1:59.241

Spa is a track that favors higher- horsepower cars and accordingly the S2k had about 40 more with ~1000 more rpm to play with. Off the bat, the car is quicker. The 86 GT is no slouch though, it will come out of corners with as much brunt. Now, the S2k was the harder car to drive fast. Why? For starters, it is a convertible so right away rigitity is sacrificed and the need for a stiffer suspension is critical. However, the suspension is so stiffly sprung, the car has some nasty oversteer habits. This is in the form of both off-throttle-snap-oversteer and initial turn-in oversteer after braking. The only time I encountered on-throttle oversteer is after a small-radius corner that usually involved second gear cornering. So in general the car has mixed-emotions with it's own suspension, ranging from stiff and precision cornering to dogging the rear out as if I meant to throw it out. The next problem with the Honda was the power band. If I was not in Vtec, the car was slow moving and slow accelerating. Now, this did not happen very often since the track was more of a high-speed high-rpm course, but there were times where I was waiting for the car to get moving again.

Now for the 86 GT: this car is pure joy. Yea the s2000 was fast, but I had to fight the car more than I just drove it. With the 86, I could drive the car flat out every corner. There were corners that I could balls out go through that in the s2k I had to be gentel in otherwise I would be fighting the car in oversteer. The 86 was 3.563 s slower around the whole course, but I never had a moment of 'oh shit'. I felt happy every corner and I would prefer the 86 over the s2000 on the track for that reason. In stock trim, obviously the s2000 is going to be faster. I'm pretty sure we could all have guessed that one off the bat. But since when has driving cars for the numbers ever really been the main goal of the experience?

If I were you, I would just take the BRZ, and love the new car for what it is. You will eventually get annoyed with certain apects of the s2000 that can be avoided with the BRZ. It happens to everyone. There are certain things I have to deal with at times in the FC, primarily if I ever want to take a third person along, it just simply cannot happen. Now the trade off is I have a ton of cargo space. But there are times that I wish for refinement and other things, and that is why when I have the money, it will be spent on getting a BRZ and making the FC into a track day special. I can love more comfortably every day with the BRZ than I could the FC, just as you will find with the S2k.

Now you can take this all for what it's worth, just being a video game, but aim a believer that you can feel real world results just from blasting around the track in a sim such as gran truismo, granted you have all the right gear. My gear is about mid-range compared to what I could be using, but the results are still great.

The "oh shit moments" are what makes driving on track fun. Dont get me wrong, a super neutral car will be fun as well but extracting every ounce of speed from an ultra responsive car is whats driving fast is all about. That being said you will find the frs drives more like the s2000 as its chassis is tuned for more neutral/oversteer where the subaru is tuned to be more mild. There is a great video that depicts this.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te7F-SPV8eg&feature=player_embedded"]ç*‘波サーã‚*ットアタックbyä¸*谷明彦 86/BRZ比較 - YouTube[/ame]
You can see how the subaru plows through turns and the frs has a far greater turn in and mid corner malleability, and oh yeah the frs was also faster.

[Boxer 86]

yea but that was on a small track. On a longer track the BRZ takes the cake. I forget what magazine it was but it was an ft86club feature and the BRZ outran the FRS bc it was more neutral.

[fatoni]

i love how all people ever talk about when the thing is compared to an actually fast car is how it is so much fun. then when compared with a car with similar performance the forum goes right back to "this is faster"

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by s2_slow

If only toyota could have stayed true to its roots and developed their own 2.0 with individual throttle bodies and like an 8500rpm redline making even 220 hp this car would have been perfect from the factory.

I like to think of this engine as coming from the factory de-tuned. Only 100hp/liter seems low by Japanese performance standards. They expected this car to modified. Remember the S2k had 9k rpms which is wonderful but it was GUTLESS under vtec (former AP1 owner). In fact it was that specific reason they switched to the 2.2 in 2004.

Originally Posted by s2_slow

I think the frs could have been better/faster than the s2000

It is, sort of. Do the math.

The s2000 MSRP'd for $32-33k and there were big markups at first. The real reason the S2000 is faster than the FRS is because 2 things and 2 things only. Tires and HP. If you put the OEM S2000 tires (Potenza S-03) on the FRS with identical staggered sizes as the s2k and added 40hp, do you think the FRS would be as fast as the S2k? I do, and those things can be done for a hell of a lot less than $33,000! Plus you get more storage room, more torque, more speakers, more passengers and better fuel economy; all with $$ left over.

So you see, it would have been easy for the FRS to be faster from the factory than the S2k, but then it wouldn't have MSRP'd at $24,900. So to make this car as fast as the s2k from the factory would have made it cost more (and there's lots of people who are happy with the 200hp) and thus they would have sold fewer cars to fewer people at the same margin.

Say it with me folks... Cost Benefit Analysis.

In this case, the consumer won.