Frs vs s2000

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by regal

When you buy a 10 yo S2k you potentially get a complex double wishbone suspension with a bunch of dried-out bushings. They are difficult to replace without a press , I was quoted over $2k to rebuild the suspension with OE rubber that didn't include new struts and springs.

Double wishbones aren't that "complex". And anyway, my '01 is 13 years old, 155k miles, 25 track days, no issues with bushings. Shocks, either. It does go through rear bearings, though, with track usage...

Why would you buy one that *NEEDS* new bushings? Pre-purchase inspection... If it needs new bushings, offer less money taking that into account.

Of course you can get S2000s newer than 10 years old, if you don't mind paying more for the same performance.

Plus the hard tops are difficult and expensive to obtain.

You don't have to get one, many organizations don't recognize them as rollover protection in lieu of a roll bar anyway. But yeah, if you want/need a hardtop (which kinda kills the convertibility of it), that'll cost you a bit.

So low milage S2k $16k + rebuilt suspension $3k + hard top $3k = at least $22k for a car you need to pay for in cash. With interest rates low the FRS is just the better deal.

You don't have to spend anything like that for a good, reliable S2000. Find one that doesn't need a full suspension rebuild or do it yourself. $3k is high. Should be able to either pick a used S2000 that already has a hardtop, or you can get a used one for a lot less than $3k.

So for a daily driver I think the FRS is a better choice but in comparison to the S2k the FRS has a less desirable engine. I'd be more satisfied without the torque dip and the OE tune but those issues are fixable now.

Fixable for how much, or are any fixes applied to the FRS free? And you'd still have less power and inferior power/weight.

The other thing is the twins are selling world wide better than the S2k ever did, so likely we will see low replacement parts cost in a few years. These should be fairly easy on the budget dd's.

S2000 is very easy on the wallet to own/operate.

It's not for everyone, though. If you want a hardtop and 2+2 utility, FR-S, for sure is the way to go. If you want a 50/50 f/r roadster with ~20% more power, S2000.

[regal]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You don't have to spend anything like that for a good, reliable S2000. Find one that doesn't need a full suspension rebuild or do it yourself. $3k is high. Should be able to either pick a used S2000 that already has a hardtop, or you can get a used one for a lot less than $3k.

.

Around here they end up in used car dealers hands with a high mark-up. I guess our used car market in SE PA is screwed up because of the yearly required inspections. They take one look at any double wishbone Honda and fail them for bushing. Basically any car with over 100k miles is going to be scrutinized, but Hondas especially.

The S2k owners who sell are typically ones who failed inspection and then they can only sell to a dealer who magically has the certification to pass inspection.

Buying used cars around here is a PITA and buying one from out of state is almost impossible unless you are good friends with an inspector. Its a racket.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by ZDan

No way a driver over 5'2" is passing the broomstick test with the stock S2000 roll hoops. Many organizations don't recognize factory S2000/Boxster/MX-5 roll hoops anyway. First thing I did with my S2000 was to install a HardDog roll bar for track events.

Agreed. I'm 6'2" and the top of my helmet was a good 3"+ above the roll hoops. My helmet did still clear the soft top when up, thankfully.

[autobrz]

Originally Posted by regal

They take one look at any double wishbone Honda and fail them for bushing.

wtf...

so the owners rather sell the car than press in some new bushings... go figure...

[iceman666]

I would disagree with respect to the roll hoop height. I am 5' 11" and have no issues will helmet / roll hoop height.

Also, I have had my 2001 since November 00', used it for numerous track events and have not had any suspension issues.

I also agree with ZDan's comments above. The FR-S / BRZ is a great car if you need or want a hardtop / the storage space of rear seats.

However, the S2K (even used) is a better car in all respects.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by iceman666

I would disagree with respect to the roll hoop height. I am 5' 11" and have no issues will helmet / roll hoop height.

Stock seat at stock height? If so, you must have ridiculoulsly long legs and short torso!. I'll need a picture before I'll believe it.

This guy is 5'7", *barely* passes the broomstick test with an aftermarket bar that is at least 3" higher than the plastic covering the factory hoops.


If the group you run with is leniant, that's great, but anyone reading this who wants to do track events in an S2000 should know that you might need an aftermarket roll bar. Some sanctioning bodies require it as a matter of course, regardless of whether you might pass "broomstick test" with the factory hoops.

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by iceman666

However, the S2K (even used) is a better car in all respects.

Except CoG, Chassis rigidity, track width, range, mileage, torque, weight. Apart from weight distribution and double wishbones, any other complaints about the 86 can be fixed or improved relative to the S2000.

Don't forget, the S2000 cost around $40K in 2000 while the 86 is around $25K in 2013. Far superior accessibility and price performance ratio. When it was new I personally found it rather fat and overpriced for a roadster.

I'm not into comparing used versus new cars myself. If you want to compared used cars, why stop at Honda? Porsche and others have used cars too. The S2000 isn't the Holy Grail or anything.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Stock seat at stock height? If so, you must have ridiculoulsly long legs and short torso!. I'll need a picture before I'll believe it.

This guy is 5'7", *barely* passes the broomstick test with an aftermarket bar that is at least 3" higher than the plastic covering the factory hoops.

If the group you run with is leniant, that's great, but anyone reading this who wants to do track events in an S2000 should know that you might need an aftermarket roll bar. Some sanctioning bodies require it as a matter of course, regardless of whether you might pass "broomstick test" with the factory hoops.

This was my impression as well. Otherwise I probably would have gone with a used S2000 to begin with, as it's significantly cheaper.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Except CoG, Chassis rigidity, track width, range, mileage, torque, weight. Apart from weight distribution and double wishbones, any other complaints about the 86 can be fixed or improved relative to the S2000.

The lack of wishbones all around isn't as disappointing to me as the abysmal camber up front. You can get about -1.5 front and -2.2 rear on a stock s2000. And the 54/46 weight distribution is also quite a disappointment. Very Mustangesque Consider that the S2000 puts a good 10% more of its weight on its drive wheels, that's pretty significant.

For what it's worth, the difference in c.g. height is about 1/2". Not a huge deal. Chassis rigidity is of course sacrificed as the S is a convertible, but it's still respectable at ~22,000 N-m/degree. Range: I get 350+ miles per tank on the highway in the S, not bad. Mileage, I get 30 hwy, 25 combined city/hwy.

Regarding torque, the FR-S doesn't make more of it (it makes less than the 2.2 S2000). It does make more at lower revs. But personally I'd be willing to sacrifice that for 20% more horsepower!

Regarding weight, the '00/'01 and the '08/'09 CR model weighed about what the FR-S/BRZ weigh: 2750 or so lb. The heaviest AP2s were 2840 lb.
I was also disappointed that the S2000's weight wasn't closer to the Miata, but it's not that bad relative to the twins.

Don't forget, the S2000 cost around $40K in 2000 while the 86 is around $25K in 2013.

Actually, the S2000 was never $40k, and it stickered for $35k in 2009, which was not all that long ago...

Far superior accessibility and price performance ratio. When it was new I personally found it rather fat and overpriced for a roadster.

Park an FR-S next to an S2000 and tell me which one looks more "Rubenesque"!

I'm not into comparing used versus new cars myself. If you want to compared used cars, why stop at Honda? Porsche and others have used cars too. The S2000 isn't the Holy Grail or anything.

No car is. Nothing on four wheels is sacred. I did prefer it to Boxsters I test drove based purely on the driving experience. Add in the fact that it's a *very* reliable car that doesn't cost an arm and leg to maintain and repair, and it's the OBVIOUS choice over a used Porsche or BMW or anything else in the category.

[ayau]

@ZDan,

You can get about -1.5 at the front with just the crash bolts too on the BRS/FRS. I'm actually having a hard time now finding cheap/lightweight wheels that won't rub the bottom of the spring perch.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ayau

@ZDan,
You can get about -1.5 at the front with just the crash bolts too on the BRS/FRS. I'm actually having a hard time now finding cheap/lightweight wheels that won't rub the bottom of the spring perch.

I thought I'd read of ~0 degrees stock and barely more than -.5degrees with the crash bolts. I'm sure it varies car to car. -1.5 stock height with crash bolts would be acceptable

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Park an FR-S next to an S2000 and tell me which one looks more "Rubenesque"!

Parking a S2000 next to a MR2 certainly gives that impression. Especially being 600lbs lighter w/ more legroom and the engine behind your head.

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.

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.

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?

Plus which S2000 are we talking about? The $35K 2900lb model or the $38k CR at 2750lb.

[ayau]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I thought I'd read of ~0 degrees stock and barely more than -.5degrees with the crash bolts. I'm sure it varies car to car. -1.5 stock height with crash bolts would be acceptable

It depends on how your alignment guy set the max camber. The first time I had it done, my alignment guy used a bottle jack and just pushed the studs inward. That got me about 1.2. The next time he used the weight of the car for leverage. He basically raised the car up, loosed the bolts at the front, placed a 2x4 on the outside edge of the tire, and lowered the car. The weight of the car and the wheel pushing towards against the 2x4 yielded the most negative camber. Currently I'm at 1.5 and 1.7 at the front.

It's actually a little frustrating now with this much negative camber at the front. I need to find wheels with an offset of at least +42 or lower, otherwise, the inner front tire will rub against the lower spring perch under compression. I think your standard RPF1 17x8 +45 track wheel will actually rub. I know that my 17x7.5 +50 definitely did.

[ayau]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Plus which S2000 are we talking about? The $35K 2900lb model or the $38k CR at 2750lb.

I don't think anyone actually bought the CR at sticker price. I think your average buyer was turned off by the large chin lip and massive rear wing.

IMO, the CR is more of a collector's car. Throw in some aero, wheels/tires, and suspension, and you're already faster than a CR. Actually, if you look at used CRs, they're way more expensive than your average base S2000.