Frs vs s2000

[enigma]

I've owned 3 S2000s, have driven a couple FR-S's, have nearly pulled the trigger on buying an FR-S, and am now currently trying to sell my Z4M in order to either get back into an S2000 or into an FR-S.

Granted I have very limited seat time in the FR-S, but as far as I can see it's simple.

FR-S: Perfect compromise car. Fun to drive, handles well, accessible limits. Excellent daily driver that doubles as a track car for the weekend.

S2000: Perfect weekend toy. Amazing engine, a little tricky to drive, but very rewarding when you get it right. Excellent track car that can double as a daily driver if you're willing to put up with the fact that it's a little cramped and annoying.

[fatoni]

the gas mileage might not even be that different. those prius tires were put on a prius for a reason

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by vang

8. True, but with your reasoning, one could argue that a FWD pig is a more balanced car because it's more forgiving. Does anyone even KNOW what it means to be "balanced" or is everyone just repeating what everyone else said? lol

I can't recall ever having heard an actual definition of the term as used in this context, but I've always understood it to mean something along the lines of (a) good front/rear weight balance, (b) neither massive under- nor oversteer, (c) moderate if not minimal body roll, (d) has enough power to be fun but not so much that the tires are forever losing traction, etc

Originally Posted by enigma

have nearly pulled the trigger on buying an FR-S, and am now currently trying to sell my Z4M in order to either get back into an S2000 or into an FR-S.

Haha me too except mine's a 2.8l E36/8. Also contemplating selling the (Z3) M roadster, but parting with that car will be a little tougher lol.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

the gas mileage might not even be that different. those prius tires were put on a prius for a reason

30%? more revs and crappy aero on the highway makes a difference for sure, but around town there shouldn't be much of a difference between the 2. When you have a small displacement engine and you have shit mpg, the blame lies mostly on the driver.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

30%? more revs and crappy aero on the highway makes a difference for sure, but around town there shouldn't be much of a difference between the 2. When you have a small displacement engine and you have shit mpg, the blame lies mostly on the driver.

Indeed. I averaged 25 MPG in all of my S2000s, with a best of 30 MPG. Looks to be about 3 MPG (avg) less than what most FR-S owners are reporting on Fuelly.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

30%? more revs and crappy aero on the highway makes a difference for sure, but around town there shouldn't be much of a difference between the 2. When you have a small displacement engine and you have shit mpg, the blame lies mostly on the driver.

maybe, i dont know. this forum is all about how much grip can be had by changing the tires. all that grip cost power and power cost fuel. the tire is going to affect the fuel consumption regardless of speeds because its a function of mechanical grip. i would be interested to put those tires on an s2k and see what happens but more than likely we will see reports from the forum after a tire swap on the matter

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

maybe, i dont know. this forum is all about how much grip can be had by changing the tires. all that grip cost power and power cost fuel. the tire is going to affect the fuel consumption regardless of speeds because its a function of mechanical grip. i would be interested to put those tires on an s2k and see what happens but more than likely we will see reports from the forum after a tire swap on the matter

Well, look at it like this. LRR tires are typically about 0.008 rolling resistance (tested) and I think that's what these Michelins are at. There's not much data out there on these numbers but some article says most tires are reported to be withing the range 0.007-0.014. So figure the worst fuel economy tire you can put on doubles your rolling resistance.

Without going into an analysis of energy usage, going from LRR to some of the worst hysteresis rubber out there shouldn't hurt fuel economy more than 10% on any car. My car wears high performance rubber and I cannot feel it losing speed when it's coasting at low speeds.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Well, look at it like this. LRR tires are typically about 0.008 rolling resistance (tested) and I think that's what these Michelins are at. There's not much data out there on these numbers but some article says most tires are reported to be withing the range 0.007-0.014. So figure the worst fuel economy tire you can put on doubles your rolling resistance.

Without going into an analysis of energy usage, going from LRR to some of the worst hysteresis rubber out there shouldn't hurt fuel economy more than 10% on any car. My car wears high performance rubber and I cannot feel it losing speed when it's coasting at low speeds.

im not saying i believe that the tires account for a 30 percent change in fuel consumption. im just saying that i dont know how much of a factor that it is. it is probably enough to make a significant difference. i just dont think its fair to use gas mileage as a plus for the frs if we dont count the lack of grip as a disadvantage. the way the argument gets dissected, people are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im not saying i believe that the tires account for a 30 percent change in fuel consumption. im just saying that i dont know how much of a factor that it is. it is probably enough to make a significant difference. i just dont think its fair to use gas mileage as a plus for the frs if we dont count the lack of grip as a disadvantage. the way the argument gets dissected, people are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Oh definitely. There's a lot of tires out there and I'm sure there's something that is grippier by a bit but doesn't really hurt fuel economy much, but it might be noisier too and people are talking about how the twins are more comfortable than the S2000, and that advantage would get cut down from a change of tires pretty easily. It's all a compromise afterall.

[Speed2th]

Originally Posted by vang

1. True
2. Sans direct injection and VVT, I cannot think of any notable "technologically-advanced" features that make the Toyobaru far superior.
3. True, due to newer safety standards
4. Cannot say yet. The Toyobaru hasn't been out long enough. The S2000 came equipped with an engine immobilizer so the most common issue is vandalism (cutting the soft top and stealing seats).
5. True. The cup holder in the S2000 is in a HORRIBLE position!!! An engineering afterthought.
6. F20C/F22C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FA20. 'nuff said.
7. True.
8. True, but with your reasoning, one could argue that a FWD pig is a more balanced car because it's more forgiving. Does anyone even KNOW what it means to be "balanced" or is everyone just repeating what everyone else said? lol

Keep it simple, the Toyobura is more forgiving than the S2000 at the limit.

2. 12 years, the technology and engineer had improved a lot. Although i do not know all detail of what is more advance. I think the low and posterior engine placement is the most challenge design - no other production cars can even touch the spot. structure engineering is also great that it is light weight and rigid. (as recently it has excellent crash result).
4. from what i observed, only cars that can share parts with other lower end cars get stolen A LOT more. i.e = integra, s2k, rsx, escalate, civic si...etc.
6. i agreed F20C/ F22C are great engines. I said boxer engine is sexy is completely subjective. it just like some people think rotary engine are hot (IMO it is the most unreliable engine design ever). or some people think single speed bike are hot.
8. forgiving is not necessary means balance. sorry for misleading it was suppose to be two separate sentence. as last sentence ("FRS is a more balance car") suppose to be my closing conclusion.

To elaborate my conclusion, I mean to say FRS is a more balanced car that is fun to drive, practical, fairly comfortable, safe, and economical. S2k is an excellent car but I cannot daily that car.

[CSG Mike]

The s2k shares almost no parts with other Honda cars. Unless you count brake pads with the Civic Si. S2k parts are only stolen to be put on other S2ks.

[vang]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

The s2k shares almost no parts with other Honda cars. Unless you count brake pads with the Civic Si. S2k parts are only stolen to be put on other S2ks.

Quoted for truth.

[Speed2th]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

The s2k shares almost no parts with other Honda cars. Unless you count brake pads with the Civic Si. S2k parts are only stolen to be put on other S2ks.

the seat and steering wheel are hot. seats and steering bolts onto every honda. the projectors are nice for retro fit.

edit: i forgot to mention cluster, brakes are also upgrades to other hondas as well ie. http://forums.g2ic.com/showthread.ph...-brake-upgrade. they love your shift knob too! and the wheels! I had a set of oem AP1 wheels (all front) on my BB6 prelude that i brought off from someone who had integra 5 lug conversion)

[CSG Mike]

^ You must be reading forum posts that are 5-10 years old. Those aren't the items s2k thefts target nowadays...

Do you own a s2k?

Used clusters can be found for dirt cheap, under $50.
Shift knobs... $20
AP1 wheels... full set for $200 Even includes a pair of rears!

Did you know s2ks upgrade to accord brake calipers?