Hi all,
I was driving in hanger lane when i saw this S2000 trying to race me so i put my foot down and sort of left him but that car seemd quite fast.
I am sure it was modified in some sort of way as S2000 bhp is around 230 i think.
Any experience with S2000?
My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
In California I drove my Uncle's S2000 and I'd say that they would beat a stock rev1/2 tubby, but would be extremely close to a rev3. S2000s are 240bhp as standard I believe - phenomenal for a 2.0l n/a
Lovely cars to be in and very enjoyable to drive. Thought the steering lacked feedback though.
Lovely cars to be in and very enjoyable to drive. Thought the steering lacked feedback though.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
Yep very nice cars
A friend of mine has one I thought the feedback was good compared to the MR2. Love the throttle response from an N/A too.
Straight line though a healthy rev3 should pull away slightly.
A friend of mine has one I thought the feedback was good compared to the MR2. Love the throttle response from an N/A too.
Straight line though a healthy rev3 should pull away slightly.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
I felt more confident about front-end grip with the S2000 (the MR2 skips about a bit - but that is half the fun), but I found little feedback through the steering wheel. At the limit there might well be, but in someone elses left hooker in a foreign country I wasn't going to be finding the limit!
No doubt, though, they are lovely cars and the engine is a peach - more enjoyable than the 3SGTE probably.
No doubt, though, they are lovely cars and the engine is a peach - more enjoyable than the 3SGTE probably.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
Yeah both MR2 and S2000 are good in there own way. the engine really is a peach in the honda and the dash is really cool.
I do love the low end torque of the tubby though.
I do love the low end torque of the tubby though.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
Yeah, interior as a whole is fantastic in the S2000, especially the seats.
Low down torque does mean that the tubby is fast under normal conditions. It would take a hell of a driver to keep an S2000 on the boil and in the Vtec zone on our roads.
Low down torque does mean that the tubby is fast under normal conditions. It would take a hell of a driver to keep an S2000 on the boil and in the Vtec zone on our roads.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
I like the sound of these S2000's. Might consider one if I ever sell my MR2. I don't think I'd be happy with an N/A after a turbo though, just love the kick and the dumping sound. Sounds like a rev 3 turbo should just have the edge then (in the dry at least).
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
Well yesterday was dry otherwise i would have span the wheels in 2nd and 3rd.
But i have to say that they sound so so good. Silent in low revs but awesome in high revs.
I also had Rogue fitting my Blitz MBC and am running about 1 bar so i am glad i had it fitted otherwise he would have had me.
But i have to say that they sound so so good. Silent in low revs but awesome in high revs.
I also had Rogue fitting my Blitz MBC and am running about 1 bar so i am glad i had it fitted otherwise he would have had me.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
unlikely to be modded. You have to spend serious money to get any gains from an NA as honda did all the tuning for you. Supercharged versions tend to have 350bhp+ and would have slaughtered you
Its not hard at all keeping a VTEC s2k on the boil on UK roads. You've got a 3000 rpm VTEC powerband to play with.
But yes, in a straight line a slightly modded rev3 will beat a S2k.
Its not hard at all keeping a VTEC s2k on the boil on UK roads. You've got a 3000 rpm VTEC powerband to play with.
But yes, in a straight line a slightly modded rev3 will beat a S2k.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
I agree with Lower
A stock S2k will be on a par with a stock rev2 turbo in a straight line. I remember beating a few s2k's in my old tweaked rev2.
The AP1 chassis does talk to you a bit more on the limit though. But that's the issue with the mid engine setup in an SW20.
A stock S2k will be on a par with a stock rev2 turbo in a straight line. I remember beating a few s2k's in my old tweaked rev2.
The AP1 chassis does talk to you a bit more on the limit though. But that's the issue with the mid engine setup in an SW20.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
In my opinion, its a little hard to make fair comparisons as the two are a generation apart in chassis technology at least. Although, i'm sure an MR2 with top notch suspension components, correctly set up would be just as satisfying! Engines are obviously different too. Having driven both, I regret to say the S2000 was the better car, and the noise!!!??? It should be recorded and released into the charts!!! .
Had they both been designed in the same era, the S2000 wouldn't have had the engine it has and the chassis would have been based on a Rover or something equally as xxxx.
In terms of value for money, tubby wins hands down!
Jimbo
Had they both been designed in the same era, the S2000 wouldn't have had the engine it has and the chassis would have been based on a Rover or something equally as xxxx.
In terms of value for money, tubby wins hands down!
Jimbo
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
VTEC scream is an awesome sound
I much prefer the mr2 styling to the s2000 though - i don't like long front ends..
I much prefer the mr2 styling to the s2000 though - i don't like long front ends..
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
teccyjim wrote:In my opinion, its a little hard to make fair comparisons as the two are a generation apart in chassis technology at least. Although, i'm sure an MR2 with top notch suspension components, correctly set up would be just as satisfying! Engines are obviously different too. Having driven both, I regret to say the S2000 was the better car, and the noise!!!??? It should be recorded and released into the charts!!! .
Had they both been designed in the same era, the S2000 wouldn't have had the engine it has and the chassis would have been based on a Rover or something equally as xxxx.
In terms of value for money, tubby wins hands down!
Jimbo
Regrettably have to agree that the S2000 is the better car (having driven both), but I didn't have £12K top spend, plus I'm not into convertibles. And yes the engine/exhaust noise is absolutely amazing - and it's a bloody 4 pot!
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
mattcambs wrote:teccyjim wrote:In my opinion, its a little hard to make fair comparisons as the two are a generation apart in chassis technology at least. Although, i'm sure an MR2 with top notch suspension components, correctly set up would be just as satisfying! Engines are obviously different too. Having driven both, I regret to say the S2000 was the better car, and the noise!!!??? It should be recorded and released into the charts!!! .
Had they both been designed in the same era, the S2000 wouldn't have had the engine it has and the chassis would have been based on a Rover or something equally as xxxx.
In terms of value for money, tubby wins hands down!
Jimbo
Regrettably have to agree that the S2000 is the better car (having driven both), but I didn't have £12K top spend, plus I'm not into convertibles. And yes the engine/exhaust noise is absolutely amazing - and it's a bloody 4 pot!
I love the s2000 but i just couldnt justify spending that much on it. My mildly modded rev2 tubby whups them!
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
mattcambs - you can get a hard top. I also hate convertibles. If only there was an F20C powered Mr2
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
mr2nut123 wrote:I love the s2000 but i just couldnt justify spending that much on it. My mildly modded rev2 tubby whups them!
I was in the same boat .. and then my MR2 blew a rad, heater matrix, drive shaft, gearbox and a few other bits, all in about 2 weeks.
I bought the Honda, and then bought a supercharger with the cash I sold the MR2 for.
The old MR2 doesn't stand a chance now. But I do miss her.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
If its mildy modded a rev2 won't 'whup' an S2k. Standard for standard an S2k is quicker in a straight line than a Rev2 Turbo. A small boost increase doesn't close the gap that much.
My old rev2 had the boost at 14psi and the s2k was slightly quicker.
Handling wise, standard for standard, the s2k is a better handling car. Faster through the corners, but it can be twitchy if you abuse it, much like an MR2. But then it should be better as its a decade later in design and has double wishbones all round.
£ for £ the MR2 is the faster straight line car though, if only because its a turbo and you can up the boost easily and relatively cheaply. Honda did all the tuning for you with the F20C and its 'very' expensive to get a significant return. You need to supercharge or turbo it to get it to make big power.
As per Mr Bibbings. What's you're s2k making now Ben?
My old rev2 had the boost at 14psi and the s2k was slightly quicker.
Handling wise, standard for standard, the s2k is a better handling car. Faster through the corners, but it can be twitchy if you abuse it, much like an MR2. But then it should be better as its a decade later in design and has double wishbones all round.
£ for £ the MR2 is the faster straight line car though, if only because its a turbo and you can up the boost easily and relatively cheaply. Honda did all the tuning for you with the F20C and its 'very' expensive to get a significant return. You need to supercharge or turbo it to get it to make big power.
As per Mr Bibbings. What's you're s2k making now Ben?
mr2nut123 wrote:mattcambs wrote:teccyjim wrote:In my opinion, its a little hard to make fair comparisons as the two are a generation apart in chassis technology at least. Although, i'm sure an MR2 with top notch suspension components, correctly set up would be just as satisfying! Engines are obviously different too. Having driven both, I regret to say the S2000 was the better car, and the noise!!!??? It should be recorded and released into the charts!!! .
Had they both been designed in the same era, the S2000 wouldn't have had the engine it has and the chassis would have been based on a Rover or something equally as xxxx.
In terms of value for money, tubby wins hands down!
Jimbo
Regrettably have to agree that the S2000 is the better car (having driven both), but I didn't have £12K top spend, plus I'm not into convertibles. And yes the engine/exhaust noise is absolutely amazing - and it's a bloody 4 pot!
I love the s2000 but i just couldnt justify spending that much on it. My mildly modded rev2 tubby whups them!
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
lower wrote:You need to supercharge or turbo it to get it to make big power.
As per Mr Bibbings. What's you're s2k making now Ben?
My old rev2 would pull from s2k's on the straight. The higher the speed the easier it got too.
My S2000 is only 375bhp .. it's one of the lowest HP, boosted, UK S2000's.
But it still scares the hell out of me
Need to do a few bits to tidy the car up, and then I'll aim for 425bhp .. (pulley, belt and re-map).
My first goal was over 300whp.
Then aiming for over 300bhp/tonne (and at 1250kg I'm there, but need to find a weigh bridge).
then it'll be 400bhp ..
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
And for me, straight line blats on the road are all I tend to do. No risk of arriving on the forum with a post saying "oil on the roads, OMG it just spun for no reason" and ending up in tears with broken bones. I stick to tracks for the corners and only tend to go for for it in a straight line on the roads. At the end of the day, there's other peoples lives at risk on the roads not just mine.
When I said mine whups it, I mean past 80mph it's a piece of p1$$ to pull away from an s2k and when you start getting into high end triple figures it's not even worth playing with them but the supercharger kit sounds good I have to say.
But then again...spend that dosh on a tubby and you'll be over 400bhp laughing all the way past it again.
Dont get me wrong, the s2k looks fantastic but for looks/cost the MR2 wins hands down every time.
When I said mine whups it, I mean past 80mph it's a piece of p1$$ to pull away from an s2k and when you start getting into high end triple figures it's not even worth playing with them but the supercharger kit sounds good I have to say.
But then again...spend that dosh on a tubby and you'll be over 400bhp laughing all the way past it again.
Dont get me wrong, the s2k looks fantastic but for looks/cost the MR2 wins hands down every time.
Re: My rev 3 turbo vs S2000
The cost is defo a different league.
But then the MR2 has 10 years on the S2000.
But you could spend £100 on a Calibra and claim it's better bang for buck than the MR2 (you'd be retarded to, but you could).
For the price I sold my rev2 Turbo for .. it didn't even cover the superchager, ancillories and tuning.
My car is a fraction of the price of a GT3 RS, but it's quicker in a straight line. Does that make mine a better car?
But then the MR2 has 10 years on the S2000.
But you could spend £100 on a Calibra and claim it's better bang for buck than the MR2 (you'd be retarded to, but you could).
For the price I sold my rev2 Turbo for .. it didn't even cover the superchager, ancillories and tuning.
My car is a fraction of the price of a GT3 RS, but it's quicker in a straight line. Does that make mine a better car?