Irunelevens

I find it funny how somebody with a 12 year old Pontiac is talking about NVH problems and plastic interiors...

Nacho SS

iTrader: (4)

The first thought that pops into my mind....

Face it, BMW>Nissan. Anyday. Everyday.

Irunelevens

I agree, but if I were looking for a NEW SPORTS CAR in the $30-$35k range, it would be a 370Z all the way.

06 6.0 GTO

lol those are awfully specific limitations, but i would take the new SS over it, and if i could i would get a used M3 over it anyday as well

Irunelevens

Not really that specific... there are tons of people that like to buy new cars, but can't afford a $40k C6. Which would obviously be my first choice for anything less than a 911. So if you had $30k to spend, you could get a 370Z for that.

DiscerningZ32

I would like to point out that Nissan learned from their 350z mistake and the 370z actually brakes from 70 quicker than a base vette and no one has complained of excessive wear yet. Here are my
sources:http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...ch_wheels.html
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/.../2005perf.html

If you can find anything about the 370z having excessive brake wear, I'd like to read it.

If you're trying to say that an E46 M3 is quicker than a 370z in anyway then you are mistaken. Believe it or not, a stock 370z went around the Top Gear track quicker than an E46 M3 CSL. The 370z also has a better quickest lap time recorded on tsukuba for example.

As for comparing the engines, the BMW engine sounds considerably better. From what I've heard, the VQ37 doesn't have the same oil burning issues as the original VQ35. Also, the M3 engine has actually been recalled in the past for oil pump and connecting rod issues. Neither engine is perfect. I wouldn't want either honestly.

These cars are very different. The 370z was built with affordable track performance in mind. The M3 is a luxury sedan with above average track performance.

big hammer

if i were looking for a 370z then it would be nissan all the way. they make the best 370z out there.

Wesmanw02

iTrader: (4)

I find it funny how you include cars in the conversation that were not even mentioned. I was comparing Nissan to BMW. Didn't compare my interior to anything.

I also find it funny that someone who drives an S2000 can badmouth any car. I mean seriously, the S2000 is a car BRUNO would drive lol. Not to mention its an unbalanced 4 cylinder and the transmissions are horrible.

I like the Datsun version much better.

Irunelevens

Well I've had no problems with the engine being "unbalanced," and I don't really think a truly unbalanced motor could handle repeated trips to 9,000rpm. And as far as the transmission is concerned not only does my car have 91k miles of hard use with zero issues, but the feel of the gearbox is fantastic. And that's not just my opinion...

http://www.automobile.com/2008-honda...st-review.html

http://www.topgear.com/uk/honda/s2000

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...h-revving_hero


I really could care less if you like my car, because I love it. The difference is, I don't think it's perfect. Unlike you, because you seem to think that everything you like is infallible and things you don't like are the worst cars on the planet. You say the transmission is "horrible," but mine is still just fine.

DiscerningZ32

I think the S2000 is arguably one of the best FR convertible chassis'.
They are a forced to be reckoned with in time attack.

I just wish they had made a coupe version. And no, I don't count the snap on hard top.
I would just like a compact, strong, and light chassis coupe car...

Ke^in

I have no problems with the Honda. I just couldn't go from a GT that ran 11s, to a car that is slower than a NewEdge stock. I am sure it's a blast to drive though.

Irunelevens

The "11s" thing was from my old bike... my old Mustang was just a bolt-on car, 267rwhp/310rwtq. From my experience S2000s are dead even with New Edge GT 5spds, and even a bit stronger on topend.

06 6.0 GTO

I second that. From all the races i have seen S2ks were a slight bit faster then a new edge.

Wesmanw02

iTrader: (4)

Thats because the 2V 4.6's can't breath all that well on the top end.

The DOHC 4.6's (Mach 1) have excellent top end power, and will easily beat your S2K.

tspence45

iTrader: (30)

Like that's hard to do. lol. Hitting 4th gear in a 2v is like hitting a brick wall. 3rd gear isn't really very impressive either. 1st and 2nd gear kinda trick ya into thinking you've got something fast though. lol

Irunelevens

Yep... I'd even say my stock S2000 is nearly as fast as my bolt-on GT was up top.
Wow... good thing I didn't know that.
Oh definitely... 3rd gear is semi-useless, and 4th gear is all-but. If you haven't won by 5th gear, the race is over.

Ke^in

It's the sucky heads they came with. Change those, or add boost and your in the 350-450 range. Having said that, I have a stock GT and I have had 3 S200s try to race me. All 3 got beat. It was close however. In every place I've looked that tested it, got low 14s. 2 of the cars I beat were 02s and one was an 03. A car like the S2000 would be one of the most inconsistent cars I can think of on the track. Low torque, high hp motors with manual gear boxes and skinny tires aren't the best combo for consistent track times.

Wesmanw02

iTrader: (4)

Yea the heads and intake were the limiting factors. The 96-98 were the most pathetic, with only 215HP from the GT. At least the 99-04 "New Edge" models had the PI heads and intake, but they still only made 260HP due to the inherently poor airflow design of the top end of the motor. You're right though, aftermarket heads or boost can fix that issue.

And yes, S2K's are horrible drag cars with their gutless engines.

Irunelevens

Definitely hard to run consistent times... they aren't exactly meant to drag race.

Bones Z28

iTrader: (8)

That should be a quote lol, it is the truth tho.