Rep Power: 0

Not too bad, rather have this than S2000.
I like the new look as well.

Here

Matt

 
Rep Power: 0

for what they're hyped up to be, s2ks are relatively slow

 
Rep Power: 424

HELL YES! A better looking VW R32... Same engine, same AWD, but now in a much more attractive (and expensive) package. I'll take 2! That tranny sounds nuts... Instant shifting, Sweet!

 
Rep Power: 0

I'd still rather have a new Infiniti G35 Sports Coupe though [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]. Just wish it had AWD [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/IMG]

Matt

 
Rep Power: 399

That's a pretty ignorant statement to make.

Tell you what, let's play a game.

Name as many cars as you can that are roadsters and are FASTER than the S2k for the same price or less in stock form. (S2k costs $32,400)

Then you can tell me how "slow" the S2k is.

 
Rep Power: 0

that transmission is the shizznit

 
Rep Power: 0

nah, I think there's some truth to what BlackSI said.
The hype around S2k was huge, Honda's spin doctors kept it rolling and spinning.

as far as a roadster faster than S2K for the same or less price in stock form, there's none in US at the moment, but fly overseas to Europe, there is Lotus Elise, Vauxhall VX220, Ariel Atoms, Westfields, and some versions of Caterham 7s[R500 boasts mid 3sec 0-60]..

 
Rep Power: 0

New transmission, fancy name = still just another automatic transmission

 
Rep Power: 0

S2000man, don't get offended, we're just having a discussion. The S2000 is a car that is fast only when you know how to launch it. Let's face it, you have to know how to launch any car but the S2000 is one of those that requires those really high rpm drops.

It's a great car for being a roadster, but a little more power would have always been good.

 
Rep Power: 0

I don't like the fact that you have to drive the S2000 like you hate it in order to get some REAL power out of it. But a supercharger on an S2000 works wonders on the low-end (when it's tuned correctly ).

 
Rep Power: 0

i like the way they made the roof of the new tt meet the back of the car - the old tt looked like a stretched out VW bug - very nice car ....250 hp ain't bad either

 
Rep Power: 399

Well, to be honest, there isn't a single honda car made that isn't the same way. Where is the ITR's powerband? Up top. Civic Si? Up top. They're all the same. Coming from someone who's owned both of the previously mentioned, I personally find them to be harder to launch than the S2k.

A. powerband is up high like the S2k.

B. Front Wheel Drive

Let's not have the pot call the kettle black here.

Yes, I know we're having a discussion. I'm not trying to act flamy like richard simmons.

[IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 399

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The only hype I ever saw Honda make was about how awesome of a roadster this car is. Which is true to many people. What company isn't going to hype up their new car?

But face it, it's on par with many roadsters available here in the US in terms of performance AND handling. Roadsters like the boxster S and Z3 cost more but aren't even faster than an S2k. How is that hype? That's just simple reality.

If you're in the market for a roadster, you would be sorely mistaken to NOT consider the S2k as one of your best bets.

I'm not expecting everyone to say the S2k is the car for them, because only our personal decision reflect what car we want. However, facts are facts. The S2k isn't a slow car for what it was "hyped" up to be. It met every expectation honda said it would. competing with other roadsters for less money.

 
Rep Power: 360

i want a s2k.
right bang for the buck.
i mean come on. 4 banger car producing over 200 horsies with a 4 banger gas mileage. who can beat that?
plus its extremely sexy[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

of course, I'd probably go for S2k as well if I was looking for a roadster.

it's probably the best inline 4 in the world too.
still, people expected a little too much, thus the letdown of sort, not that I agree with them.
hype was there, definitely.

you dont see too many S2Ks in europe since there are so many other alternatives out there, and for the same money you can get ridiculously fast TVRs.

the face value of S2k is a respectable performance roadster with affordable upkeep [maintenance, insurance, etc.] in comparison to other cars of same class, much like NSXs.

 
Rep Power: 0

sorry but they are "relatively slow" for all the hype--didnt mean to hurt your feelings[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

On the topic of the new TT, beutiful looking car, inside and out, sweet amount of power, but still 2 PEDALS! and we all know what that means...

I don't care what kind of performance enhancements that new tranny gives, theres still no kind of thrill like the thrill of the Clutch!!!!

 
Rep Power: 0

Blanket statements shouldn't be allowed on this board. Like the CVT on the HX, this DSG tranny is probably faster than if they put a 5-speed in it.

 
Rep Power: 0

[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-frown.gif[/IMG]...that tt is ugly as crap.....its got that arch like the new beetle, just looks retarded imo

 
Rep Power: 399

I agree some may have expected too much.

It's kinda like when everyone tells you how awesome a movie is over and over, and then you go see it and the bar is set so high that you are disappointed.

 
Rep Power: 0

LOL.... get a moderator to delete my post then. Tiptronic, shiftronic, DSG, etc. are just variations on an automatic transmission. They can make it sound as technologically gee-whiz as they want it to be, but it's still a slush box. True driver's cars like the S2000, RSX Type S, Integra Type R, Mustang Cobra, etc. only come with a manual transmission because you simply can't experience the feel of a performance car unless you are in total control of the car's torque/power.

 
Rep Power: 0

you can, with true hybrid transmissions like DSG, SMG, SMT, etc. those cars dont come with SMGs because it takes away profit from the bottom line of the manufacturer, and cater to different markets.

 
Rep Power: 0

Htown ur are so right. Don't forget the M3 LoL

 
Rep Power: 0

Yeah, as in the aforementioned cars cater to people who actually like running through a set of close-ratio gears to fully enjoy the driving experience and be in total control of the car. They could easily outfit those cars with automatic trannies and sell a whole lot more cars, but then what would be the point? A high performance car with an automatic transmission is just plain retarded. And before jumps in and starts flaming and saying "so and so car is f.ucking fast and has an auto tranny", yes I'm quite aware that many of these cases exist. But it sure doesn't make it right.

Don't get me wrong - automatic trannies are great for the 90% of people who just want a reliable and painless way of getting to work/school, picking up groceries, etc. But if you're looking for a car to really DRIVE (as opposed to just getting from point A to point B), a manual transmission is the only way to go.

 
Rep Power: 0

nothing beats the manual in terms of driving pleasure, no doubt about it.
but if you noticed every German manufactuers seem to be bent on thoughts of having SMT/SMG like transmission on at least one of their cars.
BMW has it, MB has it, Porsche, and now Audi. I guess it's no different than our BIG three trying to build a bigger SUVs than each other.[IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

I agree with the fact that there is a MUCH BETTER FEEL to a manual, but the newer "auto" transmissions they're coming out with are acutally faster than a manual. Take the new transmission on the M#, (I think it's called the SSM, or something like that). When Car and Driver did a road test, they said that the SSM M3actually GAINED a few seconds of lap time over the standard M3. Now, that's not to say that a purist still wouldn't prefer a manual, it's just that there's more to the newer high performance automatics than everyone here is bringing up. Now I'm not talking about the freakin' automatice they throw in Preludes, Eclipse's, Foci, Neons, Cavaliers, and the like...I'm talking about PERFORMANCE automatics like the ones in dragsters, Le Mans racers, Ferrari's, and other cars that cost more than my house.

Not a sermon, just a thought

 
Rep Power: 0

the reason automatics have the potential to perform better is that they can shift much faster than any human can. still, driving enthusiasts prefer the manual transmission because of the experience it provides, not so much performance.

 
Rep Power: 380

The biggest disadvantage of an automatic is the power loosed going through the torque converter.

 
Rep Power: 0

Yeah you are right that most Hondas are like that. For some people there's nothing wrong with that. I guess the people that think the S2000 is slow refer to it's power down low. I know my car is like that(actually my car has no power anywhere). But when I drive the 500SEL I can feel a definte appreciation for torque.

But having an S2000 screaming up top is not so bad either. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 399

Last time I checked, you can shift faster with a manual than an automatic can.