s2k vs z

[faytmorgan]

Well i work at a dealership in MN and i can go to auction and pick up a s2k for about 16,5xx- or a Z at about 18,9XX.

So i am comparing some things.

the s2k is basically a better car for handling but it is not as quick or fast as the Z(350z) by this i mean 0-60 and 1/4 mi.

What are we talking for a flat 5 second s2k for price? and what kind of power at the crank does the f20c need to make that power (btw i am refering to the 2.0 no thte 2.2 if that helps and its a stick).

i have a hook up at the boost factory up here in MN. and i could to a turbo kit for fairly cheap. 500 for all the pluming i provide turbo and intercooler and then i don't know if he does tuning - but i would probably go witht the moates ostrich anyway. (moates.net if you don't know what i am talking about).

I like turbos have had plenty of experince in it- corky bells book rocks btw if you havn't had experience. own it its my bibleness.

[s2000isu]

everyone told me I had to read his book. I was not very impressed at all. Had some good info but not enough to waste my life lol. On a side note I dont think the z is much faster at all.

[Java Junky]

Fay, 'sounds like you've probably had the chance to sit in both of 'em, but one of the things that turned me off to the Z was the fact that once you closed the door it was similar to bein' in an armored vehicle (r' maybe a Hummer r' a Chrysler). Lots'a metal, slit windows n' it got'ta feelin' claustraphobic real quick.
The raggtopp wasn't essential to makin' my choice; any small, 2 seater, capable stickshift, RWH was in the runnin', which really was a kind'a limited field to my way'a thinkin'.
Handlin'wize the two r' apples n' oranges, so if you haven't had the chance to stretch each one's legs out, lemme vigorously suggest that you do so.
Readin' all the ink on 'em n' talkin' to us ain't gonna get you the real info that you need if you take your drivin' seriously.
N' you don't wanna find out after you've made your move that the other was the way that you should'a gone.
Be well, n' like the old knight said . . . .
Java

[faytmorgan]

Originally Posted by Java Junky

Fay, 'sounds like you've probably had the chance to sit in both of 'em, but one of the things that turned me off to the Z was the fact that once you closed the door it was similar to bein' in an armored vehicle (r' maybe a Hummer r' a Chrysler). Lots'a metal, slit windows n' it got'ta feelin' claustraphobic real quick.
The raggtopp wasn't essential to makin' my choice; any small, 2 seater, capable stickshift, RWH was in the runnin', which really was a kind'a limited field to my way'a thinkin'.
Handlin'wize the two r' apples n' oranges, so if you haven't had the chance to stretch each one's legs out, lemme vigorously suggest that you do so.
Readin' all the ink on 'em n' talkin' to us ain't gonna get you the real info that you need if you take your drivin' seriously.
N' you don't wanna find out after you've made your move that the other was the way that you should'a gone.
Be well, n' like the old knight said . . . .
Java

right........... so what kind of power does it take to get the s2k in the flat 5 0-60 range ?

[Java Junky]

Well, ya got me by the short hairs fay, can't say's I know exactly.
But, if it's the "flat 5 range" that's important n' the Z's capable of it, it appears you jus' made your choice, doesn't it?
What kind of power???? C'mon man . . dilithium crystals soaked in pickle brine.
If you're thinkin' of tryin' to turn Stewie into a muscle car, you should be more interested in the little piecey-parts that you're gonna be leavin' in your wake every muscle-car-wannabee launch n' how much the process of replacin' 'em is gonna cost.
Z's a great car. You'll like it.
Be well.
Java

[gomarlins3]

Buy the Z.

[s2000isu]

240 whp with a well prepped track. It will need to be about 75 degrees outside on a sunny day right around noon. The humidity will need to be at around 15%. You will also need sp2 tires. Let out 10 pounds in youre rear tires and bump the presure up a few pounds in the front. You should net a 1.9 60 foot time with a 4000 grand launch where you slip the clutch a little bit. I think my point is just that first of all ya cant just throw out a hp number for the 0-60 foot plus theres alot more to driving then 60 foot but if thats all you care about then get the car that has the quickest 0-60 time posted

[ActionMan]

350Z ir a very different animal. I'm not a fan of V6 engines, neither am I a fan of heavy cars, but there's no denying the Z is a capable car. The new ones have 300hp instead of 280 and there are several forced induction kit options. There is one 350Z here that does pretty good in Autocross. 350Z is a GT car - plenty of power for the large and heavy body to go fast, and despite that it handles quite well. Can't carry much speed into the corner, but it's the exit that is more important and all that torque helps.

S2000 is a roadster - lots of grip when You're trying, lots of sideways when You just want to have fun. Not the most powerful car in a 0-60mph race, but will carry more speed in the bends due to a well sorted suspension and lighter weight (than a 350Z). With good tires on a track with lots of tight corners, the 350Z will not be able to put down most of it's power and I can see S2000 clocking up a better laptime. This scan actually proves my point. On a track like the Nurburgring, the Z is much faster, as there are a lot of high speed sections where the S is left behind. But in Hockenheim (a smaller track with more narrow bends) the lap times are identical.

Then there's the simple pleasure of driving. You can have fun in both cars and "fun" is something that can not be measured simply by looking at the spec sheet. For me, a big and heavy GT car will never be as fun as a small and agile roadster, but that's just me.

[ger2k]

its a convertabile! s2000 all the way....save gas, have a AWESOME INterior, it has the same lady magnet potential......this car is the true roadster, unless you want a coupe, then get the Z....im sorry no one needs all that back space.

[mru22]

What is the actual 0-60 for a stock S2K? I was thinking around 6.0 seconds.

[bjurasz]

I thought the S2K was 5.5 to 60. My '92 Vette was 5.1 But s2000isu is absolutely spot-on. You cannot say "get this much HP and you will hit 0-60 in 5.0 seconds". So many variables, with weather and track conditions being just one. A fast 0-60 time, especially in a car with little low-end grunt and a very narrow power band is going to be difficult to hit ideal numbers in. In my Vette? Launches were much easier, and an extremely wide power band. Get a decent launch and don't screw up the 1-2 shift and you were fast.

I don't think I can pull a decent 0-60 time in my S2K yet. I stil get surprised by how fast I hit redline in 1st and hit the rev limiter, or shift a touch too soon and come off the cam. But that hasn't been a priority for me either. This is not a car meant for fast acceleration. I don't think this is the car for faytmorgan.

[danx337]

my ideal sports car should be...

great ride and handling, fun to drive, innovation(!), lightweight-performance

and of course, S-2-0-0-0 is letters that spell.

[Java Junky]

ActionMan's right on the money about spec sheets. Don't get me wrong, keepin' current with the mags makes for a good way to spend time when you're jus' sittin' there.
But too much of the time 3 tenths of a second r' 29 lbs. on paper becomes what a buyer homes in on n' once locked-on there's no amount of common sense that's gonna intrude on that decision.
Like the bikes, most of the spec sheet numbers on a category of cars is usually reasonably close.
N', like it r' not folks, it's the driver n' that driver's experience n' abilities (alodda that simply bein' familiarity with the vehicle) that most of the time makes the difference. There's variables to beat the band but, somedays n' in some conditions Stewie's gonna shine. Somedays we're gonna be glarin' at the ass end of a Z.
Water's wet, sky's blue, wimmen got secrets . . sometimes ya wins, sometimes ya loses.
But it sure jus' ain't about the spec sheets.
Be well.
Java