WRX vs Honda s2000
Guest
Posts: n/a
WRX vs Honda s2000
very difficult situation: I will be buying a car in about a week and i am stuck between the 2003 wrx or the yr 2000 Honda s2000.
What are some pros and cons about both?
Why would you buy one and not the other?
The price is very close due to the yr of the cars that i am buying.
The s2000 definitely looks and feels better with its leather seats and convertible top. But hard to drive during the rough winter snow (in Chicago that is). Not very practical, not a everyday car. BUT, Girls like it more i bet!
The subaru wrx i believe is a much faster car. TURBO!!! It is roomy and spacious, unlike the s2. the hottest new import on the market is and is the wrx.
So which one would you guys buy? <PROS AND CONS>
What are some pros and cons about both?
Why would you buy one and not the other?
The price is very close due to the yr of the cars that i am buying.
The s2000 definitely looks and feels better with its leather seats and convertible top. But hard to drive during the rough winter snow (in Chicago that is). Not very practical, not a everyday car. BUT, Girls like it more i bet!
The subaru wrx i believe is a much faster car. TURBO!!! It is roomy and spacious, unlike the s2. the hottest new import on the market is and is the wrx.
So which one would you guys buy? <PROS AND CONS>
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,341
From: your friendly neighborhood hairpin
Car Info: '03 PSM Sedan
S2000 - convertable, RWD, revs to the moon and drives like a damn go-kart. the shift throw is so short that no one makes a short shifter for it. it makes a wee bit more power than the WRX and weighs less. the S2k has enough cargo space for your toothbrush and a roll of quarters. the last time i looked, there was a $5k dealer markup.
WRX - four doors, four driven wheels and room for four suitcases in the trunk if you pack light. it's a sleeper if you get it in white or silver without the factory spoiler, much more low-profile than the S2k, and cheaper to boot.
i was looking at both, and the lack of availability and dealer markup killed my desire for an S2000. plus, it wouldn't haul my surfboard, 100lb German Shepherd, or enough groceries to keep me fed for a week. spend some cash on the suspension, brakes and shifter and the WRX will keep up with the S2000 in the dry, and you'll own the S2000 in the rain or on less than ideal roads.
WRX - four doors, four driven wheels and room for four suitcases in the trunk if you pack light. it's a sleeper if you get it in white or silver without the factory spoiler, much more low-profile than the S2k, and cheaper to boot.
i was looking at both, and the lack of availability and dealer markup killed my desire for an S2000. plus, it wouldn't haul my surfboard, 100lb German Shepherd, or enough groceries to keep me fed for a week. spend some cash on the suspension, brakes and shifter and the WRX will keep up with the S2000 in the dry, and you'll own the S2000 in the rain or on less than ideal roads.
Guest
Posts: n/a
S2000
Almost bought one while waiting for WRX to come out. Beautifull car, but seems to be almost exact opposite of WRX. WRX, great off the line, S2000 with low torgue, does'nt really get going until 6K RPMs. 2 seater and rag top big negatives. Also, in So. Cal. demand is very high, so its almost impossible to get one for less than $35k, out the door. Still, have to admire the workmanship. Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, living somewhere where the weather isn't so good for big parts of the year, the WRX would have to be the way to go. A high-reving drop-top would be a nice second car, or a daily driver in Cali, Florida, Texas, someplace warm and dry. But if it's going to be cold, wet, snowy, a hard-top with AWD has to be the way to go. Just roll the windows down when it's nice out, it works for me!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 206
From: Land of 10,000 Lakes
I'd prolly get the S2k as a cruizer or weekend track car only... OR maybe take it to parties or something. It wouldn't be my daily driver though, no.
The WRX will suit you more if you have more needs. That's IF you have another car in hand... The WRX can do mayn more things compared to a S2k because of more room etc. S2k is more like a track car so space for things are limited.
The S2k does have great performance! It's got a vey nice engine, although not torqy but it's got a nice 4 banger tone to it. It looks very sharp too and nice. I'd get one just to get chicks! hehe
Think about your needs right now. It'll help out on your decision
The WRX will suit you more if you have more needs. That's IF you have another car in hand... The WRX can do mayn more things compared to a S2k because of more room etc. S2k is more like a track car so space for things are limited.
The S2k does have great performance! It's got a vey nice engine, although not torqy but it's got a nice 4 banger tone to it. It looks very sharp too and nice. I'd get one just to get chicks! hehe
Think about your needs right now. It'll help out on your decision
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1
From: nj
Car Info: 2001 2.5rs coupe
the s2000 sucks in my opinion. it looks good, is fast, etc. the only bad thing about it is that it's only fast up high in the revs and for everyday driving who wants to be up at 6krpms at all times in traffic and whatnot. i mean its fun for a little while, but after you get over the new fun car phase, it's really not practical at all. and the biggest problem is that when the car is low in the rpms it is probably as fast as a civic lx. if you plan on driving the car all out every time you drive, then it's probably a great car, but for those who realize that you don't want to redline it every single time you get to a light or start up the car, it really is a very poor design for a daily driver.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you like to modify. Then the S2000 is not for you.. You can change wheels and tires and thats about it. Anything else will make it slower. Change the exhuast save 10 pounds thats about it. Put on a supercharger and take 2/10th of the quarter mile time. Plus if you are looking at a 2000 model there is no way to tell if it has been abused plus you get no warranty to boot. Nice track or cruiser car but thats about it. Not saying I would never buy one.. It would just have to be my 2nd or 3rd car... but it is the best handling stock car I have ever driven. With its small size to.. very go-cart like as someone said
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,186
From: SF Bay Area
Car Info: 03 WRX, 06 Evo IX MR, now 2010 STi
Originally posted by TheBaron862
. i mean its fun for a little while, but after you get over the new fun car phase, it's really not practical at all. .
. i mean its fun for a little while, but after you get over the new fun car phase, it's really not practical at all. .
Guest
Posts: n/a
ok all i have to say is INSURANCE!!! the s2000's insurance is going to be way way way way higher than the WRX, not to mention since you are getting a used one you will have more problems with the s2000, most likely. also warranty, you may want to consider.
as far as the cars go, i don't like the s2000 just cause it has NO TORQUE!! its 240 hp with 150 ft/lb. BUT the WRX does have turbo lag and i own one so i know. coming out of corners is a pain cause you can't down shift to first cause of the syncho's, so that kinda cancels out. the s2000 is a better looking car and convertable, but if you live in chicago, well, i think you should take the suby.
remember though that just cause its awd doesn't mean it handles that well in the snow. in awd cars ALL the wheels break free when you slide, not just the 2 front or 2 rear(s2000) so when you lose it, you lose it, also the wrx's tires are not as all season as they say, it handles really bad in the snow especially after a summer or driving aggressively(which you will!, can't help it, its a wrx). i know the s2000 comes with performance tires too, but its cheaper to get 2 winter tires than 4 winter tires(or just get a winter rat).
well i would get the WRX Sti, if i were you, personally
and then there wouldn't be any competition.
ok those are the points that i would think about. if you are limited on money which it sounds like you are to a point, the WRX is a much better deal, between insurance, maintance and tickets.
as far as the cars go, i don't like the s2000 just cause it has NO TORQUE!! its 240 hp with 150 ft/lb. BUT the WRX does have turbo lag and i own one so i know. coming out of corners is a pain cause you can't down shift to first cause of the syncho's, so that kinda cancels out. the s2000 is a better looking car and convertable, but if you live in chicago, well, i think you should take the suby.
remember though that just cause its awd doesn't mean it handles that well in the snow. in awd cars ALL the wheels break free when you slide, not just the 2 front or 2 rear(s2000) so when you lose it, you lose it, also the wrx's tires are not as all season as they say, it handles really bad in the snow especially after a summer or driving aggressively(which you will!, can't help it, its a wrx). i know the s2000 comes with performance tires too, but its cheaper to get 2 winter tires than 4 winter tires(or just get a winter rat).
well i would get the WRX Sti, if i were you, personally
and then there wouldn't be any competition. ok those are the points that i would think about. if you are limited on money which it sounds like you are to a point, the WRX is a much better deal, between insurance, maintance and tickets.
