MR2 to S2000?

[Chris \'aka rustboy\' Amm]

350Z mings and the S2000 is a n/a

MR2 Turbo anyday

what about when all the MR2 turbo's have gone to car heaven though mate?

S2000 mate. Hate the 350Z with a passion

good i'll buy a 350Z and park it outside you're house in future years then

[craig]

what about when all the MR2 turbo's have gone to car heaven though mate?

S2000 mate. Hate the 350Z with a passion

good i'll buy a 350Z and park it outside you're house in future years then

[Chris \'aka rustboy\' Amm]

look at it, love the nismo kit!

[craig]

Looks a bit like a flattened, pulled out Nissan Micra FFS

[lower]

Anyone done this?(or vice versa) What are they like to drive? TIA!

a-ha. a subject i am perfectly qualified to comment on!

i made the move last year from my mildly modded rev2 turbo to a s2000. it was then only soft top 2 seater with similar levels of performance around at the time without looking at tvr's or porcshes.

the s2000 is actually quite similar to the mk2 turbo is a lot of ways. handling is a lot more stable, particularly at speed, but overall feel is quite similar. the s2000 is one of the modern front mid engined cars with the engine all the way behind the front axle so the weight distribution is virtually the same. the s2k can be a bit tail happy, particularly in the wet but no more so than an mr2 turbo. they changed the suspension on later models to help this. personally, i prefer the suspension settings on the earlier car. whats not helped in the wet is the standard fit bridgestone s02's are specific to the s2000 and have much narrower water clearance channels. so much so that if you fit non s02's you need to go from a 225 profile tyre to a 245 profile tyre to get the same contact area. in the dry they are fantastic but in the wet they are crap until they warm up.

obviously engine performance is the main difference between the 2 cars. the honda has much less torque and despite the engine producing reasonable power lower down the revs, you need to be 6k+ to really go fast. its a whole new driving technique because you have to convert from keeping the turbo engine on boost to shifting the revs range to above 6k. you have to accept that if you need a burst of power you won't be able to juust floor the throttle and ride the turbos torque, but will need to change down a few gears. not that that is a problem because the s2000 has the best gearbox i have ever used with the shortest gear change of any car i have ever driven, including an mr2 with a quickshift kit. the weird thing is that you get used to keeping the revs higher and i i'm cruising at about 50-60 i'll use a gear that keeps the revs around the 4-4.5k mark as the engine feels like its about 2-2.5k revs in noise and feel if that makes sense.

running costs are low. it costs the same to service an s2000 as it does a civic. power is 237bhp and contrary to someone else's post, cannot easily be increased even with full mugen ecu, air box, manifold and exhaust. gives you an extra 25bhp as seen on rolling roads. despite my engine going pop (replaced under warranty) engines are pretty bullet proof as long as you don't over rev or let the oil run low. insurance costs me £700 per year fully comp and depreciation after 3 years is about £2k per year.

performance wise honda put it at 6.2 to 60. evo magazine timed it at 5.5 and i certainly think it is faster than my rev2 turbo. some of you will have seen me in at the imoc donnington track day last year and whilst it took me a while to build confidence, by the end of the day i was taking craner curves at 105-110mph and was still on line for the next corner. i don't think i would ever have had that level of confidence in my old mr2.