Sky pix from the Seattle Auto Show

[Raza]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.  It's a tactic I learned in high school.  I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.  

[SJ_GTI]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.? It's a tactic I learned in high school.? I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

[SJ_GTI]

PS. I had a Z3 2.3. Weighed about 3100 lbs with 170 HP.

[ifcar]

I'd say the S2000 is more hard-edged than the MX-5, which has to cater to the "I just want a cute convertible" crowd.  

[SJ_GTI]

I'd say the S2000 is more hard-edged than the MX-5, which has to cater to the "I just want a cute convertible" crowd.

And what does "hard-edged" mean exactly. And is the Z4 also hard-edged? Because the Z4 handles a track as well as an S2000.

[ifcar]

I'd say the Z4 makes compromises for comfort much more than the S2000 does. Same with the MX-5 and Solstice. They need to, they're higher-volume cars, they can't just appeal to the fringe enthusiast crowd.

[SJ_GTI]

I'd say the Z4 makes compromises for comfort much more than the S2000 does. Same with the MX-5 and Solstice. They need to, they're higher-volume cars, they can't just appeal to the fringe enthusiast crowd.

What compromise does the Z4 make to performance in favor of comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

What compromise to performance does the Solstice make to comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

I know the Miata has a softer suspension (has gotten criticism for this in various reviews), so I won't ask about that one.

[Raza]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.  It's a tactic I learned in high school.  I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

Stuff it.

A car can handle better in some ways, but that doesn't matter if you finish a lap over a second behind.  That's a long time in racing.

And in the review it said the Solstice was a Pontiac that thinks it's a Porsche--and they probably said that for its alliterative value.

[Raza]

PS. I had a Z3 2.3. Weighed about 3100 lbs with 170 HP.

Hmm...you were probably still faster than the NB MX-5.

[SJ_GTI]

PS. I had a Z3 2.3. Weighed about 3100 lbs with 170 HP.

Hmm...you were probably still faster than the NB MX-5.

185 lb-ft of torque...so yeah it was faster. Set of the pants made it feel faster than an S2000, even though I knew it wasn't.

[Raza]

Hopping from the 350Z into the S2000 is a study in contrasts. The Honda is the smallest, lightest car here, and it feels like it

The S2000's overachieving VTEC four wrings 240 horsepower from just 2.0 liters but needs 8300 rpm to do it (with the redline at 9000), and it makes just 153 pound-feet of torque. So, naturally, it requires constant flogging, but the reward is a sound that's pure racing car, or sport bike-that and some very brisk acceleration, as the S2000 was (just barely) the quickest car to 60 mph.  [Note, this is the last model with the 9000RPM redline]

The BMW's highway persona shadowed the Nissan's in many ways. Its torquey, 3.0-liter six is always ready to respond. Its shifter is a joy, although its clutch and brake pedals were less so. And the ride, even on the optional eighteen-inch run-flat tires, is pretty good. The cabin is accommodating and good-looking, even if the deeply hooded, Alfa Romeo-esque instrument binnacles are angled strangely skyward.

Like the Nissan's powerplant, the BMW's 3.0-liter straight six is also very torquey and has great engine presence (piped from the engine bay to the firewall, lest you miss it). But the Z4's chassis let us down a bit here. Hammering through quick curves over wavy pavement, we wished for more body control. "Perhaps to compensate for the stiff run-flat tires, the front springs feel a little soft, which can create a pitching motion," observed Quiroga. We might have felt more confident in the Z4's abilities had BMW's steering spoken to us more clearly.

The S2000 has its lightweight engine located behind the front axle, which keeps it from feeling nose-heavy and which, together with the ultra-quick steering, helps it jump at the chance to turn in. But uneven pavement will toss it around a fair bit; call it more lively than composed. And having to keep the revs way up in the 6000-to-9000-rpm range isn't always easy, particularly when the sun washes out the digital bar-graph tach.

The BMW was most strongly redeemed. "After disappointing me somewhat on the road, the Z4 made me a believer again on the track," reported DeMatio, who continued: "Very composed, great turn-in, superb grip. Engine comes on strong and is so smooth it's easy to find yourself bouncing against the rev limiter." A well-balanced chassis and grippy rubber, abetted by a helpful, two-stage traction control, made this car a happy camper at BeaveRun. The Z4's brakes, however, needed a respite after a morning of track work, although at the test track they tied the Boxster's for shortest stops.

The S2000 emerged as the real track darling. Not surprising, perhaps, as it's the lightest, the highest-revving, and also the most immediate in its responses. Although the wee Honda proves very sensitive to weight transfers, the car is endearingly tossable, with oversteer front and center on the menu. The purity of the track experience makes it easier to keep the revs up where they need to be, and coming down, the brakes proved strong and fade-free. The tires, however, lose grip quickly when hot.  [This tire issue was remedied later on--with the larger engine came larger rear tires]


Sorry for pasting so much.  All in the interest of full disclosure, you know.  Wouldn't want to seem biased.

[SJ_GTI]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.? It's a tactic I learned in high school.? I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

Stuff it.

A car can handle better in some ways, but that doesn't matter if you finish a lap over a second behind.  That's a long time in racing.

And in the review it said the Solstice was a Pontiac that thinks it's a Porsche--and they probably said that for its alliterative value.

So if a Z4 goes around a track faster than an MR2, that means it handled better?

Or if a vette tracks faster than an Elise...that means it handles better?

[Raza]

PS. I had a Z3 2.3. Weighed about 3100 lbs with 170 HP.

Hmm...you were probably still faster than the NB MX-5.

185 lb-ft of torque...so yeah it was faster. Set of the pants made it feel faster than an S2000, even though I knew it wasn't.

So, as I said, you had a faster, roomier, and more practical car.  

But, when you have no significant advantages, and you're lagging behind an equally priced car, you'd begin to wonder what made you not choose the one in front of you.

[Raza]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.  It's a tactic I learned in high school.  I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

Stuff it.

A car can handle better in some ways, but that doesn't matter if you finish a lap over a second behind.  That's a long time in racing.

And in the review it said the Solstice was a Pontiac that thinks it's a Porsche--and they probably said that for its alliterative value.

So if a Z4 goes around a track faster than an MR2, that means it handled better?

Or if a vette tracks faster than an Elise...that means it handles better?

Now you're just being silly.  You're talking about cars with significant power differences.  The MX-5 and Solstice do not have significant power differences.  If I recall correctly, the MX-5 has 7 less brake than the Solstice does.  

[SJ_GTI]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.? It's a tactic I learned in high school.? I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

Stuff it.

A car can handle better in some ways, but that doesn't matter if you finish a lap over a second behind.  That's a long time in racing.

And in the review it said the Solstice was a Pontiac that thinks it's a Porsche--and they probably said that for its alliterative value.

So if a Z4 goes around a track faster than an MR2, that means it handled better?

Or if a vette tracks faster than an Elise...that means it handles better?

Now you're just being silly.  You're talking about cars with significant power differences.  The MX-5 and Solstice do not have significant power differences.  If I recall correctly, the MX-5 has 7 less brake than the Solstice does.

The MX-5 was half a second quicker to sixty, accord to the article.

[Raza]

Eh, I made a comment then proceeded to selectively quote to support it.  It's a tactic I learned in high school.  I did go on to say that I really liked it, but that the MX-5 seems to be the better car.

Its a better sports car, but I am not convinced its a better car.

The Miata is a more "pure" sports car than the S2000, Z4, and SLK as well, but I doubt most people would say its a better car than any of those.

Now that doesn't mean I think the Solstice is better either...just a different blend of car. The Solstice seems more like an S2000/Z4 type of car than a Miata/MR2.

When I bought my Z3, by your definition I bought an inferior car to the Miata, and paid more to do so! But given the same decision against I would take the Z3 every time.

I would lump a car like the S2000 in with the Miata/MR-2 category, the only purist let down is the power top.  The car revs to 8000rpm, has a fantastic shifter, isn't available as an automatic, is fairly light (only a bit lighter than the Solstice, but has much more power), and has a very light and driver focused interior, without wood and aluminium trim, whereas the others are heavier and, though capable of very spirited and fun driving, are as equally suited to cruising as track duty, where the S2000 has a bias towards track duty.

But the problem with the Solstice not competing with the MX-5 is that the MX-5 is it's only natural competitor (other than the MR-2, which is still the best car in this category, though it's overlooked by virtually all).  It's can't afford to not compete with it--against a Z4 or Boxster it would lose--it's slower, doesn't have a prestigious badge, definitely doesn't handle as well (compared to at least the Boxster), not many people who could afford a Boxster or Z4 or SLK would buy a Solstice.  It's as crazy as saying that Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Bentley--fundamentally they don't (or shouldn't) but most certainly do.  

You had a Z3 2.8, didn't you?  While not as nimble as the Miata, it did have its definite advantages.  It was faster, roomier, and had a larger trunk--and it comes with a prestige badge, if that matters to you.

You don't read so well I guess.

The Solstice handled better than the Miata in some ways, the Miata is better in other ways. The Miata handled a track better, but the Solstice handled on the road better.

The only flaw in the transmission is gearing...the clutch and shifter are both great according to C&D. Steering is fantastic, and the chassis/suspension is above reproach.

As for the S2000, both it and the Z4 are dimensionally the same as a Solstice, and not coincidentally both weigh about the same. How do you know handling is better in those cars than the Solstice? I have yet to see a review claim its not up to par with either of those cars. In fact the review you just posted said the opposite...they compared it to a Porsche.

Stuff it.

A car can handle better in some ways, but that doesn't matter if you finish a lap over a second behind.  That's a long time in racing.

And in the review it said the Solstice was a Pontiac that thinks it's a Porsche--and they probably said that for its alliterative value.

So if a Z4 goes around a track faster than an MR2, that means it handled better?

Or if a vette tracks faster than an Elise...that means it handles better?

Now you're just being silly.  You're talking about cars with significant power differences.  The MX-5 and Solstice do not have significant power differences.  If I recall correctly, the MX-5 has 7 less brake than the Solstice does.

The MX-5 was half a second quicker to sixty, accord to the article.

That number changes here and there.  I've seen closer before, much of that has to do with the driver, I imagine.  The fact that the Solstice is carrying roughly two passengers compared to the MX-5 doesn't help it either.

In any case, the MX-5 had to pick up the extra time somewhere, didn't?  I'm not familiar with the track, but I find it hard to believe the MX-5 won solely because of straightaways.

[ifcar]

I'd say the Z4 makes compromises for comfort much more than the S2000 does. Same with the MX-5 and Solstice. They need to, they're higher-volume cars, they can't just appeal to the fringe enthusiast crowd.

What compromise does the Z4 make to performance in favor of comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

What compromise to performance does the Solstice make to comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

I know the Miata has a softer suspension (has gotten criticism for this in various reviews), so I won't ask about that one.

The S2000 has a much harder ride than either the Z4 and sharper handling than the Z4 (haven't driven a Solstice, but no review has suggested that its handling is at S2K level, or that it's ride is as unyielding). The S2000 also has fewer available luxury items, and a more restrictive seating position (plus-sizers just won't fit between the seat bolsters).  

[SJ_GTI]

I'd say the Z4 makes compromises for comfort much more than the S2000 does. Same with the MX-5 and Solstice. They need to, they're higher-volume cars, they can't just appeal to the fringe enthusiast crowd.

What compromise does the Z4 make to performance in favor of comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

What compromise to performance does the Solstice make to comfort that the S2000 doesn't?

I know the Miata has a softer suspension (has gotten criticism for this in various reviews), so I won't ask about that one.

The S2000 has a much harder ride than either the Z4 and sharper handling than the Z4 (haven't driven a Solstice, but no review has suggested that its handling is at S2K level, or that it's ride is as unyielding). The S2000 also has fewer available luxury items, and a more restrictive seating position (plus-sizers just won't fit between the seat bolsters).

Ifcar, the S2K has those compromises for price, not for performance. The Z4 performs as well as the S2000 (on any given track either one could be faster, most times they are within a few tenth's of a second despite the fact that the S2000 has more power).

Having more seating space has no impact on the Z4's performance, nor does its better sound system. Ride comfort could in theory, but again since the Z4 performs as well as the S2000 with less power...

[ifcar]

I wasn't talking about the decimal place differences in driving the cars around a track.

[SJ_GTI]

My give up.

[SJ_GTI]

Actually it turns out I was wrong.

From Edmunds:

But the biggest reason the Miata took this one is the simple fact that it's 10 billion times more fun to drive.

and

All tallied up, the Pontiac cost about a grand more than the Mazda, while they were more or less comparably equipped.

So it turns out the Solstice is more expensive, and the Miata is 10 billion times more fun to drive. Solstice is teh suxxor. I feel bad for the people that were duped into buying one.