CarSPIN Forums

Rules:
1. Pick
2. Explain

Tough one. They are all flawed to me.

S2K- not enough torque for 2800lbs
Z- better as a G sedan
RX-8- oil consumption in MPG, reliability, S2K torque problem
EVO- too crude, AWD
STI- delicate engine, AWD
RSX-S- colossally goof't suspension geometry

2006 still counts IMO.... I'd probably go with my Civic in Si trim. Same torque problem out of the box but it's more easily remedied; chassis is as good if not better than the "GOAT" double wishbone Hondas of the 90s (more chassis rigidity); mostly quick enough for the street (though you have to work for it which is not always fun). Not sure if the RSX-S had an LSD either.

I'd also consider a Neon SRT-4 just to absolutely beat the piss out of.

S 2000. Convertible and true sports car of the bunch.

WRX STI, because rally

RX8... Of course

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2017, 10:00:22 AM
Tough one. They are all flawed to me.

S2K- not enough torque for 2800lbs
Z- better as a G sedan
RX-8- oil consumption in MPG, reliability, S2K torque problem
EVO- too crude, AWD
STI- delicate engine, AWD
RSX-S- colossally goof't suspension geometry

2006 still counts IMO.... I'd probably go with my Civic in Si trim. Same torque problem out of the box but it's more easily remedied; chassis is as good if not better than the "GOAT" double wishbone Hondas of the 90s (more chassis rigidity); mostly quick enough for the street (though you have to work for it which is not always fun). Not sure if the RSX-S had an LSD either.

I'd also consider a Neon SRT-4 just to absolutely beat the piss out of.

The S2K's torque problem is way way way overblown.  That engine revs stupid quick and the car has absolutely no problems moving around. 

S2k, out of all of those, that's the only one I've routinely searched for on CL.

:wub:

(https://www.revvolution.com/image/albums-4-59b-d6-d2-0/2005-subaru-impreza-wrx-sti-betsy-blue-32540.jpg)

S2K followed closely by STi/EVO.

RX-8 seems ok but was never available here. Same with the RSX-S

350Z was competitive maybe for its first couple of years.

Quote from: Xer0 on December 04, 2017, 04:39:09 PM
The S2K's torque problem is way way way overblown.  That engine revs stupid quick and the car has absolutely no problems moving around. 

Same could be said of the RX-8.  It didn't make a lot of peak torque, but the torque curve was remarkably flat.

Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2017, 06:25:03 PM
Same could be said of the RX-8.  It didn't make a lot of peak torque, but the torque curve was remarkably flat.

Having never driven the RX-8 I can't comment, but I want to.

That low torque nonsense used to come up all the time with BMW's formerly N/A high revving M engines. Total BS. Same here I assume.

6. Acura RSX-S. I've always had a soft spot for these because I loved the DC5 ITR in video games, but it's just outclassed in this company.

5. Nissan 350Z. One of the best looking cars of the era, it unfortunately lets you down in every other conceivable way. Poor shifter, poor clutch, heavy chassis, and on the less important scale, a kind of crappy interior.

4. WRX STi. Love the idea, but it just doesn't feel special to drive. Shockingly mundane.

3. Mazda RX-8. The sensible sedan of the bunch in some ways, horribly inefficient in others. But, it comes with great looks, neat packaging, and a really fun chassis. Exploitable and just great to drive.

2. Evo IX. Based on the Evo VIII I drove, this is more of a sports car than almost anything in this group. It's got a crappy interior, it feels tinny, and it has boy racer looks. But damn if it doesn't feel special to drive; when you're behind the wheel, not much else matters.

1. Honda S2000. I've actually not had a chance to drive one yet. But an AP2 is high on my desired list, and it's the only proper sports car in contention here.

Quote from: Xer0 on December 04, 2017, 04:39:09 PM
The S2K's torque problem is way way way overblown.  That engine revs stupid quick and the car has absolutely no problems moving around.

A Mitsubishi Mirage has absolutely no problems moving around, but nobody would call it torquey or punchy. On the small lobes the S2K is downright wheezy. My H22 Accord had much more around town pep (roommate had an AP1). Agree to disagree I guess.

Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on December 04, 2017, 06:36:00 PM
That low torque nonsense used to come up all the time with BMW's formerly N/A high revving M engines. Total BS. Same here I assume.

An E46 M3 makes 60-80% more torque, but only weighs like 20% more. It's not the same thing at all.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 05, 2017, 06:06:07 AM
An E46 M3 makes 60-80% more torque, but only weighs like 20% more. It's not the same thing at all.

Probably, I haven't driven a Honda with those high revving N/A engines.

RX-8. It's a car you just sort of understand when you drive one.

The RX8 doesn't have a lot of pull, but what it does have is a fairly constant from 3k to 9k... Which is pretty remarkable honestly

(https://www.rx8club.com/attachments/series-i-tech-garage-22/134450d1236029552-dyno-results-compilation-garage_vehicle-9-12332195261.jpg)

If I could get one brand new right now? RX-8

To buy used right now? S2000

Everything except the engine is almost bullet proof on the RX8... I'd get a used one and just budget for an upgraded rebuild

I went RX-8 but the S2000 is probably the "best" car on the list.

Holy shit

S2000.

Hmm I think I've actually driven all of those cars believe it or not.

It's been a while, but if I recall correctly the EVO drove the best.

Evo IX

Because it is the most exciting and least pretentious.

Out of the blue you responded to a thread last commented on 2 and a half years ago :lol:

I choose Honda S2000 (better later than never).

Quote from: SJ_GTI on August 24, 2020, 11:25:41 AM
I choose Honda S2000 (better later than never).

Yes.  A proper sports car.