s2k vs. NSX

I still have electronics as old as my NSX such as my vintage video game systems like the sega genesis. So yeah, beat that =). Honestly speaking a Stock nsx that is not a Type S zero or a Type R is not That impressive today anymore, but neither is a ap1 S2000 hell or even a ap2 S2000. In most car mags the S2000 almost always gets beat by a 350z and in Car and Drivers VIR shoot out, even the CR S2000 gets outrun by a lot of cars for less money. Where as the NSX is very fast in a straightline for having only 290hp, the S2000 is right about where it should be in straight line power having 240hp.
 
I still have electronics as old as my NSX such as my vintage video game systems like the sega genesis. So yeah, beat that =). Honestly speaking a Stock nsx that is not a Type S zero or a Type R is not That impressive today anymore, but neither is a ap1 S2000 hell or even a ap2 S2000. In most car mags the S2000 almost always gets beat by a 350z and in Car and Drivers VIR shoot out, even the CR S2000 gets outrun by a lot of cars for less money. Where as the NSX is very fast in a straightline for having only 290hp, the S2000 is right about where it should be in straight line power having 240hp.


errr beat this ~ I still have my Colleco Vision game system that plays Donkey Kong (the original version) If my memory serves me right this was released as one of the first systems when I was roughly 8 (which would put it in the early 80's) :cool:
 
yea but if that guy driving the S2000 followed my Exotic that close at those speeds I would slam on brakes to teach him a lesson,, I have better insurance,,,
 
Last edited:
NSX is faster than S2000, stock to stock, but not by much. On the most famous Nurburgring, the NA2 NSX beat the AP1 S2000 by 1(one) second in best lap time. Would the NA2 beat the AP2? There is no official data for that, but it's doubtful. The Best Motoring video has shown modified S2000 are more than capable at taking down the modified NSX. There are two reasons: 1. S2000 is much lighter (2760 lbs vs 3100 lbs). 2. technology. "None of us has any electronics as old as a NSX. It's just so outdated." Keiichi said this in one of the NSX videos. I believe it was a praise, but it's also the ugly truth. I look around my house and found it absolutely true. Automobiles heavily rely on advance technologies, and today NSX has none.

It is what it is. But I dislike the trash talks from the S2k owners. Most of them bark at the NSX simply because they cannot afford one.
That's a pretty bold statement. So an NA2 with that driver on that day, in that weather, with that traffic, was faster than another specific AP1 with that driver, in that weather, with that traffic, on that specific day? Nurburgring times aren't that decisive because the start/finish line is not constant, it is different from manufacturer to manufacturer, from magazine to magazine, etc... Also the track is so long that it can be sunny, raining, and snowing all on the same lap. Weather can change a normal sized track by well over a second, let alone a track this long. Also traffic plays a HUGE role since most magazines and manufacturers don't rent the track to test in clear room. All of this dosn't even include the drivers ability where if the driver loses 0.1 seconds a corner, that could lead to more than a handful of seconds as well. So Nurburgring laptimes are neat but far from decisive.

The NA2 does have much wider and more competitvive tire sizes (215/245) compared to the AP1's 205/225 -which probably plays the biggest role why the NA2 is faster than an AP1. However the NA1 NSX's 205/225 has the same tire size as an AP1 and would probably have a difficulty keeping up with an AP1 on tighter tracks where the extra power of the NSX dosn't help as much.

It's not that hard to fit 255/255 tires under the S2000, which makes the car quite capable. It's harder and more of a compromise for an NSX to fit 235/275 width tires. S2000s performance is nothing to shrug off, and its not due to its electronics (maybe a little from ABS) but the S2K's TCS system is not beneficial in the hands of a good driver.
 
Last edited:
Hi Billy,

I did say "NSX is faster than S2000, stock to stock", and I don't mind saying it again. Are you saying that a stock S2000 is faster than a stock NSX? If so, THAT is a bold statement; especially on this forum.

For the record, official Nurburgring lap times are recorded and only recorded without traffic. Every Nurburgring lap time with traffic is considered as "unofficial". Most of the reputable tests were conducted by Sport Auto Germany, and both NSX and S200 lap times I referred were conducted by Sport Auto. Over 80% of those tested were even done by the same driver. I agree that some conditions may change. However, they run many many laps and take the best time, and they also avoid bad weather when they test. Nurburgring lap time cannot be used as the holy grail, but it is considered one of the most important evaluation to today's production sports cars. I simply referred to the most reliable tracking data available to us, and it tells us that NSX is one second faster than the S2000 on a 12.9 miles long track. With the result being that close between the two cars, it is true that even a 10% change in humidity can turn it around. I see that you added a few variables into this, but I didn't hear a statement.
 
Bahahhahaha my s2k had 210hp at the wheels ... It weight only like 150 less than my nsx and has 50 whp less, leave alone the top end on my s2k was 145mph while my nsx does 170 with ease .... On a 13 mile track I am sure I could be at least 1 min faster than my s2k .. I swear that could happen.


Also my s2k on a good day launching at 5.5k will manage to do 0-60 in 5.8 seconds while my nsx does in 4.8 ... Love my s2k but it was slower (not by much) than a stock na1 but much slower than a na2 ....

Both amazing cars, ni reason to get defensive, they are different animals.

Oscar
 
Last edited:
Wrote this semi-drunk fom my iPhone lololol last post of 2009 fr me lol
 
Ok, because I was bored this morning, I delved into my fairly comprehensive Best Motoring collection, and where that lacked, youtube-d a few episodes.

The BMI guys have run about every car imaginable around Tsukuba multiple times, in all conditions, most of the time with the same drivers, so it's about as good a source for data as we are likely to find.

So.

NSX times:

NA1 Automatic:
1:10.52 (only 1 data point for this one)

NA1 Coupe 91/92:
1:07.17 (with gan-san driving) to 1:08.71 as the slowest dry time I observed...not counting Tsuchiya drifting one to a 1:09.87.

NA1 Types S/S-Zero:
1:07.12 & 1:07.42 were fastest laps ranged up to 1.07.75

NA2 (02+) Coupe:
1:06.89 quickest

NA1 Type R:
1:06.80 - 1.07.97

NA2 Type R:
1:04.89 (probably quicker times out there, but they tend to hover in the 1:04.xx at their quickest).


S2000 Times

AP1/AP2: (since it's pretty well established that there is not an significant difference between the two):

Ranged from 1:08.83 (with gan-san at the wheel) to 1:09.91 for dry times.

Type-S/CR

1:07.7 was the absolute fastest time I could find for this one (Tsuchiya was driving). The only other fast-lap I could find was a 1:08.585 for a Type S.


I'm going to let people draw their own conclusions here, but I think this is a much more level comparison than 'ring times, butt dyno speculation, or HPDE killz.

Variations could include:
-Tsukuba has been resurfaced at least once in the time span of these videos
-Gan San & Tsuchiya, from my observation, are clearly the quickest drivers on the show
-Tires may vary, although from my observation they are broadly OEM spec.
-Ambient conditions may vary.

These factors are mitigated to an extent by using a range of times rather than a single quickest time, but you know, everything with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Sounds right. I assume that all cars are stock, and lap times are with traffic. Thanks for getting those together.
 
Last edited:
This is a great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VstzlUWZnOI

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VstzlUWZnOI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VstzlUWZnOI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

the S2000 (Ap2) has a best lap of 2:08.96 while the NSX-R does in 2:01.96 ... let's say a "normal" Na2 is a full 2 seconds slower than the NSX-R ...

Happy New year!
 
This is a great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VstzlUWZnOI

</EMBED>

the S2000 (Ap2) has a best lap of 2:08.96 while the NSX-R does in 2:01.96 ... let's say a "normal" Na2 is a full 2 seconds slower than the NSX-R ...

Happy New year!
That S2000 is a 9000RPM FR Layout. Upgraded AP1. Japan only sold the 9000RPM car.
250 HP on a 9000RPM 2 litre. You cannot compare to a NA AP1 or AP2. Basically the stock NA cars are much slower than this.
 
That S2000 is a 9000RPM FR Layout. Upgraded AP1. Japan only sold the 9000RPM car.
250 HP on a 9000RPM 2 litre. You cannot compare to a NA AP1 or AP2. Basically the stock NA cars are much slower than this.

I though they moved to the 2.2 in 06? OK I guess I was wrong ... :D
 
Sounds right. I assume that all cars are stock, and lap times are with traffic. Thanks for getting those together.

I'm not going to go back and look, but the vast majority are in race conditions, with maybe a couple being time-attacks. Half the time the race laps are quicker anyway.

All cars were bone stock to my knowledge, excepting camera equipment in some cases.
 
Bahahhahaha my s2k had 210hp at the wheels ... It weight only like 150 less than my nsx and has 50 whp less, leave alone the top end on my s2k was 145mph while my nsx does 170 with ease .... On a 13 mile track I am sure I could be at least 1 min faster than my s2k .. I swear that could happen.Oscar

I really don't know what to say here........you should take them to a track sometime. The video was nice. I enjoyed it.
 
Hi Billy,

I did say "NSX is faster than S2000, stock to stock", and I don't mind saying it again. Are you saying that a stock S2000 is faster than a stock NSX? If so, THAT is a bold statement; especially on this forum.

For the record, official Nurburgring lap times are recorded and only recorded without traffic. Every Nurburgring lap time with traffic is considered as "unofficial". Most of the reputable tests were conducted by Sport Auto Germany, and both NSX and S200 lap times I referred were conducted by Sport Auto. Over 80% of those tested were even done by the same driver. I agree that some conditions may change. However, they run many many laps and take the best time, and they also avoid bad weather when they test. Nurburgring lap time cannot be used as the holy grail, but it is considered one of the most important evaluation to today's production sports cars. I simply referred to the most reliable tracking data available to us, and it tells us that NSX is one second faster than the S2000 on a 12.9 miles long track. With the result being that close between the two cars, it is true that even a 10% change in humidity can turn it around. I see that you added a few variables into this, but I didn't hear a statement.
Hello. To clear up any confusion are we talking about USDM cars or JDM cars (primary difference is the US' poor gear ratio) and then after that are we talking about NA1/NA2 and AP1/AP2?

What "official Nurburgring" lap times are you referring to? There are many videos of various cars (manufacturer, magazine, etc...) and their corresponding 'official' lap time with varying traffic (some with, some on a closed track) as well as varying start/finish points - some records/magazines/manufacturers have the start line the same as the finish while others use a separate start and finish for their timed runs.

Having the same magazine/procedure/driver is a much more accurate method for lap times but depending on the ability of the driver, it often takes even well seasoned drivers more time than they get to adapt to a car to get 100% out of it on such a long track.

My post #65: Stock for stock, the S2000 is a faster track car. For slightly mod vs slightly mod, its still hard to be at a S2000 with coilovers and 255/255 tires. The NSX needs at least 235/275 width tires and coilovers -and very importantly: a baffled oil pan, to be competitive. Even so, it will take an LSD and the Japanese gear ratios to put it near par/eclipse the S2000 on shorter tracks.

-was in reference to the poor gear ratio that the US NSXs have which is a huge disadvantage at tracks with tight corners that use 2nd gear alot (which is common for many southern california race tracks). On faster, wide-open tracks, the increased power of the NSX does play an advantage and will probably be faster.

So to clarify, the S2000 is a very quick track car and stock vs. stock, a US-geared (5spd) NSX will probably be slower than an S2000 on tight tracks while the NSX might have an upper hand on faster tracks. However once an S2000 has suspension, a wing, and 255/255 width tires, it becomes much harder for the NSX to be competitive even with similar modifications - especially in Southern California's relatively slower tracks.

Billy
 
Hi Billy,

I am not entirely sure if your debate is with me. My statement of "NSX is faster than S2000, stock to stock, but not by much. On the most famous Nurburgring, the NA2 NSX beat the AP1 S2000 by 1(one) second in best lap time. Would the NA2 beat the AP2? There is no official data for that, but it's doubtful." does not contradict with what you posted so far. Nurburgring is a very(if not the most) difficult raceway, and the average speed is quiet fast. Cars like NSX and S2000 has an average speed around 95 m/h; faster competitors like the new GTR has an average speed of over 103 m/h. Given a slower track with tighter corners, is it possible for a S2000 to beat a NSX? My personal guess is yes. I actually agree with most of you assessment, so I am not sure what else can I respond. I used to track every month on PIR with my S2000, and I was actually faster in my S2000 than my friend's 99 NSX. Same driver, same weather, and the same track. But I might be more comfortable with my own car, so I wouldn't dare to use my own experiences in any discussion. However, your "stock for stock, the S2000 is a faster track car." is highly debatable. You can see that people on this and some other posts believe that NSX is "much" faster than S2000; I am not one of those tho.

For the Nurburgring lap time,

Fastestlap.com. The records here matches the Nurburgring wiki.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html

This is the Nurburgring lap time wiki page. I use it as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring_lap_times

Sport Auto German Lap time. They have their own websie, but I can't read German. I like this one because it's done by the same folks and has a high reputation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_auto_(Germany)

Here is a very comprehensive list. It's not as official, but fun to see:
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID=0&gID=3&tID=10073&viewThread=y
 
Last edited:
Hi Billy,

I am not entirely sure if your debate is with me. My statement of "NSX is faster than S2000, stock to stock, but not by much. On the most famous Nurburgring, the NA2 NSX beat the AP1 S2000 by 1(one) second in best lap time. Would the NA2 beat the AP2? There is no official data for that, but it's doubtful." does not contradict with what you posted so far. Nurburgring is a very(if not the most) difficult raceway, and the average speed is quiet fast. Cars like NSX and S2000 has an average speed around 95 m/h; faster competitors like the new GTR has an average speed of over 103 m/h. Given a slower track with tighter corners, is it possible for a S2000 to beat a NSX? My personal guess is yes. I actually agree with most of you assessment, so I am not sure what else can I respond. I used to track every month on PIR with my S2000, and I was actually faster in my S2000 than my friend's 99 NSX. Same driver, same weather, and the same track. But I might be more comfortable with my own car, so I wouldn't dare to use my own experiences in any discussion.
I wouldn't say its a debate against what you have said as we seem to agree on many things. My last statment seems to sum it up:

So to clarify, the S2000 is a very quick track car and stock vs. stock, a US-geared (5spd) NSX will probably be slower than an S2000 on tight tracks while the NSX might have an upper hand on faster tracks. However once an S2000 has suspension, a wing, and 255/255 width tires, it becomes much harder for the NSX to be competitive even with similar modifications - especially in Southern California's relatively slower tracks.


However, your "stock for stock, the S2000 is a faster track car." is highly debatable. You can see that people on this and some other posts believe that NSX is "much" faster than S2000; I am not one of those tho.
While I don't usually agree with blanket statments (and dislike making one myself), I would probably have to say that a stock AP2 is faster than an NA2 and AP1 over an NA1 for most of our local SoCal tracks. At a minimum you have to look at some main points: tire size, suspension, and the type of track -of both to determine which car will be faster, and since the USDM NSX is at a disadvantage on tighter tracks, in our local scene I might argue for S2K's being faster than NSXs.

I'll have a chance to play with my personal car on street tires soon to compare to my S2K street-tire times at these tracks. But after years of tracking other people's R-compound shod NSXs, the stock 2nd gear in the 5speed just kills the car at the track and even with better tires, the NSX struggles.

On a faster track like Laguna Seca, Road America, Road Atlanta, etc... I would say hands down the NSX is faster primarily due to its power advantage. So it is relative to what you are looking at.
 
Last edited:
I'm a good friend of one of the members on here, jet3000gt. I own an 01 AP1 and an 06 AP2 currently. I bought the 06 new and the 01 a year ago with 14k miles from the original owner. I love the s2000! (obviously) I have driven Jet3000gt's 97 NA2 on numerous occasions and can say it is an experience in itself! As soon as the funds permit, I plan on purchasing an NA1. I plan on keeping both s2000s also. If I were on a budget (which I currently am), I'd purchase an s2000. The costs of maintenance on an s2000 is virtually non existent in comparison. If I were to choose an s2000 to daily it would be the AP2, because of the small amount of additional tq it has. Mods I highly recommend are an OEM Hardtop for visibily and safety and a low profile seat rail for additional head room.
 
Last edited:
1) billy (fxmd billy) definately has more driving skill and like more track experience with the nsx and s2000 then anyone. so his opinion is most valuable. s2k better on short tracks and nsx better on longer track.

2)i have owned 3 s2ks (2 ap1's and my current 2008 ap2) and currently own 2 na2 nsx's. I think the s2k driving experiece TOP DOWN beats the nsx. (t top or coupe ) PERIOD!!

I live in southern ca and have also lived in norcal, colorado and ohio. because i live in southern ca and can drive top down 12 months out of the year and i enjoy top down driving, i actually prefer driving an s2000!!! However, if i lived in a climate where i would not be able to drive the s2000 with the top down.. (the s2000 with the top up does not have a great audible experience) I would much prefer the increased torque of the nsx and the much better audible experience of the car as well as the nicer interior -- especially the exhaust note inside the nsx an arc or taitec gt lightweight exhaust. My s2k has an amuse titanium exhaust to try to get some good accoustics going on, and while it is really good for a 4 cylinder car it does not compare to an nsx with a taitec gt lightweight or arc titanium exhaust. (or gt rom etc)

So to me you really have to be honest about chosing between an nsx you have to really evaluate what your intended use is
1) so if you like top down and live in an area where you can drive top down.. then s2k
2)if you drive long drives or have a longer commute then nsx
3) if track the car or autocross then likely s2k .. however if you have more funds the nsx can be a very capable track car.. see what billy and fxmd has done!!
4) if you want a nicer car and more exclusivity. (more finish, better materials) then you will likely prefer the nsx.
5) if you don't care about #4 and just want a car that is a hoot to drive and beat on, and you have another car to daily drive if you wish, then i think you would prefer an s2k.

i had tried 2 previous times to live life without an s2000 and both times a few months later had to buy one, so i am resolved that i will keep my 2008 s2000 for awhile.
happy new year
 
I have owned Comptech SC S2000. It was modified, it was nice & fast and I like it.
Nsx is great car and can't wait to get it boosted :) .

After all, nsx get place #1 :)
 
I'm so surprised at all of this. I own both and have driven many of both but not a CR.
The S2000 is a great handling car that sounds like a Kirby Vacuum cleaner when the exhaust is stock(mine is not). Top goes up and down so easy and fast on the S2000 and the ergonomics are great like the NSX.

I personally feel that the NSX(NA1) vs S2k as far as acceleration goes, to be so heavily in favor of the NSX that it seems unfair to compare.

I'm surprised at what I'm reading here and if not for my experience in both I would think from reading this thread that they were very close in that regard. Sorry folks I don't get it.

The S2000 is a great car, I feel blessed to have one. It has handling like a slot car or a go cart but it has a little motor and it feels like it's straining to give what it does.

My 2 cents.
 
I'm so surprised at all of this. I own both and have driven many of both but not a CR.
The S2000 is a great handling car that sounds like a Kirby Vacuum cleaner when the exhaust is stock(mine is not). Top goes up and down so easy and fast on the S2000 and the ergonomics are great like the NSX.

I personally feel that the NSX(NA1) vs S2k as far as acceleration goes, to be so heavily in favor of the NSX that it seems unfair to compare.

I'm surprised at what I'm reading here and if not for my experience in both I would think from reading this thread that they were very close in that regard. Sorry folks I don't get it.

The S2000 is a great car, I feel blessed to have one. It has handling like a slot car or a go cart but it has a little motor and it feels like it's straining to give what it does.

My 2 cents.

I guess it's time to open the discussion with those who believe "NSX is a much faster car than S2000."

The best advise I can give you is to bring them out to a track. Track'em, run'em, and most importantly, time'em. If you can be more specific about your "experiences" with the two cars, perhaps I can better help you understand.

I can laid down the basic here, and hopefully Billy will help me out a little. First, it immediately tells me a guy knows very little about racing when he says to me: "X is faster than Y because X has higher top speed, faster acceleration, or more power under a dyno." Personally, I'd trade better breaks and tires with those. Power is always over-rated by the novice. For example, a M3 usually pulls away a 4 cars distance against my S2000 on PIR when we start. Sure, the acceleration of a E36 M3 is a huge con for my AP1 S2000, but you know what, the M3 will find me glued to his tail as soon as he's half way in the first right turn. The advantage he gained from the acceleration is non-existence after the first turn. The M3 will keep trying to pull away at every straight, but I'll regain the distance each corner, and every corner. I don't want to dive in too deep, but cars like NSX and S2000 are more fun for me because they require more skills to be fast. In my S2000, people with more expensive cars can easily pass me when I made a mistake. I am in the wrong gear; I lose time. I screw up the heel-n-toe; I lose time. My RPM is low when I exit a turn; I lose time. But boy, I love to see those Porsche owners' faces when they lose to my S2000. That's why I kept doing it. I have to use every inch of the road to maintain my speed, and to be in the right gear. Unlike a GTR or Porsche 911, some can(and prefer because it's easier) to enter the corner slow, and find the open exit line early to fully take advantage of those horses under their front hood. Then to keep up with them in our cars we need to out-smart them. So the very first thing for people to understand is that, much faster on a straight road does NOT mean any faster on a race track. If all we track people care about is how fast we're on a open straight lane, something like Camaro HPE650 or Shelby GT500 would be very nice bang for the bucks.

Racing on a race track is not about stop and go. It's more about maintaining speed and be at the right speed. It's raceway by raceway, but the average speed of a NSX driven by a pro-driver is about 96 m/h on Nurburgring. The average speed of a S2000 is within 1 m/h with the NSX. Unless it's a NASCAR sprint, the top speed of NSX has zero advantage against a S2000, and S2000 will always be as fast as a NSX, as long as it's a racetrack that takes skills, and not some straight open road. BTW, I never get those people who brag about NSX is faster than a S2000 on a straight road. First, it takes very little skills, and second, isn't it much easier to buy a Corvette, stripe everything out, and put a NOS tank in it? Why put NSX to a drag race, what it's worst at, when you can put it on a racetrack, where it can humble many other cars that are more expensive?

Another experience that I live to share is NSX does "feel" faster than a S2000. I drove them both on PIR. I thought I was at least a few seconds faster when I tried the NSX, but I was actually slower. I tried it quiet a few times, and I even recorded it. The reason people "feel" they're faster in a NSX is because the shorter nose. The driver is much closer to the road in front of him, and mistakenly think they're at faster speed. I had to review my race cam a few times to figure that out. The moral of the story is that people's feeling can lie, but lap times don't.

I hope these help to understand why NSX isn't faster than a S2000 on race tracks. Please do ask question so we can clarify.
 
Last edited:
if you are going to keep the car for a long time, i think the nsx is the car. there are not many cars that still look great after >15 yrs. the s2k is ordinary looking and won't stand the test of time, imo.
 
Lol.. this thread has turned real racers into bench racers:eek: Btw my keyboard is Not faster than many of yours..I can't type,but with two fingers:redface:
 
Back
Top