s2000 vs FD3S - has anyone got experience of both?

[ramirez]

So guys I don\'t know if for my next car I want to get a well sorted FD or an S2000...... have any of you experienced ownership of both and if so how did they compare?

i\'d love a good reliable FD but I just have this feeling that an s2000 would be as much fun and potentially a bit easier to live with day to day, but maybe not as special to drive..... what do you think?

[ChrisS]

No experience of the s2000 but had a similar dilema before i bought my FD last year. Came to the conclusion that i would find the s2000 too slow and end up wanting to turbo/supercharge it. Ended up buying a t78 single turbo\'d fd instead. depends on what your coming from aswell, i had 400bhp+ pulsar prior which was ridiculously quick hence why i thought id find the s2000 a bit tame

[B.Martin]

What about your GTR?

FD for me for the following well documented reasons... A lack of lowdown torque, twitchy standard handling and massive lack of extra power tuning options coupled woth the need to thrash it to go fast with the s2000 leaves no comparison in my book

[ad4m1]

S2000 also isn\'t as reliable as you might think. They do suffer engine bottom end probs and aren\'t really great to use daily not least because it\'s not really capable of carrying anything. Buy a good FD and keep it reasonably standardish and it\'ll be nicer to live with day to day.

[Ricco_04]

Only ever been a passanger in an s2k driven in anger - seemed to have a little less grip, quite pointy (if that makes sense)

On its plus side, I dont think its a bad looker, will be better on fuel for the short journeys, predictable power and you can pop the roof off too

[CharlieP]

Hi I have both

S2000- great car, probably as fast as an FD...BUT a very different drive, all the speed comes from revs, so seems like youre driving it like a racing car
Get on a twisty road, sun shining, roof down...it all makes sense

With that said, the FD is the car of choice

Just seen Ricos Post- fuel wise, the Honda is no better than a well set up rex

[neil_jdmr]

Driven both and power delivery is the major difference for me, the s2k demands revs but  the fd has great torque from 2k. The fd had the edge in straight line speed and more predictable handling . The s2k is a awesome soundtrack and open top motoring

[neil_jdmr]

Forgot to add power increasing is easy with the turbo motor and very difficult and expensive with the vtec

[robedwards99]

I\'ve had both, currently have my S2000 for sale in fact!

FD was quicker in a straight line no doubt about it, mine was a 1995 that was in perfect condition and had no expense spared with replacing worn parts such as bushes.

That being said, I am 100% sure I could get the S2000 around a track quicker than the FD. The S2k has much sharper and more direct handling feel probably due to the newer design and the soundtrack at full chat is also great!

I will say S2k can be a bit twitchy in the wet but no moreso than the FD.

If I had the choice again now I would probably go for the S2000.

I hope that helps!

Mine For Sale!! http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70406

[Lil-Steve]

I have driven both and looked after both, and I feel there are a few things to clear up:
 
An S2000 just IS more reliable than an FD there\'s no denying it, yes they still go bang but nowhere near as often as any turbo car. And I don\'t care what anyone says the S2000 is waaaaay better on fuel, if you hammered the crap out of the S2000 IE> 7000rpm the entire time you\'d have to drive the FD like an old woman to do the same MPG.
 
On your favourite road the FD is faster unless it\'s raining. The S2000 is (depending on year and revision) generally a similar feel, less grippy, but more preditcable and precise. It doesn\'t have quite the super turn in of the FD but it\'s a nicer car at the apex and corner exit. Both have simailar handling potential but the S2000 feels easier to pull off the same mid corner speed. Straight line the FD wins everytime, that\'s not to say the S2000 is torqueless that\'s a common thing that people say of it\'s it\'s simply not true, if you\'re used to Turbos or big displacement then of course it has less torque but compared to everyone elses 2 litre 4 banger its not bad at all.
 
The S2000 chasis is really well put together compared to the FD and is rock solid in comparison to early almost 20 year old FD\'s. Also the pedal weights and the gearbox are probably the best I\'ve ever come across but the steering is better weighted on the FD.

[Grant Monkhouse]

I haven\'t driven an s2k but what I can say is that you can\'t compare a turbod motor to na for any kind of torque level.

He\'ll I even bet most single turbo FDs produce more torque than an f1 car.

If you don\'t believe me look it up.

I think what it comes down to is how much your willing to spend on a car in the long run, modified FD you will have to spend money on something at some point as they are old now.

I\'m sure a standard s2k will require little money spending on it, unless you seek more power that is?

[CharlieP]

I have driven both and looked after both, and I feel there are a few things to clear up:
 
An S2000 just IS more reliable than an FD there\'s no denying it, yes they still go bang but nowhere near as often as any turbo car. And I don\'t care what anyone says the S2000 is waaaaay better on fuel, if you hammered the crap out of the S2000 IE> 7000rpm the entire time you\'d have to drive the FD like an old woman to do the same MPG.
 

I got my S2000 down to 16mpg on a hard drive
My FD was regularly doing 20mpg, with 50:50 driving :Thumbsup!

I dont want to seem like I\'m arguing, because I\'m not....I was hoping the S2000 would be significantly better on fuel than the FD....but even with easy driving it\'s only doing 25ish

[Lil-Steve]

I got my S2000 down to 16mpg on a hard drive
My FD was regularly doing 20mpg, with 50:50 driving :Thumbsup!
 
I dont want to seem like I\'m arguing, because I\'m not....I was hoping the S2000 would be significantly better on fuel than the FD....but even with easy driving it\'s only doing 25ish

My FD\'s best ever day 1 day only was 22mpg and that was running a new engine never above 3500rpm, my best day with the S2000 was 34mpg and had a bit of a play as well this was the original 2.0 AP1 not the modern 2.2
 
Flat out on track my FD does 4.2mpg I doubt any S2000 could claim that without a turbo.
 
It all depends on state of tune and there are hardly any unmodified FD\'s out there. If I see 17mpg on a steady drive I feel happy with the FD.

[robedwards99]

I have to agree that the S2k is a lot more economical than an FD, not just on petrol but on servicing and spares etc.