Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Poll: S2000vs350Z
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: S2000vs350Z - Page 7

post #91 of 123
12/3/09 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't think the S2000 interior is one of the best-looking in a contemporary production car, nonetheless who thinks the C5 interior "isn't much worse."

I happen to hate how both the 350 and 370Z look, inside and out, so I'd never consider them. They look like bloated cartoon versions of vintage Zs and ZXs. I also don't understand how anybody could cross-shop between a C5 and an S2000. They are completely different cars with different emphases. It's not just about numbers, after all.

Thank you.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 123
12/3/09 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't think the S2000 interior is one of the best-looking in a contemporary production car, nonetheless who thinks the C5 interior "isn't much worse."

Well thanks for pointing that out using a picture of a worn C5 interior and comparing that to a showroom fresh S2000 interior. I can do the same thing with a GM brochure shot and a picture from Google Image Search.

Honestly are you going to buy a sports car for the interior? That's like dating a supermodel for her thoughts on global hunger. Nice to have but in the end it's something I can live without.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 123
12/3/09 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias View Post
Well thanks for pointing that out using a picture of a worn C5 interior and comparing that to a showroom fresh S2000 interior. I can do the same thing with a GM brochure shot and a picture from Google Image Search.

Honestly are you going to buy a sports car for the interior? That's like dating a supermodel for her thoughts on global hunger. Nice to have but in the end it's something I can live without.

Given the creature comforts that both these vehicles come with, it's hard to call either of them a true sports car. And given that the interior is what you see 100% of the time you're driving the car, I think it's fairly important to have something decent. The C5's interior is simply unacceptable and there is no arguing that.

And by all means, go find a picture of 0 mile C5 interior and a 100k mile S2K interior. The S2K interior is still going to look 100x better.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 123
12/3/09 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawlin View Post
Given the creature comforts that both these vehicles come with, it's hard to call either of them a true sports car. And given that the interior is what you see 100% of the time you're driving the car, I think it's fairly important to have something decent. The C5's interior is simply unacceptable and there is no arguing that.

And by all means, go find a picture of 0 mile C5 interior and a 100k mile S2K interior. The S2K interior is still going to look 100x better.

I saw one in person. It looked a lot like the interior of the C5 you guys have posted. It had yet to reach the 100k mile mark but based on initial progress I would say it will get worse.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 123
12/3/09 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias View Post
Well thanks for pointing that out using a picture of a worn C5 interior and comparing that to a showroom fresh S2000 interior. I can do the same thing with a GM brochure shot and a picture from Google Image Search.

It's a matter of design, workmanship, and material quality--the wear happens to be on that particular C5 interior isn't an issue in my judgment. Feel free to find a picture of a fresh C5 interior. It will still exhibit all the aesthetic faults that put it leagues behind the S2000's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias View Post
Honestly are you going to buy a sports car for the interior? That's like dating a supermodel for her thoughts on global hunger. Nice to have but in the end it's something I can live without.

Agreed, to some extent. The truth is that sporty cars like the S2000 and Corvette are usually driven on regular roads in regular traffic, not on tracks, and not with the sole intention of achieving better lap times. Insofar as interiors make regular driving more enjoyable and a car is used for regular driving, they matter.

Anyway, a buyer can determine for himself how much a car's interior matters. I was just contesting your claim that the C5 and S2000 interiors are even remotely close in terms of design and quality.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 123
12/3/09 at 9:01pm
S2000 is the best car for people who like driving, what appeals to people who like 350z.. I guess they can chime in
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 123
12/3/09 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias View Post
I saw one in person. It looked a lot like the interior of the C5 you guys have posted. It had yet to reach the 100k mile mark but based on initial progress I would say it will get worse.

At this point, you're just trolling.

Here is a 105k S2000. Interior looks mint.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/VTEC-...item3357e17f67
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 123
12/3/09 at 9:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Anyway, a buyer can determine for himself how much a car's interior matters. I was just contesting your claim that the C5 and S2000 interiors are even remotely close in terms of design and quality.

Different strokes for different folks, and you're right in that it's really up to the individual buyer. I honestly don't care for either interior, and so I don't give them much thought. But that's just me and my argument.

The S2000 I did see in person did look very nice on the outside at least. The owner kept it very clean. I haven't seen it around anymore; the owner probably moved back to the states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bawlin View Post
At this point, you're just trolling.

Here is a 105k S2000. Interior looks mint.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/VTEC-...item3357e17f67

Nice interior. Looks a lot better than the one I saw in person. But don't take my word for it, I'm sure your ebay auction picture sources far outweigh what an internet person has to say.

Edit: The interior looked like the one this car had. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-...item27ad60d53d
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 123
12/3/09 at 10:14pm
S2000, and for the reasons everyone stated. Most fun on winding roads, unless you have to have low-end V8 grunt, in which case you are not considering this car anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 123
12/4/09 at 5:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb1910 View Post
Over 6' tall = 350z
Under 6' = S2000

But not too much over 6' in the Z unless you're all legs..... my head gets pinched against the roof (6'2"). But true about the S2000, my knee got stuck between the steering wheel and the center console.

If the Z has leather seats it probably has the stupid seat controls on the side bolster, NOT comfortable after 20 mins for bigger guys.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 123
12/6/09 at 4:52pm
I owned a S2000, traded my M3 in for one and I have to say the S2000 is a very tiring drive, the engine simply doesn't produce enough torque, the handling isn't that good when compared with other European marques either. However, I have to say it's beautifully constructed car and very reliable considering it's highly stressed engine.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 123
12/6/09 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by George View Post
I owned a S2000, traded my M3 in for one and I have to say the S2000 is a very tiring drive, the engine simply doesn't produce enough torque, the handling isn't that good when compared with other European marques either. However, I have to say it's beautifully constructed car and very reliable considering it's highly stressed engine.

George, did you have an AP1 or AP2 S2000? Even the 2004 onwards S2000 has relatively little torque compared to an M3 (E36 or later) but I still think they are great fun, and I was impressed by the handling. I will say most prefer the steering feel of the M3 to the S2000, but the same could be said of the M3 and most other cars as well.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 123
12/7/09 at 8:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad_K View Post
George, did you have an AP1 or AP2 S2000? Even the 2004 onwards S2000 has relatively little torque compared to an M3 (E36 or later) but I still think they are great fun, and I was impressed by the handling. I will say most prefer the steering feel of the M3 to the S2000, but the same could be said of the M3 and most other cars as well.

I bought it in 2003 so it would have been one of the 1st generation. I actually only drove it properly for about the 1st month or so before tiring of it and giving the keys to Mrs G. who loved it as she likes to rev things (her words).

The M3 had quite a high reving engine also, can't remember the exact red line but 8000 rpm springs to mind but was very torquey and being a six cylinder engine had a good spread of torque through the rev range, a very enjoyable drive.

I toyed with the idea of getting the latest M3 but with a little daughter I doubt it now.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 123
12/8/09 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFusilliJerry View Post
i maintain that either one is 10 times better than a bmw z4

I maintain that you are an idiot.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 123
12/8/09 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb1910 View Post
Over 6' tall = 350z Under 6' = S2000
Revised buyer's guide: Guido = 350 Homosexual Guido = 370 Homosexual Non-Guido = S2000
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Poll: S2000vs350Z