The Z4 has far more potential, even given several manufacturer limitations. for example its a true dual exhaust save the catalytic converter and the muffler. this creates a lot of unneeded back pressure. When I removed those and replaced with dual on my 05 2.5i I gained 35lbs of torque at the wheels.
BMW is a great car in terms of performance and class. But the s2000 is balls to the wall fun. Its just so raw a car. When i owned a z4 it made a nice weekend cruiser. But now that i own a s2000 its a mountain carver. Everything about it is just so responsive. The gearbox is perfection. You want to wear a nice little badge around town buy the BMW. You want to have fun around the bends? Buy a s2000.
I'm not so sure about that either. You can usually tell who crosses the finish line first by seeing who applied their brakes first. The Z4 applies it's brakes almost on full second ahead of the S2000.
Bahaha! You get what you pay for. It's amazing what bmw engineers have done. Not knocking on Honda, their cars are great and last long. But the overall build quality of a bmw is better. Who else makes a 6 cylinder sports car that gets 30mpg? Also if you take the time, you will find a good deal. I paid 7500 cash for my z4. Not a problem with it either!
Also, HP doesnt necessarily mean faster, but the Z4s 6 (255 hp) cylinder defiantly has more horsepower than the SR 2000s 4 cylinder (237 hp). Were talking 3.0si as thats the one with the $10,000 difference. The 3.0i is only $2,000 more.
It really depends on the driver. The cars are similar enough, performance-wise, that when it comes down to it the better driver will probably have the better time no matter which car they're in.
You say that you were the driver, but you're not the poster of this video. Are you from Belarus? What part of Europe are you from, as my job takes me there often?
Mates, I am the fat chick in the Z4 :)) I remember clearly with the top off and 2 passengers in Z4 - the bloody S2K with one tiny driver won by a few meters :) 3rd gear in S2K looked quite impressive - except for the ridiculous sound ;) BMWs rock though.
It's more shades of grey than black and white. Ultimately, it's just about the best bang for the buck. Ferraris and Lamborghinis are as much status symbols as they are cars.
The S2000 CR has no engine upgrades, it stays at 240 hp while having improved aerodynamics and weight reduction, so it would be more fair to compare it to the stock Z4. The episode of top-gear, the time on the track was different by .4 seconds, which may be a big deal, but i'm sure the fact that it was raining probably played a big part. While i agree that this race means nothing, i think the less than 1 second track times all around doesn't justify a greater than $10,000 price tag.
The cheapest brand new Z4 on AutoTrader runs just over $4000 more than the most expensive new Honda S2000. Meanwhile, the non-GXP Solstice (which is a whole second and a half slower 0-60, at 7 seconds, than the S2000, which isn't "almost as fast" in anyone's ballpark) retails another $4000 lower than the S2000, at approx. $31,000. If you want a Solstice that's actually fast you have to get the GXP, which retails at a comparable price to the S2000 and admittedly is slightly faster 0-60.
2006 Z4 3.0si has a 0-60 speed, as tested, of 5.1 seconds. 2006 Z4M, has a 0-60 speed of 4.8 seconds. The 2006 Honda S2000 has a 0-60 of 5.5 seconds. The 2010 Honda S2000 for some reason shows a 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds...but something seems really wrong with that. Either way...Z4 3.0si and Z4M are both winners. The latest Z4 model is just a 3 litre engine, and pulls 0-60 in 5 seconds. There is currently no M version, but once made, you can expect a 0-60 of 4.5 to 4.6 seconds. Cheers
And, should you question the validity of those numbers: " This is a collection of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times that have been accumulated from many different sources over the years. These sources all include vehicle testing done by "the experts" at Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track, various written auto publications and from the auto manufacturers themselves. Our club does not do any of the actual testing of the cars, we just post the results that we find from the above mentioned sources."
I'm hardly a little guy, and I have PLENTY of room in my S2000. I've talked to people who are 6'6" and have enough room to be comfortable. What exactly makes the warranty on the Z4 better than one on an S2000? For $5000, I could throw a turbo or supercharger on my F20C, have a much faster car, and still have a little money left over.
This started because you wrote that the extra money was for the BMW badge, which is ignorant. The extra money is for comfort and handling. It's for tighter turning and better braking. It's 50k miles of you-pay-nothing warranty, not even oil changes. I break even a cup holder and it's repaired for free. It's better gas milage, at 28 mpg. Cheaper is just that. Cheaper in every sense of the word....
No. Comparing the 2.5 to the S2000 would be fail, comparing the 3.0i wouldn't. Its a lot faster then people think (nearly as fast as the 3.0si). BMW advertises it as being able to do 60 in 5.9 so it wouldn't seem so close in performance to the Si. The truth is that it can hit 60 in 5.3/5.4 and do the quarter mile in 14/14.1. Great competitor to the S2000, actually.
No. It costs more because it's a better car, with a better warranty, with more head and leg room, more trunk space, and a tighter turning circle. So I guess those things don't to people like hammerhead. Oh, and it's also a bit faster...
I was expecting the Z4 to get a head start because of its torque, which it did. Looks like the S2000 however had a better top end power to weight. I searched this vid because I was thinking of upgrading my S2000 to a 3.0l Z4.
You do know what car you drive right? If you ARE the driver, then you should know the official times, and which SR 2000 does which speed. The speeds I quoted are accurate, as posted by 'Car and Driver'. The standard SR 2000 does 0 to 60 in 6.4 seconds. Top Gear has also reported faster speeds for the Z4. If you have problems with the official times, talk to them. You're talking about the SR200 CR, which is NOT standard. However, the Z4 M series blows it away with 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds!
Well one of the trims involves removing a/c and radio, but, me personally, would never pay for that. When i mentioned weight reduction i meant the factory removed soft-top. The s2000 is meant to be a more raw driving experience in celebration to Honda's long line of racing experience. Its probably as close to a streetable race track car that we will have on the normal roads. The z4 is more of a luxury, name brand, roadster.
According to albeedigital's 0-60/quarter mile database: 2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2 2003 BMW Z4 3.0i 5.4 14.2 One tenth of a second 0-60. Big whoop. The BMW costs more because of the BMW badges on it.
I have the honda s2000 ap1 yr 2001 and i fixed up too many times which cost me more bucks. I blow motors because of the turboed upgrade. your motor life will not last long if you have the forced induction aftermarket. I think i will go for z4m this time which I'm saving money for. atleast this time i dont have to worry warranty and upgrades. Z4M is the ultimate driving machine in its class. powered by M.
I said it once, I'll say it again. It's ONE TENTH OF A SECOND faster in the quarter mile. If trunk space and head/leg room are of major concern of you when you buy a car, you shouldn't be buying a sports car. I have all the room I need in my S2000, and I didn't have to pay a BMW price to get it. For the price a Z4 owner would pay for his or her BMW, I could buy an S2000 and make it faster anyway.
In your dreams! The BMW IS faster, but that's not why it costs more. ALL BMW's have 5 years/50,000 miles. The BMW Z4 has a tighter turning circle. The Z4 has a larger cabin. The Z4 has a larger gas tank, and better gas milage (28 mpg). Z4 has a larger trunk. The Z4 has run-flat tires. All of that AND IT'S FASTER!
@Tireburner7 The solstice has even less interior room than the s2000. I'm 6'2 and I can fit in the s2000, but not the solstice at all. With the seats pushed back I can't even move my feet normally to operate the car. What can you do with all that power when you can't even drive the car? Bad design on their part. And don't tell me it's designed for people who are 6 feet or less. lol
.4 is still faster. The 10K price difference has nothing to do with the speed, and everthing to do with comfort, interior space, style, truck space etc. If you CAN afford it, the Z4 is the better car.
You say a Z4 can only go head to head with an S2000 by using TWIN TURBO??? That is the most fucken idiotic thing I have ever heard. If the Z4 used twin turbo,you would see the Z4 at least 100m in front of the s2k.
Youve got to be kidding me! Head and leg room dont matter in a sports car???? Sure, only little guys drive sports cars! A tighter turning circle doesnt matter in a sports car??? Who in their right mind wants a FAR better warranty? Youre acting like theres a 20k price difference when, depending on the options you choose for both cars, theres really only about a 5k difference.
This race between amateurs means nothing. The Z4 has more HP and faster track times. Top Gear, Car & Driver, and many others pick the BMW. The standard S2000 does 0 to 60 in 6.4 seconds (kind of slow really). The standard Z4si does 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds (just a bit faster, but a MUCH nicer car). Honda best, the S2000 CR does 0 to 60 in just 5.4 seconds, but the BMW Z4 M BLOWS IT AWAY with 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds! You can't argue with professional times set by professional drivers.
@AlexanderTomich Lol yeahh the slk DOES look like a chick car. idk i feel the S is more motor sports oriented than the z4, z4 is offered with optional automatic transmission while the S is 6MT only. but i guess bmw wanted to fit a larger demographics into their buyer market. good vid tho i like the music ^.^ lol
Right. The GXP is faster. So is that the best car? You don't rate cars by their price tags. If that were the case who would buy ferrari's and lamborghini's? Being cheaper NEVER makes a car better. It might if the two cars were equal, but these two are not.
I had the Z4 3.0si 6spd manual, the one in the video seemed like an automatic, test drove the S2K, close but if you wanted to modify any I would go with the S2K.
By the standards youre setting the Pontiac Solstice should be the best car, as its almost as fast as the S2000, and its a lot cheaper. How about: If you dont have the money to afford it, you shouldnt buy a sports car.
Russian who wants to be British ;) .. and the driver is Mega Munich Mate, we get together in the native town and waste time summer evening... even if S2K is faster in some circumstances, the BMW is sexier yup ;p
@mapexmaster1992 Perfect response.I don't race at all but I love my Z...that being said an S2000 is still a great car at a GREAT price....the reason I went with the Z is the interior feel.It just felt right for ME. It's got that bit of a luxury feel to it that I find the Honda is missing....though the S2000s make up with that in price. So who wins? The drivers of Zs and S2000s that's who.
The new Z4, unfortunately, was castrated. It has no balls. Too much of an 'everyday driver' as opposed to an enthusiasts car. Besides, a z4 3.0si or z4m would beat out the s2000 any day of the week. That's a fact. Of course if you compare the s2000 to the z4 3.0i or z4 2.5...then yes, it is fail.
Magazine racing has official times, and is done by professional drivers. NOT BY KIDS THAT CAN'T AFFORD NICE CARS, AND SO DRIVE CHEAP CARS THAT THEY WISH WERE FAST! Next you'll all be saying that the Solstice is the fastest car there is! HA!
I own a z4 3.0 and it does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds as i have tested it and the hnnda which mymate has does 0-60 in 6 seconds so the z4 is faster and will be better quality as its more expensive to buy but the honda will rev to 9k rpm, both really nice cars, but sorry the z4 is slightly quicker
Starwarsnumberone, Do you know ANYTHING about either car? Do you drive either car? Anyone who thinks Star Wars is number one, shouldn't be allowed to have kids, vote, or post.
@Theologist um yeah the 2010 s2000 has a strange 0-60 time of 6.1 but thats because the 2010 s2000 doesnt exist. lol. Production stopped in 2009. There is no 2010 s2000. Yes the m version is a beast but you will have to pay that premium for it. If i had the cash i would jump on.
Ok you buy a BMW so expensive that after a year you do nothing but go to the dealer for so many problems and you get a S2000 for half the price with no problems is fast now is more expensive after the years Hellowwww that idiot said you get what you pay for I will allways buy a Honda S2000 BMW Z4 is $6,000 trade Honda S2000. $15.000 trade lol
who says z4 is $6k trade ? what do you think about honda is a the best car that makes its trade 15$ ? sorry but craiglist are full of s2k posts whice are around $8k and $13k and most of them keep stayin on the lists for months.. but in california research z4 please especially 3.0si which what i bought.. only 4 or 5... so dont tell me cus sold less than s2k.. sold less than s2k cus it built by high quality not like motorcyle material used in s2k.. tell me how you start up your engine hahaha ?
If you really want to show off buy a Lambo not a BMW or a Mercedes Benz or a Audi I will drive a S2000 any time..... At least a Lamborghini countach like mine lol
Z4 IS FAST I HAVE ONE a 03 2.5 sports package, without traction controll and on sport mode ill rape any s2k stock even it its slightly modded. At higher speeds lol even worse
The Z4 has far more potential, even given several manufacturer limitations. for example its a true dual exhaust save the catalytic converter and the muffler. this creates a lot of unneeded back pressure. When I removed those and replaced with dual on my 05 2.5i I gained 35lbs of torque at the wheels.
BMW is a great car in terms of performance and class. But the s2000 is balls to the wall fun. Its just so raw a car. When i owned a z4 it made a nice weekend cruiser. But now that i own a s2000 its a mountain carver. Everything about it is just so responsive. The gearbox is perfection. You want to wear a nice little badge around town buy the BMW. You want to have fun around the bends? Buy a s2000.
great run for the Z4 given that there was an extra passanger with him
Z4- Fast, Classy and Unique Design.
S2000- fast, cheap interior, looks like everything else.
Clear winner here.
I'm not so sure about that either. You can usually tell who crosses the finish line first by seeing who applied their brakes first.
The Z4 applies it's brakes almost on full second ahead of the S2000.
Bahaha!
You get what you pay for. It's amazing what bmw engineers have done. Not knocking on Honda, their cars are great and last long. But the overall build quality of a bmw is better. Who else makes a 6 cylinder sports car that gets 30mpg?
Also if you take the time, you will find a good deal. I paid 7500 cash for my z4. Not a problem with it either!
Also, HP doesnt necessarily mean faster, but the Z4s 6 (255 hp) cylinder defiantly has more horsepower than the SR 2000s 4 cylinder (237 hp). Were talking 3.0si as thats the one with the $10,000 difference. The 3.0i is only $2,000 more.
It really depends on the driver. The cars are similar enough, performance-wise, that when it comes down to it the better driver will probably have the better time no matter which car they're in.
You say that you were the driver, but you're not the poster of this video. Are you from Belarus? What part of Europe are you from, as my job takes me there often?
Mates, I am the fat chick in the Z4 :)) I remember clearly with the top off and 2 passengers in Z4 - the bloody S2K with one tiny driver won by a few meters :) 3rd gear in S2K looked quite impressive - except for the ridiculous sound ;) BMWs rock though.
It's more shades of grey than black and white. Ultimately, it's just about the best bang for the buck. Ferraris and Lamborghinis are as much status symbols as they are cars.
The S2000 CR has no engine upgrades, it stays at 240 hp while having improved aerodynamics and weight reduction, so it would be more fair to compare it to the stock Z4.
The episode of top-gear, the time on the track was different by .4 seconds, which may be a big deal, but i'm sure the fact that it was raining probably played a big part.
While i agree that this race means nothing, i think the less than 1 second track times all around doesn't justify a greater than $10,000 price tag.
Were you racing against the 3.0i or 3.0si? Makes a differnce...
The cheapest brand new Z4 on AutoTrader runs just over $4000 more than the most expensive new Honda S2000. Meanwhile, the non-GXP Solstice (which is a whole second and a half slower 0-60, at 7 seconds, than the S2000, which isn't "almost as fast" in anyone's ballpark) retails another $4000 lower than the S2000, at approx. $31,000. If you want a Solstice that's actually fast you have to get the GXP, which retails at a comparable price to the S2000 and admittedly is slightly faster 0-60.
2006 Z4 3.0si has a 0-60 speed, as tested, of 5.1 seconds.
2006 Z4M, has a 0-60 speed of 4.8 seconds.
The 2006 Honda S2000 has a 0-60 of 5.5 seconds.
The 2010 Honda S2000 for some reason shows a 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds...but something seems really wrong with that.
Either way...Z4 3.0si and Z4M are both winners. The latest Z4 model is just a 3 litre engine, and pulls 0-60 in 5 seconds. There is currently no M version, but once made, you can expect a 0-60 of 4.5 to 4.6 seconds.
Cheers
And, should you question the validity of those numbers:
" This is a collection of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times that have been accumulated from many different sources over the years. These sources all include vehicle testing done by "the experts" at Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track, various written auto publications and from the auto manufacturers themselves. Our club does not do any of the actual testing of the cars, we just post the results that we find from the above mentioned sources."
I'm hardly a little guy, and I have PLENTY of room in my S2000. I've talked to people who are 6'6" and have enough room to be comfortable. What exactly makes the warranty on the Z4 better than one on an S2000?
For $5000, I could throw a turbo or supercharger on my F20C, have a much faster car, and still have a little money left over.
This started because you wrote that the extra money was for the BMW badge, which is ignorant. The extra money is for comfort and handling. It's for tighter turning and better braking. It's 50k miles of you-pay-nothing warranty, not even oil changes. I break even a cup holder and it's repaired for free. It's better gas milage, at 28 mpg.
Cheaper is just that. Cheaper in every sense of the word....
No. Comparing the 2.5 to the S2000 would be fail, comparing the 3.0i wouldn't. Its a lot faster then people think (nearly as fast as the 3.0si). BMW advertises it as being able to do 60 in 5.9 so it wouldn't seem so close in performance to the Si. The truth is that it can hit 60 in 5.3/5.4 and do the quarter mile in 14/14.1. Great competitor to the S2000, actually.
That weight reduction is also attained by removing the radio and AC! It's also gain by making the seats thinner, lighter, and less comfortable!
No. It costs more because it's a better car, with a better warranty, with more head and leg room, more trunk space, and a tighter turning circle. So I guess those things don't to people like hammerhead.
Oh, and it's also a bit faster...
I was expecting the Z4 to get a head start because of its torque, which it did. Looks like the S2000 however had a better top end power to weight.
I searched this vid because I was thinking of upgrading my S2000 to a 3.0l Z4.
S2000 came back from behind. That goes to show the real power the car has under the hood.
alryt.. both cars are cool...
but does anyone around here know the title of the song??
Thankies!!
You do know what car you drive right? If you ARE the driver, then you should know the official times, and which SR 2000 does which speed.
The speeds I quoted are accurate, as posted by 'Car and Driver'. The standard SR 2000 does 0 to 60 in 6.4 seconds. Top Gear has also reported faster speeds for the Z4. If you have problems with the official times, talk to them.
You're talking about the SR200 CR, which is NOT standard. However, the Z4 M series blows it away with 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds!
Well one of the trims involves removing a/c and radio, but, me personally, would never pay for that. When i mentioned weight reduction i meant the factory removed soft-top.
The s2000 is meant to be a more raw driving experience in celebration to Honda's long line of racing experience. Its probably as close to a streetable race track car that we will have on the normal roads. The z4 is more of a luxury, name brand, roadster.
According to albeedigital's 0-60/quarter mile database:
2000 Honda S2000 5.5 14.2
2003 BMW Z4 3.0i 5.4 14.2
One tenth of a second 0-60. Big whoop.
The BMW costs more because of the BMW badges on it.
I have the honda s2000 ap1 yr 2001 and i fixed up too many times which cost me more bucks. I blow motors because of the turboed upgrade. your motor life will not last long if you have the forced induction aftermarket. I think i will go for z4m this time which I'm saving money for. atleast this time i dont have to worry warranty and upgrades. Z4M is the ultimate driving machine in its class. powered by M.
I said it once, I'll say it again. It's ONE TENTH OF A SECOND faster in the quarter mile.
If trunk space and head/leg room are of major concern of you when you buy a car, you shouldn't be buying a sports car. I have all the room I need in my S2000, and I didn't have to pay a BMW price to get it.
For the price a Z4 owner would pay for his or her BMW, I could buy an S2000 and make it faster anyway.
In your dreams! The BMW IS faster, but that's not why it costs more.
ALL BMW's have 5 years/50,000 miles. The BMW Z4 has a tighter turning circle. The Z4 has a larger cabin. The Z4 has a larger gas tank, and better gas milage (28 mpg). Z4 has a larger trunk. The Z4 has run-flat tires.
All of that AND IT'S FASTER!
hey thinkabout the weight of the cars and the number of passengers ;)
@Tireburner7 The solstice has even less interior room than the s2000. I'm 6'2 and I can fit in the s2000, but not the solstice at all. With the seats pushed back I can't even move my feet normally to operate the car. What can you do with all that power when you can't even drive the car? Bad design on their part. And don't tell me it's designed for people who are 6 feet or less. lol
Both are my dream rides... i heart Z and s2k
even with a bird in the passanger seat and the top down, the z4 still eats it's ass, nice!
.4 is still faster. The 10K price difference has nothing to do with the speed, and everthing to do with comfort, interior space, style, truck space etc.
If you CAN afford it, the Z4 is the better car.
You say a Z4 can only go head to head with an S2000 by using TWIN TURBO??? That is the most fucken idiotic thing I have ever heard. If the Z4 used twin turbo,you would see the Z4 at least 100m in front of the s2k.
As for my evidence...I also own a Z. ;)
Youve got to be kidding me! Head and leg room dont matter in a sports car???? Sure, only little guys drive sports cars! A tighter turning circle doesnt matter in a sports car??? Who in their right mind wants a FAR better warranty?
Youre acting like theres a 20k price difference when, depending on the options you choose for both cars, theres really only about a 5k difference.
This race between amateurs means nothing. The Z4 has more HP and faster track times. Top Gear, Car & Driver, and many others pick the BMW.
The standard S2000 does 0 to 60 in 6.4 seconds (kind of slow really). The standard Z4si does 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds (just a bit faster, but a MUCH nicer car).
Honda best, the S2000 CR does 0 to 60 in just 5.4 seconds, but the BMW Z4 M BLOWS IT AWAY with 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds!
You can't argue with professional times set by professional drivers.
@AlexanderTomich Lol yeahh the slk DOES look like a chick car. idk i feel the S is more motor sports oriented than the z4, z4 is offered with optional automatic transmission while the S is 6MT only. but i guess bmw wanted to fit a larger demographics into their buyer market. good vid tho i like the music ^.^ lol
Right. The GXP is faster. So is that the best car? You don't rate cars by their price tags. If that were the case who would buy ferrari's and lamborghini's? Being cheaper NEVER makes a car better. It might if the two cars were equal, but these two are not.
I had the Z4 3.0si 6spd manual, the one in the video seemed like an automatic, test drove the S2K, close but if you wanted to modify any I would go with the S2K.
Where the hell did you get that crap from???
The Z4m is much faster than the CR. It's faster than a Porcshe Boxter, for crying out loud!
Leo! Leo!! Leo!!! Z4 forever ;))
By the standards youre setting the Pontiac Solstice should be the best car, as its almost as fast as the S2000, and its a lot cheaper.
How about: If you dont have the money to afford it, you shouldnt buy a sports car.
That piece of shit Z4 probably showed a check engine light after that race and it clearly lost once the S2000 hit 3rd gear. NUFF SAID.
lol
Russian who wants to be British ;) .. and the driver is Mega Munich Mate, we get together in the native town and waste time summer evening... even if S2K is faster in some circumstances, the BMW is sexier yup ;p
@mapexmaster1992
Perfect response.I don't race at all but I love my Z...that being said an S2000 is still a great car at a GREAT price....the reason I went with the Z is the interior feel.It just felt right for ME. It's got that bit of a luxury feel to it that I find the Honda is missing....though the S2000s make up with that in price. So who wins? The drivers of Zs and S2000s that's who.
S2000 pulled ahead by mid 3rd gear.. S2K FTW
Whats the name of the song ?
The new Z4, unfortunately, was castrated. It has no balls. Too much of an 'everyday driver' as opposed to an enthusiasts car.
Besides, a z4 3.0si or z4m would beat out the s2000 any day of the week. That's a fact. Of course if you compare the s2000 to the z4 3.0i or z4 2.5...then yes, it is fail.
@sr420det
lol. its says the video is from Belarus. what did u expect?
whats the name of dat freakin' song? pm me plzz tnx!!
@mapexmaster1992 affort? they cost the same.. and i think the s2k is much nicer
Magazine racing has official times, and is done by professional drivers. NOT BY KIDS THAT CAN'T AFFORD NICE CARS, AND SO DRIVE CHEAP CARS THAT THEY WISH WERE FAST!
Next you'll all be saying that the Solstice is the fastest car there is! HA!
Anybody think all the people in this video look like they r straight out of the 80's. WTF like its a different planet or something, twilight zone
Nothing like magazine racing.
I own a z4 3.0 and it does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds as i have tested it and the hnnda which mymate has does 0-60 in 6 seconds so the z4 is faster and will be better quality as its more expensive to buy but the honda will rev to 9k rpm, both really nice cars, but sorry the z4 is slightly quicker
All these people look like they r from the 80"s. Weird
@ArmandoBaez you are missing two 4's
@AngelFireXI No, it's SLK 200
Next you'll be posting that a Lexus is better then a Mercedes!!!!!!!!
isnt the Z4 a chick car? (dont flame me am not a troll)
Starwarsnumberone, Do you know ANYTHING about either car? Do you drive either car? Anyone who thinks Star Wars is number one, shouldn't be allowed to have kids, vote, or post.
Although I own a z4 3.0 i still think s2000 is pretty good with a 2.0 engine
s2000 came back
@Theologist
um yeah the 2010 s2000 has a strange 0-60 time of 6.1 but thats because the 2010 s2000 doesnt exist. lol. Production stopped in 2009. There is no 2010 s2000. Yes the m version is a beast but you will have to pay that premium for it. If i had the cash i would jump on.
Ok you buy a BMW so expensive that after a year you do nothing but go to the dealer for so many problems and you get a S2000 for half the price with no problems is fast now is more expensive after the years Hellowwww that idiot said you get what you pay for I will allways buy a Honda S2000
BMW Z4 is $6,000 trade
Honda S2000. $15.000 trade lol
who says z4 is $6k trade ? what do you think about honda is a the best car that makes its trade 15$ ? sorry but craiglist are full of s2k posts whice are around $8k and $13k and most of them keep stayin on the lists for months.. but in california research z4 please especially 3.0si which what i bought.. only 4 or 5... so dont tell me cus sold less than s2k.. sold less than s2k cus it built by high quality not like motorcyle material used in s2k.. tell me how you start up your engine hahaha ?
+diablo simujen Z4 1.9 :)
S2k 2.2 Vtec
+uğur altunbaş those are ap1s for under 10 grand .. Try again
wut is this, the fucking base line z4?
theres no way that was a fast z4...
BMW all the way
Ap2 can pull z4 little more.
s2k all the way.
BMW had more ballast
@mapexmaster1992
i like you honesty
If you really want to show off buy a Lambo not a BMW or a Mercedes Benz or a Audi I will drive a S2000 any time..... At least a Lamborghini countach like mine lol
Under.......opps! sorry, I mean, Honda alway loses to bmw.
Z4 only had a pull because the s2k doesn't have traction control
tration control makes it wayyyyyy slower! hahah he had it turned off. trust me, i own one
Really?
You're the 'fat chick'?
Isn't Belarus a Russian speaking country?
I find it odd that you use terms like 'bloody S2K'. You sound British to me.
Z4s are nice but S2000s is a Legend! S2K is way more driver focused and 100 times more fun to drive than the Z. End of story.
bmw won
shitty honda
Z4 IS FAST I HAVE ONE a 03 2.5 sports package, without traction controll and on sport mode ill rape any s2k stock even it its slightly modded. At higher speeds lol even worse