The Honda s2000 has numerous good praise, especially from Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson. Now I usually believe everything Jeremy Clarkson says about cars (but only about cars), however in the case of the s2000 I don't understand how a car that costs as much as STIs and EVOs without the nearly the same amount of power can get any preferences over those cars.  

First of all the s2000 is a totally different car from STIs or EVOs.  The s2000 is a true RWD sports car.  STIs and EVOs are grocery getters with powerful motors in them.

4-door wagons and sedans are compromised by things like fitting 4 people, trunk space for those groceries, and other practical things.  They are mass-produced for the general public.  STIs and EVOs happen to be steriod-pumped versions of regular cars by swapping out key parts or upgrading parts.  STIs and EVOs also have excellent electronic stability and traction control so when drivers begin driving past their abilities, the car will save their lives.  Mothers and fathers like these features in a car. Until recently, the s2000 did not have those features.

An s2000 has none of these practical features of fitting a family or taking groceries home.  It was designed to be a badass sports car, not a juiced beater. Considerable time and energy was put in to optimize the suspension of the car in the design as well as other parts of the car.  The engine red lines past 8000rpm and loves to stay there, much like race cars and much less like your average car or even an STI or an EVO.  Why worry about torque when the car is nearly featherweight from the factory?  And as you pointed out Clarkson, as well as SCC think that the s2000 was very well designed from the factory, and trying to improve upon them can actually degrade performance in the car, comparable to a Ferrari or a Porsche.  You can't say the same things about an EVO or an STI. They were tuned within a budget.

To conclude my rant I will say that we are comparing delicious, genetically-modified potatoes full of steroids, the EVO and STI, to an expensive, organic,very   delicious potato, the s2000.  They all taste about the same but it is really about your preferences.  Do you want a true sports car or a grocery-getter on steroids?  

grocery getters?  
not like racecars?  




^current time attack world record holder^  

I was waiting to see what you had to say about this.  Having two more doors on the Evo and STI doesn't seem to make them any less of a sports car. I just can't figure out how the s2k survives with a little more than half the torque of other cars in it's price range and 0-60 acceleration times in the mid-6s.  

it survives because its a blast to drive.  (power aside) its one of the most fun cars you can fling around.  

But with a $34k MSRP, there's plently of other cars that are a blast to drive. But this is probably the only one that redlines at 8,000rpms  . Although it may seem like I've been arguing against the s2000 this whole time I'm actually for it, I'm just not for the price. I think it's a great car, it looks good, handles well, and with 110hp per liter it's also an impressive showcase of modern research and engineering. I'm just afriad that if I got an s2k, my friends with the EVOs and my boss with the WRX and people with the STIs will just all leave me in dust because it'll take me two seconds longer to get to 60mph.  

You can't find 5 pieces of these cars on their showroom equivalents.  That rally car costs over $100,000.  Neither of them are street legal either.  

DP is right though, the sti and evo are well built.  Many iterations of fine tuning throughout the generations.  The evo and sti were built to meet homologation for the wrc.  They are sports cars.  They've lost some of the heritage throughout the years.  But everything is fine tuned and they are ready right out of the dealership.  Through on some r-compounds and go to the track or through on some rally tires and go.  

And the s2000 it's really nice.  It is a very well crafted machine, inside to out.  While it may not look as good on paper, it is a blast to drive.   The engine and the drivetrain are second to none.  The interior is beautiful as well as the exterior.  

They use the same engine, and chasis.  Depending on what group we are talking about, take an sti, strip it, rollcage, rally tuned suspension, and rally tires and you're ready.  Group N they are virtually the same, and group A is just a highly modified version of the car, but there is no reason why you cant build your own.  

cwytt:
DP is right though, the sti and evo are well built.  Many iterations of fine tuning throughout the generations.  The evo and sti were built to meet homologation for the wrc.  They are sports cars.  They've lost some of the heritage throughout the years.  But everything is fine tuned and they are ready right out of the dealership.  Through on some r-compounds and go to the track or through on some rally tires and go.  

And the s2000 it's really nice.  It is a very well crafted machine, inside to out.  While it may not look as good on paper, it is a blast to drive.   The engine and the drivetrain are second to none.  The interior is beautiful as well as the exterior.

I think that was the exact answer I've been looking for, that on paper it doesn't look as good as the other cars. That something we can't put in numbers that gives it that edge and worthiness.  

I don't think the S2K is that much of a survivor.  It's an 8 year old car with little attention or priority given from Honda.  The fact of the matter is that it's a great second car but if you're looking for a daily driver and you get your kicks from stoplight drag racing, then it's not the car for you.  The lack of torque really kills you in traffic and sucks all the fun out of the car.  

If you do track days, then the S2000 might be a good car, but it won't be fast in the hands of a novice.  An expert driver can really get the best out of it, but the car isn't particularly forgiving or easy to drive (you really need to know how to shift in order to keep the car in the meat of its power band).

As you can see there's a range of opinion but it is really apples and oranges.  I don't think there's an objective measure that would put the S2K above an Evo (except fuel economy) but that doesn't mean that both cars can't exist- they are that different.

*disclaimer- I've owned two Evos and a WRX and and base my opinion on knowing lots of former S2K owners.  

My point was, Grocery getter is a very loose term.

My friend daily drives an R34 GT-R with over 500hp, even to the grocery store.  Literally.

And take a look at the RS6 Avante.  Tell me that being a wagon capable of hauling kids to soccer and groceries from the store takes away from its performance.  

An R34 GT-R daily driver sounds pretty sweet.  

S2Ks and STI/EVOs are two very different catagories of machines... They BOTH can be aggresively tuned and raced, or just used around town, and as others have said, it's all about personal preference and trade-offs.

I am more attracted to the S2k personally, but thats because I currently drive a miata and previously had an older 3-Series Bimmmer. I would say that I'm a small, RWD kinda car guy.

Quite a few of my friends and people that I know have Evo's, and they love them. I love them too, and if I will ever need a sports car that is more spacious and can carry stuff, I would definetly go for one of those.