Hello There

I recently posted on the Honda newsgroup requesting some comment on the
S2000. What I got was some social insight like "the S2000 is the automotive
equivalent of a Speedo"(terrifying imagery for a guy my age) and "Your
friends will think your crazy"(my one friend already knows that). Not much
help, but the absence of horror tales of dealership and/or awful mechanical
tales is quite encouraging, I have been driving a 92 Laser RS for the past
13 years which is an Eclipse AWD turbo with Plymouth tags and awful service
people attached. Shifts like a truck, but was a beast in it's day. Took me a
while to get it to it's handling limits which were certainly extended in the
loose shit via the AWD.

SO.........anyone out there have an EVO with some mileage on it? My main
mechanical concern is the transmission, first to second/ second to first. I
can still double clutch the Laser down, but it will kick out if I don't hold
pressure on the shifter. My main rub with any car these days is dealer
service. The Honda place in my area very competent, which seems to be the
case with Honda where ever, you buy one. SO, after puking out all the above,
my question would be; Do Mitsubishi dealerships get the job done with their
Evo or would something like a busted timing chain mean you get a hacked fix
from dumb and dumber in greasy coveralls?

Thank you for your time

Michael

You won't be breaking anything in an EVO - cept a few Honda/Subaru owner's
hearts - move up or move over...

On a recent trip to Mitsubishi transmission specialist TRE, I was able to
see an EVO tranny taken apart. The gears are huge and beefy, dwarfing the
stuff used in our DSM W5M33 trannies, I doubt you'll see a problem with
them.
On your car, your syncros are worn and you probably have old/incorrect fluid
in it (oil makes a big difference).
As to service, the Honda mechanics out here suck just as hard as any Mitsu
or Chrysler guys. It seems to be a roll of the dice with half being great
and the remainder being parts changing oafs.
The EVO is a wonderful car and a MR would be my pick if I were in the
market. The EVO can hand out an ass whipping to any road going Honda and
later drive to Costco for groceries and beer.
It's a shame that it's so damn fugly....

Yes it is..A 4G63 in an ugly car. Mitsu should have just made the Eclipse
like it was meant to be...instead of voiding the warranties of those that
did.

--


------------------------

I would imagine the EVO and the S2000 are fine mechanically. Don't let
the haters dissuade you from wanting an S2000...odds are they just think
it looks like a girly car. If you like the way it looks and can see
yourself in one, that's all that should matter.

A couple of things the S2000 has going for it is light weight, pretty
good power/weight ratio (11.8), and slightly better fuel economy than
the EVO and STi. It also has a very good center of gravity (small car
with 49/51 front/rear weight ratio). However, IIRC, it is RWD. RWD is
great for drifting, but personally I would rather have AWD for traction
off the line (if you drag race), not to mention better cornering
characteristics in general. It is also not practical for the needs of
many people (only 2 seats, plus 5ft of trunk space is TINY!!!). Also,
what happens if you run off the road or collide with somebody? Is the
S2K going to save your butt? In my experience with the Eclipse, I've
never known anybody to get major injuries or die after wrecking their
3rd Gen Eclipse. I would expect the EVO to be equally safe in an
accident.

I own an '04 STi (traded in a '00 Eclipse for it). For me, it was really
only a matter of EVO or STi. There are certain things about both that I
like better than the other. I do prefer the EVO's factory wheels/tires
over what you get on an STi. The EVO's come with 235/45-17 (I think)
Yokohama tires and Enkei wheels. STi's come with 215/45-17 Bridgestone
Potenzas (I can't stand their traction capability myself) and BBS
wheels. The wing looks pretty much the same on both cars, so it's really
more a matter of which car you think looks better. If you're more into a
squarish shape, the EVO should be your choice. More rounded corners? Go
with the STi.

My main gripe with the EVO is they're more expensive than the STi (not
sure why). But it allegedly corners better than the STi (something I
attribute to the wider, better quality tires personally) and accelerates
just as quickly.

Something else you can consider between AWD and RWD: do you plan to do
any mountain driving? If you do any snowy mountain driving, I definitely
suggest you get one of the AWD choices. You won't be as likely to need
to put snow chains/cables on your tires with AWD like you would need
with RWD.

Lastly, from a mechanic's perspective, I'd rather work on a Mitsu engine
than a Honda engine. Doing routine maintenance work on both
manufacturers' engines, I tend to get PO'd at some of Honda's designs
(e.g., no auto-tensioner as a safety measure for timing belt, have to
remove valve cover to get upper timing belt cover off, among other
complaints).

Scott, you used the terms "haters" and "drifting" and then admitted to
owning a '00 Eclipse. That pretty well nulls your post
The EVO will best an S2000 in any venue. Never gave any consideration to the
Honda being a "girly" car....It's pathetic 162lb/ft of torque comes on at
6400rpm, I guess that is "girly".
The EVO is laying down 273lb/ft @ 3,500 making it a much easier, more
enjoyable car to drive. VTEC stinks in the real world. How long do you think
the rings are going to last at those piston speeds?

What do calling people "haters", talking about "drifting", and being a
previous 3G Eclipse owner have to do with credibility?

By "haters", I mean specifically those people who look away from the
S2000 just because its performance is inferior to the EVO and STi. Did
it occur to you that some people would rather have the roadster look of
the S2000 and still have somewhat respectable performance than a 4-door
sedan with a huge wing? I know some people who aren't even into the
EVO/STi type. Did it ever occur to you that car appearance has a LOT to
do with why many people buy the cars they buy? What you drive tells the
world about your "status" in the world. It also tells people what kind
of person you are...what your tastes are.

I take it you aren't a fan at all of the sport of drifting. Maybe you
even think it's something for the young punk ricers. Whether you do or
don't think that way, I respect the merits of drifting (even though it
isn't my thing). It gives you a good experience with keeping an out-of-
control car IN control - something that might even save you in a real
accident.

I'm not going to argue that the S2000 is weak relative to the EVO and
STi. It's 0-60 and 1/4-mile numbers are both a full second slower, and
that torque/weight ratio (17.5) does suck (EVO = 11.4 and STi = 11.0).

It does corner well, but still not any better than the EVO and STi. In
fact, its skidpad is about the same as the STi (~0.90) and 2-4 points
behind the EVO (0.92-0.94). So yeah, considering straight-line
performance AND cornering ability ONLY, the S2000 is definitely
inferior.

But again, some people would rather have a roadster than a 4-door sedan.
I'd personally go for performance primarily, but just because you and I
think that way doesn't mean everybody in the world has to.

Oh yeah, I don't really care about the VTEC thing either. If I wanted
performance from the cam, I'd more likely want it at any time and not
just at high rpm.

Damn, you're thin skinned. Bet you didn't notice the smilie at the end of
the dig huh?

"What do calling people "haters", talking about "drifting", and being a
previous 3G Eclipse owner have to do with credibility? "

By "haters", I mean specifically those people who look away from the S2000
just because its performance is inferior to the EVO and STi."

Hater is urban non-speak. Just like the "Verbal Advantage" TV adverts stated
"The words you use say a lot about you..."

I do find it funny that you use the term to describe someone who chooses one
performance car over another based on it's performance, or lack there of.

The fact that you bought a 3G Eclipse tells us that, at least at the time of
the cars purchase, you are/were a neophyte.

" I know some people who aren't even into the EVO/STi type."

Me too but nobody was discussing Escalades, Lexus or any other vehicles.
This pertained to the aforementioned cars.

"Did it ever occur to you that car appearance has a LOT to do with why many
people buy the cars they buy?"

Yes but at what price?

"What you drive tells the world about your "status" in the world."

Really? So when you see me on the street in my '97 GSX, you can tell that my
home is lakefront?

"I take it you aren't a fan at all of the sport of drifting."

Drifting isn't a sport. It's a method of negotiating a turn. I do it all
winter long on Hakkapeliitta 1 tires in the snow. Fun, yes but sport, no.

"I'm not going to argue that the S2000 is weak relative to the EVO and STi."

The S2000 is weak relative to the Accord....

" It's 0-60 and 1/4-mile numbers are both a full second slower, and that
torque/weight ratio (17.5) does suck (EVO = 11.4 and STi = 11.0)."

While 1 second doesn't sound like much, it is huge. The low torque numbers
and extremely high rpm that they peak at is something that will be revisited
at every stop sign and light.

"It does corner well, but still not any better than the EVO and STi."

Pretty sad isn't it that Honda's flagship roadster gets hammered so hard by
a couple of four door sedans.

"So yeah, considering straight-line performance AND cornering ability ONLY,
the S2000 is definitely inferior."

I guess that just leaves braking and the S2000 does have and great brakes
with a 60 to 0 distance of 115 feet but that still 5 feet longer than the
EVO.

" But again, some people would rather have a roadster than a 4-door sedan."

Cool.... If that we me, I'd be looking at a used M Roadster a Miata with a
turbo kit or hold out a couple of months for a Solstice turbo.

The S2000, in spite of being lighter, having a lower C/G and having a better
weight distribution, is slower and does not handle or brake as well, yet
still costs more than an EVO.

Much like it's big brother the NSX, the S2000 aspires but lacks the goods.
If the niche had more competition, there would be no reason to look at it.

The original poster appears to be looking for a primary car I assume as he's
replacing an aged 1G DSM. That makes the EVO the clear winner here as the
S2000 is not only weak on performance but somewhat less than practical as a
daily driver.

"Since you ask, the "typical" 2G driver, to me, is a male in his early-
to mid-20's and likes all-around driving fun (acceleration or twisties)."

See, it shows that you just can't tell. I'm 44 and far outside your
demographic.
That makes me an atypical 2G driver!

Hey, I'm almost 58, and I love my 2G! Lots of fun and easy on gas.