Seems like it to me. Both are 4 cylinder 2 seat coupes/Conv.'s, look about the same size from what we've seen of the Solstice. The only thing is that the Solstice will be 10,000$ less and have ALMOST as much performance. I think this thing will blow the S2000 out of the water if the 2000 is still around in 2005.

 

If they keep the weight down, it should easily be an S2000 competitor. I believe that the s2000 weighs 2700ish lbs with 250ish hp. If they could release the solstice at 240hp like they want to, and keep it to 2400 lbs, it would be pretty awesome. I'm definately watching this one to see how it turns out.

 

In the hands of an average driver, the S2000 isn't fast at all. You have to rev the living daylights out of it to get any torque, so I think even if Solstice has substantially less horsepower, it should still be able to take one on in the freeway or stoplight grand prix.

 

I think it should, and will.

 

It'll be interesting to see how they compare.

The S2000 has a well developed, purpose built chassis....the Solstice's will be pieced together from the parts bin. The S2000 has an extremely high revving engine, but little low end torque.....the Solstice's supercharged Ecotec will have plenty of low end torque but be relatively low revving.

BTW, Guion is right about needing a delicate touch with the S2000.

Three S2000s were entered in a local autocross I was running in. Two were being driven by younger drivers with excess testosterone. They both broke completely loose and spun out...one almost got totalled.

The third was driven by a more mature driver who manipulated the gas,clutch, brakes and steering wheel like a surgeon would a scalpel........and, let me tell you, he was FAST!

 

I seriously doubt that "average drivers" would see the appeal of the S2000. (There again, some unlucky dopes have probably purchased their cars straight from the showroom floor. With the limited allocation, alot of Honda dealers didn't allow ANY test drives.)
To get the best out of one of these cars you need to keep it in the lower gears and keep the revs past the VTEC cutoff. The all-or-nothing nature of the old school VTEC system really kept me from seriously considering a S2000. I personally like the idea of powershifting a 9000rpm capable drivetrain - I just don't think that the clutch would last very long with my driving style.

The Solistice is an altogether different beast. A supercharger removes the potential for insane RPMs, not that the Ecotec was ever designed for that sort of service. Without a doubt the Pontiac will be a more tractible car, probably with a torque converter in mind. It will also be much heavier.
The Honda was a specialist vehicle, with low production in mind. The production Solistice is a parts-bin-special, with bigger
potential volumes.

Will the Subaru steering rack give exceptional feel? Will the Versatrak rear suspension from the Rendevous/Aztec yield ideal geometry? I'll reserve judgement until I see the production example.

I just hope that the Solistice is $10k cheaper than the S2000, with a sub-Miata sticker price. In any case, the S2000 isn't the sports car bench mark it could have been. It's much too flawed in conception, let alone exectution. The best thing I can say about it is that it was designed as a sports car, from the ground up, just like the Miata and the last generation Mercedes SL.

Considering that the current SL is based on E-class components, maybe GM isn't too far off by starting in the corporate parts bin.

 

In a day when guys in WRXs pull up and attempt to race me on the freeway (twice in 2 months), nothing surprises me anymore.

Guess some people never heard of torque.

 

I think a Solstice that is done right would be very nice. I have owned two LS1's and an LT1 and I now own an S2000. I am somewhat surprised how poorly the car is perceived here. Yes, it has low torque on paper, but the gearing makes up for it. Don't knock it until you drive it, there is more pull than you think. It is no V8, but that is not the point. BTW, I also own a WRX, another favorite target on this board for criticism. I think it is probably faster than the S in many circumstances, but that is mostly due to the unbelievable AWD launches. I look forward to another Camaro as much as anyone else, but in the meantime, I am exploring my options. And I am finding them quite favorable actually. I advise others to do the same. The new 350Z looks awesome, I can't wait to see the convertible.

 

What's the weight of S2000?

Having read recent post by Branden, Solstice with 240 HP will weigh more than 3000 pounds.

On another note, I checked fuel consumption data on S2000. My goodness, it is very close to LS1 in Corvettes! On the highway, Vette gets better milage.
I guess the engine is built from the factory, and its little 2.0 liter 4-cylinder engine drinks fuel like a fish.

 

The S2000 is a GREAT-looking car, and a great concept, but the execution is disappointing. 2800 lb. is HEAVY for this class of automobile, and 2.0 liters just ain't enough for the mass. VTEC is truly a paradox. I thought the idea of having two sets of cam lobes was to allow for low end torque AND high-end horsepower. The fact that you can FEEL it "kick in" indicates it's not optimally tuned for performance. It should go from low-rpm lobes to high-rpm lobes at the point when torque is equal with either profile (on the downside of the low-rpm lobes, upside of the high-rpm lobes). The car looks so kick-***, I could almost live with it, though. But realistically, a turbo'd, rotaried, or turbo-rotaried Miata should be quite a bit quicker for similar $$$. As has been noted, it looks as though GM has decided it doesn't have to do any better than anybody else in the weight department, hence a less-than-3000lb weight target for the Solstice. At that weight range, they can count me OUT.

Dan Baldwin
'95 Z28 M6 convertible
'71 240Z 3.1 (FTD at Lime Rock, 11/19/02!)

 

Rob, I'm not knocking WRXs. I think they are fantastic little rockets. Some of it's buyers have some pretty big misconceptions as to what it can & can't do, and it's those few I'm picking on.

But, although I haven't personally driven a S2000 and have to rely on others who have, it just doesn't seem to be all it's cracked up to be. It's a small high tech, high revving 4 cylinder convertible that get's at best the same mileage as, and yet is slower than a big, seemingly low tech, relatively slow revving Corvette.

But then again, they cost $13,000 less than a Corvette, so maybe that's an unfair comparison.

 

The general concensus seems to be that the S2000 is underpowered, overweight, has no torque, and gets poor gas mileage. Since I own one, I will try to offer some insight. the car is quite fast, but like I said it is no V8. It has very low (numerically high) gears and does 0-60 in the mid 5's and the quarter in the high 13's with a GOOD driver. I drive mine very gently because it is still very new, but it is pretty fast and the handling is absolutely incredible. I think it is so heavy because it is not only a bigger car than the Miata and the MR2, but it is also much more substantially braced. There is a huge frame running up the middle and there are braces everywhere, as well as the roll bars that the other two lack. The torque thing is no big deal, but the 9000 rpm redline takes a bit of getting used to. I get around 27 mpg in mixed driving vs. 14 or so in my LT1 Camaro, so don't know about the EPA mileage figures. I guess if you drive an LS1 in sixth everywhere you go, you can get those numbers, but who actually drives like that? I bought the S because I wanted a convertible, that was reasonably safe, quick, reliable, and I was looking for something different after my numerous F-bodies. I got the car for about $29,000, and for that money it was an awesome buy. The MR2 was about $25,000, but lacked power, the roll bars, the awesome interior (seats), double wishbone suspension, and any storage space whatsoever. It is substantially lighter, but not as stiff, or in my opinion as safe. The Miata just lacks power and was a bit too small for me too get comfortable, although it was nice inside. I think if the Solstice offers as as much or more than the S, and is priced under $30,000 in fully loaded trim, then it will be a good competitor. Anyway, this is all just my opinion, and hopefully I was able to help some people understand the S a little better, as a point of comparison for the Solstice.

 

I am completely, totally, and sincerely unimpressed with the S2000 after having driven a couple and raced against a couple of others.

It's not the car that's doing it, either - it's the motor. The car itself is kinda nifty.

In spite of all the wonderous praise given that motor by automotive journalists for specific output, I find it to be be stunningly less than optimal.

It's heavy when compared to power output, as long as an LS1 (but taller), relatively wide, returns miserable fuel economy for a car that weighs 700 lbs. less than an F-car and has less than half of the displacement. I find a 9000 rpm redline useless if I have to constantly be over 5000 rpm to get any real response out of it.

I found the powertrain (even with the gearing) far more sensitive to gear selection than an LS1 (obviously due to torque issues), and the car generally needy when trying to move fast.

If you like shifting a lot, it may be the car for you. That might be part of the appeal...

Were the world of automotive journalists capable of truly being objective, some Honda powertrain engineers ought to out looking for jobs - in a different industry. It looks like they might be better suited to building turbines for power plants than engines for automobiles (you know.... 100,000 rpm and no torque).

 

People see 9000 rpm redline and that's all they need... along with that Honda badge.

That 'marvel' , like you said, doesn't hold a torch to LS1 in many many ways, IMHO. Power, Torque, fuel economy, as well as relative weight, size and sound all factor into my reasoning.

 

I talked to a solstice rep at one of the auto shows I have seen it at (eather Ignace, or Woodward...I forget which) and they said it should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2800-2900lbs. This isn't incredibly light, but the S2000 weighs just 100lbs less on average, and Solstice will serve up a lot more torque, and low end power.

The S2000 (from my observations) takes a really good driver to get anything out of it. In terms of acceleration, I have yet to see better than 14.3 in stock form. I have heard claims of high 13's, but with the 94-96mph traps I see them pulling that would take a *really* good launch.

The solstice appears to have a slightly better power to weight ratio than LT1 F-bods. So it should have no problem with regular low 14's, and maybe high 13's.

The S2000's engine is built well, but its mostly tapped out in NA form.
Since the Solstice is supercharged, it will probably take very little (pulley, chip) to get a lot more power out of it. We will have to see if it breaths well.