Reply With QuoteAh sheet, read it on the job and forgot to reply. Yeah they're generally pretty good I hear, never heard of any problems with their stuff.Originally Posted by Todd
I had this decision a few years back. I opted for the evo 6. Insurance can be a killer if you live in the wrong area. Running cost arnt that high tbh. Engines are solid, as are the gearboxes. i think in six years of ownership ive fitted 2 clutches and a flywheel, set of coilovers (oe shocks knocked). 2 sets of front arb links, discs and pads all round, fuel filler neck, track rod end, 4 sets of tyres maybe 5. its only broken down once that was when the balance belt broke! ooops!. Thats pretty much it in 30,000miles.
Ah sheet, read it on the job and forgot to reply. Yeah they're generally pretty good I hear, never heard of any problems with their stuff.
get sumat different if you can dont forget evos need servcing every mile lol also 4wd road tax is exspensive so by getting 2wd your halving that cost every 6/12months s2000 is good car plus will be easy enough to tune with the leftover cash 250bhp standard and sounding the absoloute tits at 9500rpm lol could easilly get one and achieve 300+bhp with 10k fast and highly reliable cos its a hoonda
What in the blue **** are you talking about????
Evo's are AWD, they're not a 4x4 and even under the modern road tax system still don't come under the same bracket as an ML, X5 or Rangey etc.
I think up to 2006 you'll duck under paying emission based tax, so anything up to an Evo8, maybe even some IXs you will pay a nominal amount based on the engine capacity, which is 1997, so £215-265 per year depending on what the government are feeling like, which is the same as an S2000....
S2000 don't rev to 9500rpm, don't have much torque so you have to pedal them to get anywhere, they're no more reliable than other 2litre motors and they're skittish to drive when going fast.
TME's look nice if thats your bag but you can't drive them or tune them without affecting the value which is a heart string you'll then hang on as a TME owner. Better off getting a VI GSR and modifiying it accordingly, RS's fetch a daft premium too, not worth it.
Last edited by Superman; 8th February 2012 at 09:10.
I think RS' are mint, for the hardcore but i do wonder if you're sacrificing what makes an Evo an Evo if you get an RS. I think the 9 GT is a nice compromise.
RS litterally are aimed at track though, nice smooth circuits an hill climbs where you can feel what the car is doing on some solid tyre.
AYC compliments shite roads and the freshy baked loaf of bread tyres most people use on the road.
In the right hands an RS would be faster but were not talking much, RS' have the comprimise of limited to no luxuary, extra noise, family hatchback brakes until you upgrade them, the RS diffs tearing your tyres up if you were to use it like a normal road car and the added maintenance of the RS mechanical diffs, and the pot of gold they cost to replace. Saying that, the AYC system has its drawbacks, it will take a dump on anyone who dares to lift off mid corner, fluid changes and servicing.
If you wanted a track aimed car for the road, a IV RS is as good as it gets without buying a Group N rally car.
I just don't like the GT model for some reason, think I've known too many nobends that have had them.
Personally wouldn't for-go electric windows in 2012
I really don't understand when people say this about Vtec engines.
Firstly, it's listed as 200lb/ft so it's hardly going to be slow?
Secondly, who buys a car like this because they don't want to pedal them? I ALWAYS wanted to press on with the teg, it's just impossible to resist.
Last edited by CaL; 8th February 2012 at 11:28.
Firstly, No its about 160ibft or something.
Secondly, Lots of people! Because most are bought by middle aged - old men who just bumble about in them, they only buy them because they don't want an MX5
In short the S2000 are dogshit slow, it was behind one waiting for it to pick up some speed my mate coined the term "dogshit slow"
Thirdly, there is a difference between going fast and the sensation-of-going fast which Hondas are exceptional at, some at both. I suppose the sensation is probably better for your personal longevity.
dude the megane r26 f1 is an awesome car! iv had mine about 6 months now and still puts a smile on my face not bad on feul too, loads of tunning potential
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/review...er-1999/17185/ I was just going off this, 160 isn't shoddy though I mean come on? It out accelerates its equivalent boxter at any speed IIRC to?Firstly, No its about 160ibft or something.
Secondly, Lots of people! Because most are bought by middle aged - old men who just bumble about in them, they only buy them because they don't want an MX5
In short the S2000 are dogshit slow, it was behind one waiting for it to pick up some speed my mate coined the term "dogshit slow"
Thirdly, there is a difference between going fast and the sensation-of-going fast which Hondas are exceptional at, some at both. I suppose the sensation is probably better for your personal longevity.
Yep and thats mid life crises bald men buying the wrong car! You don't buy a type-r as a mile muncher, you buy it to drive it. Although tbh I regularly had to drive ~140 miles in mine and it never bothered me (and I was on the much rougher B series engine).
Each to their own I guess, the lightweight (ish) rear drive and a high revving N/A engine appeals to a lot of drivers though.
Posting Permissions
