Which car is better? In regards to handling, speed, acceleration, looks. Stock vs. Stock. Thanks

 

Speed and acceleration are the same thing but a Cobalt would lose stock, looks is personal preference, and handling the S2000 owns. Close thread.

 

Top speed

 

I don't know about the S2000 but the Cobalt is about 150. Man all of this info is readily available if you use Google. That is just plain lazy

 

lazy, agreed. therefore i'll say the ss beats out becuase of beauty...

 

I say why compare to that to an ss/sc get a sky rl!!

 

forget the sky,go get a solstice or sky.

 

Sorry guys but stock for stock the S2000 has ya beat. Not a huge fan of its looks mind you but you have to respect what it can do.

Now if it came in a hardtop version then yeah I'd like it waaaaaaaaay better!

 

i agree. i would have went with a S2000 if i would have known things i know now

 

S2000. I suggest you start looking at S2000 prices.

 

People must like to throw away money to want to pay over $34,000 for a 14.1 sec. 1/4 mile car.

Because 34k puts someone into a category of vehicles that FAR outclasses that of the S2000. By a country mile ....

Tale Of The Tape:

S2000
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.1 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 149 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 166 ft
Skidpad: 0.88 g

SS/SC
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 141 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 169 ft
Skidpad: 0.86 g

Plus, I think the S2000 is greatly lacking in styling as compared to the SC.

Gimme a break.

 

My step dad had one and he liked it at first. But then he hit a puddle and hydro plained it into a fence. He fixed in then sold it. If you have shitty weather where you live I wouldn't suggest it.

 

you get alot more quality then our cobalts for that tag, i think the cobalt is a great bang for the buck and it a nice car, i would get a sky redline as well

 

sky rl or solstice gxp...FTW

 

You can't expect double everything just because your paying double for the car.
The drivetrain isn't the only thing that contributes the high price tag of an S2000.
I didn't see any mention of warranty for either vehicle. Estimated tresale/trade in value.
Powerband location. 2 seater vs 4 seater(?). Convertible.
5-Speed vs 6-Speed transmission. Aftermarket support. etc.

There are more to cars than numbers.
I'm not even gonna touch the appearance/issue.
That's just personal preference and I expect to hear incredibly biased opinions.

 

well as owner of a s2000 i would said the s2000 is a lot better when it comes to handling, speed, looks, and reliable but thats just me............

Road and track tested a s2k before and did 13.9 on the 1/4 mile, with a top speed of 156 mph, there are way to many after market sh*** for this car (this car is not a drag car, is more like track car)

2nd i been driving this car for 4 months now no problems at all when i had the cobalt i took that car like 10 times total for stupid reasons; moon roof stoped working, engine light came on several times, interior parts chipping, a little noice they never figure out what was causing it.........etc.

i really loved my cobalt alot but it seems like the car was not built right( when it comes to detail)


i think right now the only bad thing about my s2k, is a 2 seater car but i got that cover because we also own a 07 CRV



STYLE DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT


http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf

 

And how could I forget:

NA w/ non warranty affecting SC or turbo'd options VS Factory SC'd upgradability

 

^^^that website says 2005 so I don't think they even compared it to a sky rl or solstice gxp. I would say bang for buck cobalt because I think styling is better, imo. So far as power for how much more you're paying for a s2k you can get really fast in a balt for alot less. But, stock for stock I would compare a s2k more to a solstice or sky because thats the class its in and I don't think the s2k is faster that those 2 cars stock.

 

I believe Honda is releasing a hardtop edition this coming year to finish out the S2Ks.

 

you're right na with barely any torque. for the price you pay why not get a gto, evo, or sti all covered under warranty stock with more power and speed and better styling, imo

 

I would just get a GTO. Gets pretty good gas mileage and if you want straight speed then thats a great option!

 

ok i got this info off my road and track aug issue

Lets see:

Soltice Gxp
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4
Zero to 100 mph: 14.2
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.0 sec @ 993. mph
Top speed (drag limited): 142 mph
Braking, 60–0 mph: 1126 ft
Skidpad: 0..86 g

Sky RL
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.0 sec @ 99.1mph
Top speed (drag limited): 142 mph
Braking, 60–0 mph: 130 ft
Skidpad: 0.85 g

S2000
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.8 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 100.2 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 156 mph
Braking, 60–0 mph: 115 ft
Skidpad: 0.91 g

Did you know the s2k have been on the market for almost 8 years now


you might be talking about the S2000 CR edition


you can also get a OEM hard top from honda as an option

 

my point I was refering to wasn't how long the s2k has been out its how long the other 2 have been out to compare to the s2k. the web site you posted was from 2005. the RL and GXP didn't debut till end of 05 to early 06. Also, to make another point for everyone to start posting car and driver, road and track, super street, or whatever info is retarded when its all gonna be different. Look how many times people have seen differences in the ss/sc stock and the reality of what people get who own the car is all different. But like I said it is my opinion that if a s2k and RL or GXP line up with average drivers the RL or GXP would win. But this thread is comparing against s2k and ss/sc so it doesn't matter

 

hink it's called the S2000 CR. A/C, radio & power steering optional.

Because that's your opinion. Not everyone jumps "ugly, 4 door, turbo engine, glass transmission bandwagon. Not everyone is willing toturn down what they really like for the cars that everyone else likes.

Are you serious? Teens in the city and 20ish on the hwy is not good gas mileage.
S2000s are still getting mid 20s in the city and touchinhg 30 on the hwy.
Best mpg to date in my car is 29 city and 39 hwy. And that's with the supercharger installed.

 

I not comparing the ss/sc with the s2k because we all know the results but he was asking witch car would be better, if he has the money to buy and s2000 IMO its a lot better (comparing to a 350z BMW z4 and even a porche boxter which cost way more than the s2k except the 350z)

and the only reason i said that the s2k has been on the market for 8 years is because honda have only made few upgrades to the s2k and newer cars can't still match the s2k