VX220 or S2000 - in 18 months time :p

Rhyzz · 6 Aug 2009 at 16:32

The VX is the better car all round, it just has a bare interior which pretty much puts it in a different league to an S2K. It's not a practical daily driver unless you live on your own, never drive in the rain, are shorter than 6 feet tall, less than 13 stone and don't mind sweating everytime you go on a run (the heat from the engine is INSANE after a thrash)

Sin_Chase · 6 Aug 2009 at 16:45

Nickg said:
just spoken to a girl here at work who has a 7 year old S2000 (minter conv in pale blue)..

apparently no traction control?! she says and i quotesd "used a bag of coal in the boot one year, and im not joking"

id love an s2000.

TC was an optional extra on 06+ Models

Sin_Chase · 6 Aug 2009 at 16:46

Rhyzz said:
The VX is the better car all round, it just has a bare interior which pretty much puts it in a different league to an S2K. It's not a practical daily driver unless you live on your own, never drive in the rain, are shorter than 6 feet tall, less than 13 stone and don't mind sweating everytime you go on a run (the heat from the engine is INSANE after a thrash)

Well, not better ALL round then, is it?

Simon · 6 Aug 2009 at 17:23

Nickg said:
just spoken to a girl here at work who has a 7 year old S2000 (minter conv in pale blue)..

apparently no traction control?! she says and i quotesd "used a bag of coal in the boot one year, and im not joking"

id love an s2000.

Traction control is for crap drivers

L0rdMike · 6 Aug 2009 at 17:24

Simon said:
Traction control is for crap drivers

Simon · 6 Aug 2009 at 17:24

Rhyzz said:
The VX is the better car all round, it just has a bare interior which pretty much puts it in a different league to an S2K. It's not a practical daily driver unless you live on your own, never drive in the rain, are shorter than 6 feet tall, less than 13 stone and don't mind sweating everytime you go on a run (the heat from the engine is INSANE after a thrash)

How is it better all round ?

Muncher · 6 Aug 2009 at 17:48

NathanE said:
The 2ZZ compares favourably in terms of weight. Not really a contest though considering its a 1.8 alloy block versus a 2.2 iron block.

That 2.2 GM motor will never get any support because, at the end of the day, it is a 130bhp (?) motor that needed 2.2 litres of displacement to achieve it. And on top of that it weighs a ton.

The 2.2 is an all alloy block, which produces 147bhp.

The 2zz has a dry weight of 115kg, the z22se is 137kg dry.

Begbie · 6 Aug 2009 at 18:38

The 2.2 is a great block and is acctually fairly tunable N/A wise for a few dollars with bits from the 2.4 american version.

Sure some guys are seeing 180+ N/A iirc which in a car like the vx220 is a bloody lot.

Or you could just go mad like Muncher

john_s · 6 Aug 2009 at 20:26

Simon said:
the VX220 was just a fancy go kart.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Simon · 6 Aug 2009 at 20:27

john_s said:
You say that like it's a bad thing?

Great for a weekend, sunny day car. Just lacking for a daily, all rounder.

james.miller · 6 Aug 2009 at 20:33

Muncher said:
The 2.2 is an all alloy block, which produces 147bhp.

The 2zz has a dry weight of 115kg, the z22se is 137kg dry.

same block as used in the vectra 2.2 sri's and such isnt it?

edit: and the alfa 159 apparently lol

Rhyzz · 7 Aug 2009 at 08:55

Simon said:
How is it better all round ?

Faster in a straight line & on a track, better looking, cheaper to run, easier to drive. The only downside is the letterbox entry and exit when the roof is on, but if you're of average size then you shouldn't have any problems with that.

Simon · 7 Aug 2009 at 09:44

Rhyzz said:
Faster in a straight line & on a track, better looking, cheaper to run, easier to drive. The only downside is the letterbox entry and exit when the roof is on, but if you're of average size then you shouldn't have any problems with that.

Surprisingly there isn't much difference once over 40mph in my experience.

This was with a VXR 220T too.

Better looking is subjective, so I don't know how you can use your opinion as a fact. Cheaper too run? How do you work that out, other than fuel there will be little difference, in fact the S2000 will be more reliable meaning less repairs.

The Running Man · 7 Aug 2009 at 09:53

Sure some guys are seeing 180+ N/A iirc which in a car like the vx220 is a bloody lot.

PPE header, Intake, Apexi PFC and exhaust and you would be looking at 180 WHP (real HP) i.e not at the flywheel on the 2zz...not bad for a 1.8 4 banger eh? throw in an intake manifold and some bits and bobs and u can probably achieve 200whp.. thats 111WHP/Litre...or in fly terms; 133bhp/l...with PFC you have lowered "lift" so you can stay there on a shift enlarging the powerband from 6200-8200 to something like 5200-8400...

all without internal work...

oh ya and they sound like they are going to blow up when high rpms louder than VTEC by far...ya i love my 2zz

NathanE · 7 Aug 2009 at 10:43

Simon said:
Surprisingly there isn't much difference once over 40mph in my experience.

The VXT is what 220 per ton? The S2K is around 180 per ton?

To quote the famous line... "it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning is winning."

Granted the VXT has the aero profile of a brick (they don't call VX's "bricks" for no reason

) so past ~110mph it will hit a wall of air. Fun getting there though.

L0rdMike · 7 Aug 2009 at 10:49

NathanE said:
The VXT is what 220 per ton? The S2K is around 180 per ton?

To quote the famous line... "it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning is winning."

Granted the VXT has the aero profile of a brick (they don't call VX's "bricks" for no reason ) so past ~110mph it will hit a wall of air. Fun getting there though.

You seem to be missing the importance of VTEC YO!!!!111

Sin_Chase · 7 Aug 2009 at 11:29

L0rdMike said:
You seem to be missing the importance of VTEC YO!!!!111

0-20... "HHAHA LEAVING HIM FOR DEAD"

VTEC y000000000000

"WAHHHHHHHH?"

Rhyzz · 7 Aug 2009 at 14:10

Simon said:
Surprisingly there isn't much difference once over 40mph in my experience.

This was with a VXR 220T too.

Better looking is subjective, so I don't know how you can use your opinion as a fact. Cheaper too run? How do you work that out, other than fuel there will be little difference, in fact the S2000 will be more reliable meaning less repairs.

Granted looks are subjective but im sure if you were to ask people which car looks 'more the part' they would go for the VX.

Put a hardtop on the VX and it'll climb to 140 without breaking a sweat. Pointless going on about it anyway, just saying the VX is the quicker car, but I stick to what I said earlier and it's a silly comparison

Sin_Chase · 7 Aug 2009 at 14:33

More the part? For the track perhaps, for the road, no?

OP is looking at a practical enough daily, not a track toy

TheDome · 7 Aug 2009 at 18:09

Rhyzz said:
Granted looks are subjective but im sure if you were to ask people which car looks 'more the part' they would go for the VX.

Put a hardtop on the VX and it'll climb to 140 without breaking a sweat. Pointless going on about it anyway, just saying the VX is the quicker car, but I stick to what I said earlier and it's a silly comparison

I dont think its too bad a comparison. Im not saying the cars were built with the same mind set but I too am looking at these two cars as my next choice.

And as far as looks go i prefer the s2000 and even more so if it has a hard top.