Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
Well its reached that point where im considering a change. Not sure to keep the S2000 or swap, to sumit else, taken a bit of a fancy towards the VX220 2.2
out of these 2 what would you have?
S2000
VX220
(if i had a vx it would look like that)
not sure what to do 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
S2000 is the better looking car.
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
S2K looks ace, VX doesn't so much. I'd have the Honda - much more practical.
What age is the Honda now?
|
willay
Moderator
Organiser: South East, National Events
Premium Member
Registered: 10th Nov 02
Location: Roydon, Essex
User status: Offline
|
Yeah the Honda is more practical I guess but Nath it depends what you want, keep the same car that you've had for a year or two, or change and have something new to play with 
|
P1CK4D
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 06
Location: Around Essex Somewhere
User status: Offline
|
S2k's are amazing!  Much more of an everyday car than the VX220 IMO
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
8-0 lol
I really need to get out in a VX, see what there like, theres none local to me though.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
S2000.
Although the VX220 is a great car, u'll always wish you bought the turbo.
With the S2000, 9000rpm, maybe a little twitchy rear end (know S2000's are a bit skittish when pushed).
A few subtle mods on S2000's can make them so much cooler. With the 2.2 unless you fork out loads, your not going to make too many advancements. (although theres lots of turob tuning goodies for the 2.2 16v if your prepared to import from the states).
So S2000 for me. But if you add a VXX220T into the equation, i'd take that over the NA and Honda.
Honda will go on and on and on and on though. VX probably won't last as long, but also cheaper when repairs come.
|
CORSA NUT
Member
Registered: 3rd Aug 01
Location: Wirral
User status: Offline
|
You wanna chop in an S2K for a VX220 
Are you sick???? At least go for the turbo!
|
Dean_W
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 05
Location: Downham Market, Norfolk
User status: Offline
|
S2000
Looks a lot better.
|
stuartmitchell
Member
Registered: 24th Apr 04
Location: Kirkliston, Edinburgh
User status: Offline
|
Nismo
I drove the VX220 Turbo a few months back. It just felt like a stripped out S2k to me  Not as practical and will depreciate quicker as well.
Get an E46 M3 
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Based on the logic of people on here, the VX220 must be better because it's less common than the S2K.
(I voted S2K tho)
|
deano87
Member
Registered: 21st Oct 06
Location: Bedfordshire Drives: Ford Fiesta
User status: Offline
|
S2000.
Better looks and probably more comfortable on longer journeys. Honda's don't tend to go wrong either.
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
One extemely important fact has been missed though......
VTEC!!!1111!
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
Drive the VX220 then decide, think the VX would be a more thrilling drive and even the NA is quick enough. Its all about the positive feel and driving experience.
However if you are worried about practicality the S2000 wins hands down.
[Edited on 20-09-2007 by Fad]
|
P1CK4D
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 06
Location: Around Essex Somewhere
User status: Offline
|
The S2000 would provide a more thrilling drive IMO. 
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by stuartmitchell
Nismo
I drove the VX220 Turbo a few months back. It just felt like a stripped out S2k to me Not as practical and will depreciate quicker as well.
VX220T will not loose value quickly. S2000 will loose more money faster.
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
Looking on Pistonheads you seem to be able to get a 2003 VX220 for £8500, a similar age S2000 is certainly more than that. In fact even the 2000/2001 models start at around £10k
|
K17STY
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 02
Location: West Lothian
User status: Offline
|
220, but have a shot first.
Its not a car you could live with for eveyday. Well i couold have forced myself and got loads of cushions but stuart couldnt fit init.
If you get one im coming for a shot!
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
Parkers price still see's the Earlly 1999 S2000's at about 9.5K and the 2001 VX is at 9.5K too.
|
SAL
Premium Member
Registered: 19th Dec 05
Location: Radlett, Hertfordshire
User status: Offline
|
220 if it was turbo, would never buy the NA one IMO 
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by P1CK4D
The S2000 would provide a more thrilling drive IMO.
What cos of V-tech Yo!
Nismo seeing as you've owned the S2000 you'd be the best judge of what would be better to own from the moment you drive either.
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
S2000. unless you get the VX Turbo.
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
I voted vx220, but only if its the turbo version.
|
Baskey
Member
Registered: 31st May 06
User status: Offline
|
vx220 for me as well. I quite like the s2000, my friends goes quite well although there not 'that' fast.
If i was going for a two seater rear wheel drive sports car it would have to be the vx.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
Vx220 n/a, to everyone that says turbo or nothing you do realise the n/a is still a very quick car. If they had never made the turbo would you being saying it?
As far as looks concern if a 220 passes me it turns my head a standard S2000, nup.
|
