"Elemental" 4-seaters

J30

240SX. But only if you chop off the back seater's lower legs.

rogerbvonceg wrote:

pres589 wrote: What characteristics of the S2000 are most of interest here?

I left that open to generate discussion, but what strikes me about the S2000 is it's purity, precision, it's lack of compromise, coupled with its Honda underpinnings which, I assume, imply some economy of ownership in comparison to older or more exotic marques.

While it doesn't necessarily parallel the S2000 in its elegance, the Evo RS is about as lightweight as a four-seat "sports car" gets. As a bonus the back seats are cruel torture devices. The CTS-V seems a bit more in line with the driveline purity, at the cost of weight and price.

Wait scratch that J30 nonsense, I'm thinking original M5 now. Yeah!

MitchellC wrote:

rogerbvonceg wrote:

pres589 wrote: What characteristics of the S2000 are most of interest here?

I left that open to generate discussion, but what strikes me about the S2000 is it's purity, precision, it's lack of compromise, coupled with its Honda underpinnings which, I assume, imply some economy of ownership in comparison to older or more exotic marques.

While it doesn't necessarily parallel the S2000 in its elegance, the Evo RS is about as lightweight as a four-seat "sports car" gets. As a bonus the back seats are cruel torture devices. The CTS-V seems a bit more in line with the driveline purity, at the cost of weight and price.

Doesn't the Evo RS still weigh something like 3100lbs? I mean, "lightweight" does mean different things to different people, but i'd only consider that somewhat lightweight when compared to other modern AWD turbo cars.

If i remember correctly, that thing weighed less than 100lbs less than the Evo MR.

That said, i don't really have a great answer to the original question anyways.

mtn wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to mtn: How is that not a 2+2? It's got back seats without having back doors.

I guess it is kinda like the "are muscle cars sports cars" debate where you are really splitting hairs and in the end it doesn't matter, but I consider a 2+2 a car that is really meant to be only a 2-seater, but it has the back seats just in case. Numerous Porsche's, MGBGT, whatever Nissan Z cars had a back seat... Those are to me a 2+2. An E30 has a useable back seat, even in coupe and convertible form. Especially for kids.

My Mustang Is a 2+2. It says so right on the front fender.

rogerbvonceg wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: 04-05 TSX 6spd with the A-spec suspension.

Funny, I have an '05 TSX, now. 5AT and standard suspension, though. So close. I think it's what got me thinking about the S2000. And just to be clear, I'm not car-shopping. Just dreaming.

Engine-wise, the Integra GS-R is going to be closest. Same with the suspension. But it's not RWD, so I guess that knocks it out of the running.

I kind of think that a 4 seat S2000 is a Porsche 968.

I enjoyed mine - not enough to keep it for more than a couple years, but it was fun. Way roomier than an S2000 and way more torque, sloppier shifter, back seat, hatch back...

Sounds to me like you want an RX8 with an F20C swap.

I totally forgot about the 968. I've always liked the hardtop version of those. With the usable hatch it might make a pretty versatile dd.

510 or 200sx?

There is only one elemental 4 seater that brooks no argument. Everything else is just going to be opinion.

Brett_Murphy wrote: There is only one elemental 4 seater that brooks no argument. Everything else is just going to be opinion.

Not quite what I had in mind!

Love the Porsches, but they don't score well on the "ease of ownership" scale. I can't get the data for anything older than 2005, but when I compare Edmunds True Cost to Own between the S2K, RX8, Boxster, and Base 911 from 2005, the RX-8 fares slightly better than the S2k in maintenance, repairs, and overall cost of ownership. The Porsches are about $10 or $20k higher overall, respectively, over a 5 year period. Projected repair costs are the same between the two Porsches, but almost 4 times greater than the S2K or RX8.

TCO is only useful for comparisons, but it still indicates to me whether one car would be easier to own than another.

I still want to own an old 911, someday.

I agree that an RX-8 fits the bill, and I agree that its rotary is somewhere in between “uninspiring” and “complete rubbish.” There is, however, a solution in the works. An LS-swap kit is almost ready to go to market. I won’t mention the vendor’s name for various reasons, but it’s nice to know the hardware will soon be available. So you can pick up a high-mileage chassis on the cheap and give it more torque with better fuel economy with minimal fabrication required. Seems like a very attractive proposition considering RX-8’s are now as cheap as 3rd gen RX-7’s (FD3S). It’s a shame they’re not quite as pretty, but they have a legit backseat.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

MitchellC wrote:

rogerbvonceg wrote:

pres589 wrote: What characteristics of the S2000 are most of interest here?

I left that open to generate discussion, but what strikes me about the S2000 is it's purity, precision, it's lack of compromise, coupled with its Honda underpinnings which, I assume, imply some economy of ownership in comparison to older or more exotic marques.

While it doesn't necessarily parallel the S2000 in its elegance, the Evo RS is about as lightweight as a four-seat "sports car" gets. As a bonus the back seats are cruel torture devices. The CTS-V seems a bit more in line with the driveline purity, at the cost of weight and price.

Doesn't the Evo RS still weigh something like 3100lbs? I mean, "lightweight" does mean different things to different people, but i'd only consider that somewhat lightweight when compared to other modern AWD turbo cars. If i remember correctly, that thing weighed less than 100lbs less than the Evo MR. That said, i don't really have a great answer to the original question anyways.

How many modern cars weigh less?

Didn't the srt-4 weigh almost 3200 lbs.?

Most cars are sneaking up to the 3500 lb level, so I would consider 3100 lbs. to still be reasonable.

DC

Junkyard_Dog wrote: Hyundai Genesis Coupe? Never driven one but its all I could think of in 5 seconds. Still waiting for a thorough review of a turbo 4 with track package from just about anywhere.

We published a review of the Genesis Coupe in both V6 and 4cyl turbo guises when they were first launched. We weren't able to take them to the track, but got to spend quite a bit of time in each car.

October 2009 GRM

I think the 968 and rx8 come closest to being 2+2 s2000s. Both are on one of my 'lists', which list i dont know.

I am seriously considering LS-swapped rx8 as being something id invest a chunk of change in. The real question is are we going to have to pay $2k for a kit that's motor mounts and a bellhousing adapter?

Brett_Murphy wrote: There is only one elemental 4 seater that brooks no argument. Everything else is just going to be opinion.

Ive always liked these.

Vigo wrote: The real question is are we going to have to pay $2k for a kit that's motor mounts and a bellhousing adapter?

The torque of an LS engine will necessitate that a T56 transmission be included in the swap process.

My vote goes to the E30 M3. But, I'm biased.

Matt B wrote: How about more than 4 seats?