Originally posted by 98AccordEX
have fun paying the insurance of the S2000 and driving it in the snow. yeah its nicer than the accord but its not very practical for most people. if you have a family good luck gettin 4 people in the S2000. an S2000 is a car for people that have a lot of money to spend and can afford to have another car or they dont have any kids. while the accord covers both of that. you dont need another car to drive around, you dont pay ridiculous insurance, and you can go pick up the kids in it. if it snows and your only car is an S2000, youre gonna be sitting at home until the snow melts, while you could be out doing whatever if you had an accord
The S2000, in 2000, was a sports car that was faster around a track than anything this side of a 911 Carerra and had the reliability of a Civic. It was the first RWD Honda convertible since the Honda S800. Drive one and you'll see why people paid $10,000 over MSRP. Back when it came out, the only competition was a $28,000 weaksauce Z3 with a 4 banger or a $45,000 Porsche Boxster. Most people that can afford the S2000 can afford a winter rat. But this is a topic for another day, the topic at hand is the 2003 Accord.
The Accord is nothing close to an S2000. The Accord is a FWD midsize car built with a family of 4 in mind...please do not compare apples and watermelons. I'm kind of questioning why the hell you would want to compare the S2000 and Accord in the first place
