if everything works out next spring I should be able to purchase either an S2000 or Mazdaspeed Miata. I kno posting this in a S2000 forum the replies will be a little bias but my question is when u purchased ur S2000 did u look at the MSM.
also I'm not looking to modify either cars much. tires and rims. and it'll be a DD.

 

You need to be a little more specific. They stop making the S2000 so are u looking at a brand new msm?

S2000 is an amazing car.

 

both are great track cars, but the S2000 is a whole better beast than a miata.

 

I owned a NA Miata before buying my S2000. Granted it wasn't an MSM but if your going to compare stock to stock the S2000 is a much more refined machined.

Julian

 

Lol...drive both. Anywhere you post will have either biased or ignorant info.

I drove both.

You used to buy the msm because you didn't have the $$ for the S2000. But then S2000 price point plummeted.

Now you buy the msm because you're a mazda nerd who knows the S2000 is faster and better in every way....but...you feel you owe something to the miata community.

They're both impractical. They're both rwd Japanese convertibles. I could go on and on about why...but the S2000 is a much better bang for your buck.

 

If you like to mod cars, get the MS, If you are looking for a stock car, get the s2000........Now before I get totaly flamed, look at the options for modding the cars from the venders out there....the s2000 motor is pretty much "there" while for a little money you can get a lot more out the ms( see flying miata)...If you want to track the car a lot, the ms is much cheeper in terms of tires, you can run 15 inch tires on the cars. The Ms can fit 225 tires under the fenders and thats fine for the cars weight, the s2k really needs more rubber with the extra weight. In many cases that means pulling and rolling the fenders....

bottom line, stock for stock....s2000 all day long, but if you plan playing with the car, the ms a lot things going for it like a stock turbo and a aftermarket like no other.

 

I can see what you're saying. But modding the msm extensively will get you to the level of a stock S2000.

The msm only costs marginally less. think about it this way:

the msm comes with 17" wheels. You can buy a set of 15" wheels and tires to save $ on tires over time....but that would cost more than just buying a set of 17" tires. Or you can go with 17" tires and now youre back in S2000 tire cost territory anyway.

Brakes on na/nb miatas are garbage. They only work because the cars are so underpowered. If you were to upgrade the msm's power to match the S2000's power, you'll need bigger brakes. There goes your brake equipment savings. S2000s just need brake pads unless they're f.i.

So...the msm really isn't a better "value", imo. You get a LOT less...and you pay a little less.

 

im looking to buy both used. i've owned a mildly modded GSR and now a Legacy GT. both never saw a day in the track. i'm not completely ruling out that i'll never take the Mazdaspeed Miata nor the S2000 to the track but doubt it'll be a track *****.

im more looking to get either car as a "fun" car i'll enjoy driving on back roads. im keeping the LGT or might "upgrade" to a CRV if kids come in the future. the only thing i see doing to the cars are tires and roll bar. maybe a carbon fiber hood if i get a white S2K and black rims on either cars

 

so....have you driven either?

Whether you're going to track them or not, the S2000 is hands down the better car.

Drive.
Both.

 

200rwhp is $1k mod, that makes the MSM more fun on street. The track you would need more mods.

 

I concur with below. Make it easy for yourself & go with a s2000.

 

You'll get the stock POWER levels, but out of the box the MSM trounces the S2000 in handling, mostly due to the S being a fat pig in comparison. That extra 500lbs makes the tubby 2000 a bit slugish around an auto-x course.


The MSM was also substantially less from the factory than the S2000, yet 6 years later holds virtually the same resale value as it's much more expensive competition, ponder for a few moments why that might be.

Really? Take a search and look for the setups of some of the top competing SCCA street modified miatas and take note of how many of them have aftermarket brake setups. Hint: None of them do, by 1994 Miatas pretty much had overkill in the brake department, and the MSM only made them better. But please, continue to talk out of your ***.



One would argue that you get a bit more with a miata depending on the use of the vehicle and the buyers intended purpose, unless of course one enjoys frying syncros and having a laughably pathetic powerband anywhere below the stratosphere, then the S2000 is clearly the superior choice.

 

Do you realize the weight difference between an S2000 and MSM is about 270lbs?

according to a C&D test: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...48c348908d.pdf

The stock MSM was classed in B-Stock, while the S2000 was in A-Stock. Around an autocross course, it really shouldn't be close (all things being equal). SCCA knew that the S2000 was much faster, which is why the MSM wasn't put into the same stock Solo class. Many drivers felt like it belonged in C-Stock with the regular Miatas.

It's a common occurrence in the used car market: more expensive vehicles tend to depreciate faster.

I regularly co-drive on of the fastest CSP Miatas in the country, and you aren't telling the whole story there, because Solo competition requires very little from the brakes of a Miata. Yes, the 1994+ brakes are overkill for Solo, but only because weight is more important than braking capacity. The 10AE I co-drive runs 275 Hoosiers on 15x10 wheels with swiss'd 1.6L rotors and calipers, but that's because it's built for Solo and Solo only: the owner admits that the brakes are completely inadequate for track duty. The goals in Solo are different: have enough brakes to stop the car a few times from medium speed in a minute or so, then sit and wait for another run. Given the large thermal mass of the 15x10 wheels and hefty Hoosier, smaller brakes will get up to temperature faster and become responsive sooner. The owner has drilled off 2 lbs from EACH of the small 1.6 rotors: this is NOT normal.

I've tracked a lot of Miatas, and I remember cooking the stock 1.8L brakes in a 230rwhp NA-T in 5 laps, enough to park the car. My S2000 didn't have any issues that day. It was pretty scary, and personally find NA/NB Miata brakes to be on the weak side (NC stops fine).

I think your opinion is pretty narrow minded, but I will agree that the MSM is probably a better car for most drivers. I stress the word "driver" here, because the MSM is admittedly much easier to drive than the S2000. It's handling is much safer and the powerband is easier to use (even if it's far less powerful). The S2000 is a much more demanding vehicle to drive and operate.

For what it's worth, I think taking a 5-speed NB and installing an FM kit is a better option than an MSM, for three reasons. One, the 6-speed gearing of the MSM is terrible with a turbo motor. First is too short, second is stupid short, and third is only mildly annoying. The ratios are better suited for an revy NA motor like the 1.6L BP mill, not the turbo's large torque curve.The standard 5-speed ratios are much better suited for a turbo engine. Two, the turbo/manifold of the MSM is designed so that the failure-prone turbo can't be easily replaced. Once you get into more modular setup like Flyin Miata's kits, you have more flexibility and can also get a realistic sized intercooler. Three, the 17" wheels are simply too big in overall diameter. The NA/NB chassis was designed for 13/14/15" wheels and the 17 was throw on to please the market. It isn't the best wheel size for the chassis, and it raises the CG of the car by almost an inch. A good 205 or 225 tire on a 15x7-to-9 is much better suited than the big 17" MSM wheel.

For all that, you wind up with undoing a lot of the poor choices Mazda made with the MSM. It's cheaper to start with a regular NB and go FI. I will admit though that the MSM is an easy car to drive, and very forgiving.

 

BKY knows his stuff! This is some good info!

 

I'm puzzled by this comment. I tracked a '99 sport Miata for two years and had absolutely no issues with the brakes. They're comparatively large for the power/weight of the car and with performance pads are damn good.

I've owned a S2000, '99 Miata, and now a 07 MX-5 MS-R. They're all very different cars and you should try to spend some time driving them before you buy. The NB Miatas feel a lot like a go-kart compared to the S2000. The S2000 feels more sophisticated on the street, but the NB is a more natural and forgiving drive on the track or autocross, if not quite as fast. They don't have a lot of horsepower, but they're really well balanced. For an all-around car, I like my MX-5 with the MS-R suspension - the stock suspension on the new generation cars is way too "comfortable" for competition or even hard driving. The Mazdas are damn near indestructible and parts are really cheap.

All that said, if you want the better weight/horsepower ratio of a S2000, I would just buy the S2000. Learn to drive it though, they can bite if you get too aggressive, especially the first generation. I'd buy the S2000 or a MX-5 over the MSM, especially if the money difference isn't too big.

There are several threads like this over on the Miata forum. Strangely, they mostly come to the opposite conclusion.
Jim

 

Remember when I said that miata brakes only work because the cars are underpowered? You said that the brakes are good for the power/weight of the car. Aren't we pretty much saying the same thing?



It's actually a little less than 300lbs or so. Do more math. ~2800-~2500 = ~300

An ITR weighs about 300-400lbs more than a 1990 Si. Does that mean that the ITR is "sluggish" or "a pig" in comparison? A 911 GT3 weighs about 300-400lbs more than a S2000. Is the S2000 a better handling/performing car automatically? Does it handle better just because of that small weight deficit? There's no such thing as designing a chassis or suspension components to mitigate extra weight and still allow the car to handle better?

The MSM trounces the S2000 in handling? LOL! nope! A large part of why the S2000 weighs more is because the chassis is much more substatial. The NB chassis feels a little "wet". The S2000 is also much more responsive than the Miata. You're insane for thinking otherwise.


With your principle, you should ignore power, braking, chassis design, and everything else except raw weight when comparing two cars' autocross capabilities? Why is the S2000 classed higher?





Well, if you look at a brand new S2000, it was around $35k. A brand new MSM was around $26k new. The miata cost roughly 74% of the S2000. The numbers are larger when the cars are new...so there's a substatial difference. A MSM today costs around $12k average? The same type of mileage/condition 05 S2000 can be had for $16k? That means the MSM costs around 75% of the S2000. So...pretty similar percentages, but the numbers are just a lot lower for both cars. So the dollar differences go down.

Street mod miatas? autocross course? ofcourse the brakes are going to be fine. Not sure why you're getting rude at this point. I was nothing but polite. But now I'm gonna act internet tough too, retard. I said that miata brakes only work because the cars are underpowered. Street mod Miatas are still underpowered. They're also only getting up to what? a blistering 50mph around the autocross course? OMG stop a 2500lb MISSLE at a neck breaking 50mph? Those must be the best brakes ever made!! The brakes are OVERKILL!!

What happens when you actually go to a track and you want to match the power/weight ratio of a S2000? Meaning about 185whp on a stock weight MSM miata. S2000s make around 205whp/2800lbs = .073hp/lb. So a MSM making 185whp/2500lbs = .074hp/lb. You're going to fry those tiny little 10.x'' miata brakes in a few laps.

My friend had a 1999 special edition with a (insert brand here) turbo kit. It made around 160-170ish WHP. Road America was a nightmare for him. Granted he was on hawk street pads. But I was on a completely stock braking system after getting my car 8 days prior. Guess whose brakes lasted longer. It was a stupid competition because both braking systems were a really bad idea on road america. But you get my point.


Laughably pathetic power band? Powerband aside, doesn't the S2000 go faster at any point? You think you'd be winning any drag races, roll races, reverse races, grocery store races, parking lot races, or any other "POWER" races you can imagine VS. a S2000 in a MSM? Hell no. The S2000 is still faster.

I drove a MSM. It felt slower than my ITR.

The S2000 also still makes like 70 more HP. My sychros are also fine after lots of track days, drag racing, etc. If you're comparing year to year....the MSM wasn't around till like 04 IIRC. AP2s don't have synchro issues, boss.

 

Underpowered is a relative thing. I suspect my buddy with the Z06 thinks the S2000 is an underpowered weenie car. Brakes are designed for the car they're on, not the possibility that some enthusiast might drop a turbo on the car.

You really think so? You've driven both? Maybe I need to drive a S2000 again...

At solo nationals this year a S2000 won B stock with a time of 120.433. C Stock was a MX-5 at 120.717. That's less than three tenths of a second on a 120 second course. 1/4 of 1% difference. Both the S2000 and the MX-5 autocross in STR - the same class - and the MX-5 can run larger wheels to match the S2000. In that class the MX-5 and the S2000 are damn near even, with the MX-5 winning nationals this year. (and yes I realize that I'm comparing the current gen Mazda as opposed to the NB, but then my suggestion a couple of posts down was to buy a MX-5 and not a MSM. The MSM's suck on the autocross course. They wouldn't be competitive in C stock.)

I don't have anything against the S2000, it's a great car. But I don't understand slamming the Miata - also a great car.
Jim

 

The NC is a different animal completely, and go toe-to-toe withe the S2000 in many Solo classes. The discussion was about the MSM vs S2000 in autocross.

With the *crazy* turn-in of the S2000, I've never driven one that felt "sluggish" in the handling area, except for an STR on 255s that had no sways. That pushed a lot. The B-Stock CR also had more push than I expected, but I suspect it was a driver alignment preference more than anything.

 

bky - I agree with you 100%. I'd characterize the S2000 as "precise" and the NB Miata as feeling lighter and almost too responsive, especially with an aggressive alignment, even worse with suspension upgrades. It gets pretty close to a street legal go-kart. YMMV as to which you like better. I think the MX-5 is a nice compromise IF you fix the stock suspension.
Jim

edit: If the OP is thinking autocross, the MSM is the worst possible choice. As bky mentioned, they run out of 2nd gear and are mis-classed.

 

Well, not sure where this is going exactly. Compared to a Z06, a S2000 is underpowered. Compared to a Funny car, the Z06 is underpowered. Comapared to the Apollo Spacecraft, the funny car is underpowered. Compared to the sun, the space craft is underpowered...and it keeps going. There obviously has to be a "relative". In this case, the MSM relative to the S2000.

Compared to the S2000, the MSM is underpowered. The brakes on the MSM are the same as the brakes on a 140HP miata, IIRC. There's nothing wrong with the MSM or Miata brakes if you're fine with the performance/power level of the MSM.

My point was that if you're comparing the 2 cars, the S2000 starts out pretty far ahead. The only reason I brought up brake systems is because another member brought up how cheap Miata brakes are....BUT at the same time brought up that MSMs can be modified to be much faster than S2000s. Presumably, this savings comes from the fact tha MSM brakes are cheap because they are small and last a long time.

My rebuttle is that they are small and last a long time because the car makes very little power. HOWEVER, if you really do want to make a MSM faster than the S2000, you're going to need better brakes anyway. So there goes your brake savings.

The S2000's chassis and brakes (with a pad/fluid upgrade) can handle MUCH more than the miata brakes. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than pads/fluid in a MSM with 185-225WHP to safely track it.

My main point is that the MSM is only slightly cheaper. To get it to perform like a S2000, you're going to deplete any initial "savings".

If we were comparing the S2000 to a Z06, the Z06 guy could say that the S2000's stock brakes are sized just fine...if you're happy with making 200-250WHP. But if it made 400-500HP in order to compete with the Z06, the brakes would no longer be adequate. So even though the S2000 starts out cheaper, it would need SUBSTANTIAL upgrades to the brakes and everything else to compete with a Z06....which would take care of the initial "savings" of the S2000. That argument wouldn't be wrong, would it?


Yes, I know so...because I own S2000 and I've driven quite a few Miatas. S2000s have beefier suspension components, stiffer chassis' and faster steering ratios.

That's not really scientific. Multiple trials and eliminiating driver differences would make for a more accurate and convincing argument. I get what you're saying. But maybe there was some driver skill level differences...as well as other differences that might have contributed.


I love the Miata. But the OP's question was "should I buy a MSM or S2000?". I answered with an opinion backed by facts. Never said the Miata wasn't a great car. Just doesn't compare to S2000s.

 

To beat a dead horse - let's do more math.
The weight differential per the spec sheets is 2864lbs - 2529lbs = 335lbs. 13%

The later NB Miatas, including the MSM had 10.6"/10.9" brakes, that's 17% less overall rotor area than the S2k.

The S2k has 32% more HP than a MSM.

So... The MSM with 32% less power has 17% less rotor.

Here's some more math: If you jack up the HP in the MSM to 209 HP to get the same power to weight ratio of the S2K, the HP to square meter of rotor area is about 3% worse in the MSM. In engineering terms that's a pretty much a rounding error.

All of this is a non-issue anyplace but the racetrack. But I take issue with your earlier comment "Brakes on na/nb miatas are garbage.". They're actually damn good.
Jim

 

...Actually to match the power/weight ratio of the S2000, the MSM needs 185whp, not 209.

The rotor area is smaller, as well as the pad area, caliper size, etc. You can't measure useable rotor area only based on diameter of the rotor. measuring the pad footprint on the rotor is important.

BTW, are you using 11.9" and 11.1" for the S2000 rotor diameters? Your % difference numbers sound low.

Edit: actually, maybe 17% isn't too far off...

I guess I might have been wrong saying NA/NB brakes are garbage. For the weight and power of the car, they work well. I was initially caught up in comparing the 2 cars.

 

I'm going to guess that the rotor size isn't as relevant as the sweep area of the brakes. Also, I doubt the relationship between braking force and rotor size is linear.

I've owned three Miatas, raced Spec Miata, and tracked/autocrossed countless others, many as a Solo instructor. Overall, I agree that the NA/NB brakes are merely adequate. On the NA, the front brake bias is too strong and locking an inside front tire is very common on track or in Solo. It happens so much that the typical E-Stock setup involves using less aggressive brake pads up front with more aggressive pads in the back in an attempt to shift some bias (Hawk HPS front, Hawk Plus rear). The NB's bias was better, and any ABS equipped model was a huge improvement. At higher speeds, the NA/NB aren't impressive, and I have to brake early to avoid losing the front under trail braking. I've also felt noticeable fade on a turbo Miata, even with great pads.

The S2000 brakes are in a different league completely, as are the NC brakes. The S2000 stops far better than the modest hardware would suggest: it's not just a matter of rotor size, number of pistons, etc. In hard driving, the braking difference between the NA/NB and the S2000 is huge.