Smaller next-gen Mazda MX-5....YES

[White Comet]

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

And you shouldn't be. The S600 was released in '64, many many years before the Miata was. The S600 was a RWD convertible with a DOHC 4 cylinder. Sound familiar? To say that the Miata prompted the S2000 is completely ludicrous. The S2000 was prompted because of the S800, and even the S500 before it. The S2000 is a true successor to the S500, S600, and S800.

The Miata might have contributed to the modern day roadster coming back but to say the S2000 is here because of the Miata is just downright stupid. The S series has been around for 45 years. I don't quite think the Miata has been around that long.

It's not ludicrous, and it's not stupid. Expand your mind beyond the limited scope you are currently using. Something always "begat" something else. Yes, the Miata came before the S2000, and the S600 before that, and the British roadsters before that, etc etc.

The point of the Miata-as-progenitor argument (really, calling it stupid?! Caffeine much?) is that it is the first of the most recent wave of 2 seat roadsters, and due to its success, helped spawn so many other cars of its type that span all price ranges and tastes, from the Porsche Boxters on one end and the S2000 on another. This is undeniable.

Oh, and saying the "S has been around for 45 years" is also disingenuous, considering it didn't exist in any form for most of that timespan, and its original iterations were made in severely limited production runs.

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

And the miata might've revived the roadster segment, but at its initial release, cars like the Supra, 300ZX, RX-7, 240sx, and MR-2 were still being produced.

[DanZilla]

Originally Posted by Axel

I don't know about the car... but if the co-pilot comes with it...

id drive her anywhere

[S2KtoFT86]

Originally Posted by White Comet

It's not ludicrous, and it's not stupid. Expand your mind beyond the limited scope you are currently using. Something always "begat" something else. Yes, the Miata came before the S2000, and the S600 before that, and the British roadsters before that, etc etc.

The point of the Miata-as-progenitor argument (really, calling it stupid?! Caffeine much?) is that it is the first of the most recent wave of 2 seat roadsters, and due to its success, helped spawn so many other cars of its type that span all price ranges and tastes, from the Porsche Boxters on one end and the S2000 on another. This is undeniable.

Oh, and saying the "S has been around for 45 years" is also disingenuous, considering it didn't exist in any form for most of that timespan, and its original iterations were made in severely limited production runs.

Like Matador said, the S2000 and even the Boxter are not in the same class as the Miata so how can you say that those vehicles were created because of it? I'll concede to the fact that other companies might have seen the success Mazda had but that's as far as it goes.

Let me ask you this, would you also say that the Charger, Challenger and various other cars haven't been around since they're inception because they might have disappeared for a while and are now back? That in itself is not smart. (Better way to say it?)

[mojo jojo]

One could argue that the Boxster is not in the same class as the Porsche roadsters that came before it.

I have to agree with those who say the rise in consumer interest in lightweight 2-seaters, regardless of class or capability, reflects the influence of the Miata's marketplace dominance.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by White Comet

It's not ludicrous, and it's not stupid. Expand your mind beyond the limited scope you are currently using. Something always "begat" something else. Yes, the Miata came before the S2000, and the S600 before that, and the British roadsters before that, etc etc.

The point of the Miata-as-progenitor argument (really, calling it stupid?! Caffeine much?) is that it is the first of the most recent wave of 2 seat roadsters, and due to its success, helped spawn so many other cars of its type that span all price ranges and tastes, from the Porsche Boxters on one end and the S2000 on another. This is undeniable.

I fail to see how any company could reason "Oh, those guys are making mad $$ on that car, let's build one bigger, heavier and sell it for $10K more and we will recreate the magic".....

[S2KtoFT86]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

I fail to see how any company could reason "Oh, those guys are making mad $$ on that car, let's build one bigger, heavier and sell it for $10K more and we will recreate the magic".....

Agreed.

[Mouse]

Wrong...It's because every brand has their own following. In order to not lose their loyal customers they build what they think is the trendy "thing". It's a business and everyone wants to capitalize on what's popular at that moment. A good example would be the truck and SUV boom from not too long ago. Look how almost every brand has 1 SUV and 1 truck in their lineup. You guys have to understand that the miata revived a segment that was dead for a long while.

How many SUV's and trucks does Toyota have in their lineup today? Compare that to the what they had in the 90's.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

Like Matador said, the S2000 and even the Boxter are not in the same class as the Miata so how can you say that those vehicles were created because of it? I'll concede to the fact that other companies might have seen the success Mazda had but that's as far as it goes.

Let me ask you this, would you also say that the Charger, Challenger and various other cars haven't been around since they're inception because they might have disappeared for a while and are now back? That in itself is not smart. (Better way to say it?)

The Charger and Challenger....seriously? Weren't those 2 name plates dead for at least 20 years before they were reintroduced. The Charger was made because Dodge needed a cheaper version of the 300C in which it shares everything with. It was a cheap way to make money without having to develop anything. Both the 300C and the Charger were made off of older Mercedes parts.

The Challenger came about because the Chrysler Corp. saw the success Ford was having with the retro-styled mustang. In other words they saw the potential to produce something that would capitalize on the trends of the market. I would say the same for the Camaro also.

[S2KtoFT86]

Originally Posted by Mouse

The Charger and Challenger....seriously? Weren't those 2 name plates dead for at least 20 years before they were reintroduced. The Charger was made because Dodge needed a cheaper version of the 300C in which it shares everything with. It was a cheap way to make money without having to develop anything. Both the 300C and the Charger were made off of older Mercedes parts.

The Challenger came about because the Chrysler Corp. saw the success Ford was having with the retro-styled mustang. In other words they saw the potential to produce something that would capitalize on the trends of the market. I would say the same for the Camaro also.

You said it yourself, reintroduced. That means they were there before. It makes no difference that they were gone from the market for a while, it still remains they were there before. I wasn't using them to further my argument of one car not being the reason for another, but simply stating how they were first introduced years ago and then reintroduced. Just because something "disappears" for a while, doesn't mean it's dead. To me, that argument is a moot point. Plain and simple.

[S2KtoFT86]

Originally Posted by Mouse

Wrong...It's because every brand has their own following. In order to not lose their loyal customers they build what they think is the trendy "thing". It's a business and everyone wants to capitalize on what's popular at that moment. A good example would be the truck and SUV boom from not too long ago. Look how almost every brand has 1 SUV and 1 truck in their lineup. You guys have to understand that the miata revived a segment that was dead for a long while.

How many SUV's and trucks does Toyota have in their lineup today? Compare that to the what they had in the 90's.

If you read what I said then you would know that I partially agree that the Miata may have revived the "sports car" but I have to disagree that certain cars wouldn't be here without it. It was only a matter of time before auto makers started making roadsters for the enthusiast crowd.

[White Comet]

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

Like Matador said, the S2000 and even the Boxter are not in the same class as the Miata so how can you say that those vehicles were created because of it? I'll concede to the fact that other companies might have seen the success Mazda had but that's as far as it goes.

That's as far as it need go, because that is the very point of my argument: that the financial success of the Miata was responsible for reviving the dead 2 seat roadster market.

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

Let me ask you this, would you also say that the Charger, Challenger and various other cars haven't been around since they're inception because they might have disappeared for a while and are now back? That in itself is not smart. (Better way to say it?)

Fact: the Charger, Challenger and "various other cars" haven't been around for many years (not inception) until their various recent modern versions have been released.

There's nothing incorrect about that statement.

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

Just because something "disappears" for a while, doesn't mean it's dead. To me, that argument is a moot point. Plain and simple.

Just because it's moot to you, doesn't mean it's actually moot to the general public. Honda may have looked to their past for the inspiration of the S2000, but without the financial success of 2 seat roadsters as started by the Miata, the project would almost certainly have not even gotten that far.

Originally Posted by S2KtoFT86

It was only a matter of time before auto makers started making roadsters for the enthusiast crowd.

Why would automakers do anything if they didn't feel there wasn't a profit margin in it?

Honda engineers might be passionate car nuts that always want to build cars like the S2k, but the bean counters don't care about that.

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

I fail to see how any company could reason "Oh, those guys are making mad $$ on that car, let's build one bigger, heavier and sell it for $10K more and we will recreate the magic".....

You don't remember the SUV boom in the past 15 years? Car makers always do just exactly that: take a successful competitor car and make their own version to take advantage of that "market segment."

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by White Comet

That's as far as it need go, because that is the very point of my argument: that the financial success of the Miata was responsible for reviving the dead 2 seat roadster market.

Financial success? IDK
mx-5's best selling yr was '90 of 35k were sold in US. From there, it all went down hill. When S2k was release ('00), mx-5 only sold 17k in US. Within 10 yrs it dropped 18k and lowest were '04 & '05 of only 9k each were sold. That's over $650,000,000 lost a yr of profit for Mazda (rough math: 26k x $25k). Yeah, it came back for a bit... but still haven't seen over 16k and it keep declining each yr.

So again, is Mazda mx-5 was financially success to help revive the 2 seat roadster market?

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Financial success? IDK
mx-5's best selling yr was '90 of 35k were sold in US. From there, it all went down hill. When S2k was release ('00), mx-5 only sold 17k in US. Within 10 yrs it dropped 18k and lowest were '04 & '05 of only 9k each were sold. That's over $650,000,000 lost a yr of profit for Mazda (rough math: 26k x $25k). Yeah, it came back for a bit... but still haven't seen over 16k and it keep declining each yr.

Actually that would be lost revenue, not profit.
Your calculation also doesn't include the Time Value of Money (TVM), aka, inflation.
Sorry, business major and all.:happy0180:
It adds nothing to the topic at hand. I just felt like sounding smart.

[White Comet]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Financial success? IDK
mx-5's best selling yr was '90 of 35k were sold in US. From there, it all went down hill. When S2k was release ('00), mx-5 only sold 17k in US. Within 10 yrs it dropped 18k and lowest were '04 & '05 of only 9k each were sold. That's over $650,000,000 lost a yr of profit for Mazda (rough math: 26k x $25k). Yeah, it came back for a bit... but still haven't seen over 16k and it keep declining each yr.

So again, is Mazda mx-5 was financially success to help revive the 2 seat roadster market?

Good points, but don't forget that there is significant time lag in development of a brand new car, especially one that doesn't share a platform with an existing model (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but I always thought this was the case with the S2000). Case in point: just look how long it took for the new Camaro to arrive as a result of the success of the S195 Mustang ('05 and up model).

Oh, and are you quoting global sales, or just US sales?