If the S2000 were to return, would you guys be excited?

[thill]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

MSRP on a 2000 Civic Si was $17,545. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $23,824 today.

MSRP on a 2015 Civic Si is $23,090.

But he does have a point to a degree. A base Subaru STI brand new in 2005 was $32,030. A base STI in 2015 is $35,290. If you were to use an inflation calculator the 2015 STI should be $40,224.

At any rate I thought most of his post was spot on. Consider the engine in the S2K. That thing is still one of the most reliable engines on the road and S2K's, in general, are pretty bulletproof and inexpensive to maintain.

They were a bargain then and they are a bargain now used.

As a car enthusiast I would definitely be excited for a modern S2K as long as Honda does it right. Honda has new leadership and they have openly stated that they want to make exciting cars again and cater more towards a younger audience. About time. I like Honda products, my wife has driven them for well over 10 years now and they are uber reliable and great everyday vehicles.

Bring it on Honda.

[thill]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

"S2000 expensive for what it was"

WTF?

After the high demand of the first year you could buy them for $29,900. For that price it was faster than the BMW Z3, Mercedes Benz SLK, Audi TT, Porsche Boxster, Ford Mustang GT and Chevy Camaro Z28. Basically faster than anything cheaper than a Corvette. So please go on about how it was overpriced.

It was the only RWD lightweight sports car with a race suspension and hand built engine under $50k.

And for the 10000000th time, you can't play the stupid "adjusted for inflation" price game. How much would a 2000 Civic Si cost today, adjusted for inflation? A hell of a lot more than what a 2015 Civic Si sells for, that's what.



I'm not gonna argue that Honda let this special car wither on the vine, but that's on them, not the car. MSRP might have been $34,500 for this car in 2009, but nobody paid that price. In 2008 I purchased my 2007 S2000 with 4800 original miles for $21,500.00 And there were plenty of other ones for sale for similar money. Their resale didn't spike till after the car was discontinued. Funny how that works.

It's like you typed the words before I could. Many people forget that Honda never intended to even sell the S2K as long as they did (hence the withering on the vine). Most enthusiasts cars are not made for profit. They are made to generate hype and enthusiasm for the brand and to get good press and butts in the dealership. People that own BRZ's and FR-S should understand that.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by thill

But he does have a point to a degree. A base Subaru STI brand new in 2005 was $32,030. A base STI in 2015 is $35,290. If you were to use an inflation calculator the 2015 STI should be $40,224.

At any rate I thought most of his post was spot on. Consider the engine in the S2K. That thing is still one of the most reliable engines on the road and S2K's, in general, are pretty bulletproof and inexpensive to maintain.

They were a bargain then and they are a bargain now used.

As a car enthusiast I would definitely be excited for a modern S2K as long as Honda does it right. Honda has new leadership and they have openly stated that they want to make exciting cars again and cater more towards a younger audience. About time. I like Honda products, my wife has driven them for well over 10 years now and they are uber reliable and great everyday vehicles.

Bring it on Honda.

Actually I didn't weigh in on whether I thought the S2000 was overpriced or not. Reason being it's almost always purely subjective. It will come down to how much you value the unique qualities of the car.

FWIW I think the S2000 was a fairly good value at the time, especially at the discounted prices dealers were selling them at, but the second-hand market seems overinflated now. That's just my opinion. I could understand if someone else (for example, someone who loved the thought of a 9000 RPM redline and wanted a used convertible, and didn't mind the meager low-end torque or barebones/tight cabin) thought they were great values today. Like I said, value propositions are nearly always subjective so I don't think these debates ever go anywhere.

Re. the STI, Subaru has been using the same engine in that car since 2004, so I'm not surprised its price has dropped relative to inflation. Similarly Nissan hasn't updated the 370z since 2009 and its price has dropped relative to inflation as well. Cars that get updated probably tend to track closer to inflation. 2006 Camry XLE V6 was $31,080 inflation-adjusted. It's $31,370 today. From a marketing perspective, it's probably more a matter of targeting a specific segment of buyers whose average disposable income has been increasing over time (i.e., inflation).

[thill]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Actually I didn't weigh in on whether I thought the S2000 was overpriced or not. Reason being it's almost always purely subjective. It will come down to how much you value the unique qualities of the car.

FWIW I think the S2000 was a fairly good value at the time, especially at the discounted prices dealers were selling them at, but the second-hand market seems overinflated now. That's just my opinion. I could understand if someone else (for example, someone who loved the thought of a 9000 RPM redline and wanted a used convertible, and didn't mind the meager low-end torque or barebones/tight cabin) thought they were great values today. Like I said, value propositions are nearly always subjective so I don't think these debates ever go anywhere.

Re. the STI, Subaru has been using the same engine in that car since 2004, so I'm not surprised its price has dropped relative to inflation. Similarly Nissan hasn't updated the 370z since 2009 and its price has dropped relative to inflation as well. Cars that get updated probably tend to track closer to inflation. 2006 Camry XLE V6 was $31,080 inflation-adjusted. It's $31,370 today. From a marketing perspective, it's probably more a matter of targeting a specific segment of buyers whose average disposable income has been increasing over time (i.e., inflation).

I agree with everything you wrote in terms of resale and aftermarket, but when you consider how much performance and little maintenance a used S2K offers vs say a used Boxster, it is still, for me, a car to consider.

In terms of the inflation argument, we could keep going on but a new WRX is not much more than one from 10 years ago not factoring in inflation and that car is completely different from the ground up. When you factor in all the mandatory safety features now, as well as all the technology it is pretty impressive that you can pay $26K for a base WRX that has a lot of options and features. Same with a modern GTI. The interior of a moderately priced MKVII is almost as good as an Audi and you get tons of tech and way more performance than previous gen for not much more money.

At any rate there are just so many great cars out there right now for enthusiasts. FT86, WRX/STI, Evo (at least for another month or so), GTI/R, new MX-5, FIST, FOST, FOST RS very soon, new Mustang, new Camaro, Genesis Coupe will be redone, upcoming Fiat Spider, etc, etc. I mean so many options for somebody in the $25-38K price range and the performance is ridiculous. The limits on these cars keep getting higher. My Golf R is just ridiculous in terms of features, tech, and performance for the money.

Great time to be an enthusiast.

[Dave-ROR]

Assuming one actually did come out (and I have not heard any commentary on it from friends) it would depend on how it drove, price/value, etc. I've had an S2000 and nothing about it would drive me to blindly buy a new version.. except maybe that trans... but yeah I don't trust Honda anywhere near that much.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by thill

I agree with everything you wrote in terms of resale and aftermarket, but when you consider how much performance and little maintenance a used S2K offers vs say a used Boxster, it is still, for me, a car to consider.

In terms of the inflation argument, we could keep going on but a new WRX is not much more than one from 10 years ago not factoring in inflation and that car is completely different from the ground up. When you factor in all the mandatory safety features now, as well as all the technology it is pretty impressive that you can pay $26K for a base WRX that has a lot of options and features. Same with a modern GTI. The interior of a moderately priced MKVII is almost as good as an Audi and you get tons of tech and way more performance than previous gen for not much more money.

At any rate there are just so many great cars out there right now for enthusiasts. FT86, WRX/STI, Evo (at least for another month or so), GTI/R, new MX-5, FIST, FOST, FOST RS very soon, new Mustang, new Camaro, Genesis Coupe will be redone, upcoming Fiat Spider, etc, etc. I mean so many options for somebody in the $25-38K price range and the performance is ridiculous. The limits on these cars keep getting higher. My Golf R is just ridiculous in terms of features, tech, and performance for the money.

Great time to be an enthusiast.

Yeah I definitely think the current WRX, GTI/R and Mustang are great values compared to previous gens. Many improvements in power, interior, handling, etc. for the same inflation-adjusted price (or cheaper in some cases!)

It's funny - for me, the S2000 isn't a great value compared to say a 987 Boxster because the Boxster can usually be tracked without an aftermarket roll bar. That alone reduces the S2000's value, not just from a pure cost perspective (price of adding a roll bar) but also its lack of suitability as a street car with the roll bar. But again, it's all very subjective because not everyone is interested in going to the track. I also love the sound of Porsche's flat 6, but that's subjective too and I bet some prefer the sound of the F20 at 9000 RPM. That's why one person can say the S2000 is still a great value, another can say it's over-priced, and they can both be right.

[SUB-FT86]

The thing I never understood is why Mazda just don't make a high revving(100hp/L) version of the current engine in the Mx5 with suspension tweaks(lot less roll) for 30k base. That car would be a S2000 since it would be about 500+ lbs lighter with 40hp less for $30,000

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The thing I never understood is why Mazda just don't make a high revving(100hp/L) version of the current engine in the Mx5 with suspension tweaks(lot less roll) for 30k base. That car would be a S2000 since it would be about 500+ lbs lighter with 40hp less for $30,000

David Coleman (Mazda US engineer chief) actually talked about these points in recent interviews. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said the reason they don't stiffen the Miata's suspension is: 1) US roads are really bumpy, and 2) the Miata is a convertible and would suffer from stiffer suspension. The reason they didn't shoot for 100 hp/L is they weren't willing to sacrifice midrange torque.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...at-sports-car/

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINzvEAQAnE"]2016 Mazda MX-5 Interview with Dave Coleman - YouTube[/ame]

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

David Coleman (Mazda US engineer chief) actually talked about these points in recent interviews. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said the reason they don't stiffen the Miata's suspension is: 1) US roads are really bumpy, and 2) the Miata is a convertible and would suffer from stiffer suspension. The reason they didn't shoot for 100 hp/L is they weren't willing to sacrifice midrange torque.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...at-sports-car/

I really hate this argument because it's ruining all the new cars. Though the engine in my FRS sounds horrible, I am very glad they stretched that single cam as far as they could.

How much midrange do you really need? 2 liters for <2400lbs isn't enough to work with? The whole point of a good manual transmission is so you can enjoy revving the engine up when you want more power.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G800A using Tapatalk

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I really hate this argument because it's ruining all the new cars. Though the engine in my FRS sounds horrible, I am very glad they stretched that single cam as far as they could.

How much midrange do you really need? 2 liters for <2400lbs isn't enough to work with? The whole point of a good manual transmission is so you can enjoy revving the engine up when you want more power.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G800A using Tapatalk

Coleman actually spends a long time talking about the BRZ vs. ND Miata comparison. Despite its inferior hp/weight ratio, the ND's superior torque/weight ratio allows it to be the quicker of the two. Basically comes down to area under the curve.

From his comments, it seems like his team only focused on acceleration and daily usability, but didn't really consider the enjoyment factor of a higher redline.

I will say high RPM, low displacement NA engines really seem to be hit or miss with folks. Some hated the F20/22 and B18C1/5 because of their anemic low-end torque and requirement for downshifting and redlining. Others loved them. But based on the popularity of turbo compacts today, I'd guess more people disliked them sadly.

[SUB-FT86]

Low-Mid range power FEELS better for a daily driver. That's why turbo's are loved and V8 engines. So they went with a powerband that most people liked.

[86Tony]

If a new s2k comes out, ima be the first inline for one. People.that hates the s2k never even drove on. Drives like a 86 but more raw and more power.

[86Tony]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The thing I never understood is why Mazda just don't make a high revving(100hp/L) version of the current engine in the Mx5 with suspension tweaks(lot less roll) for 30k base. That car would be a S2000 since it would be about 500+ lbs lighter with 40hp less for $30,000

They dont need too. I already having a hard time passing them on the track

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by thill

I agree with everything you wrote in terms of resale and aftermarket, but when you consider how much performance and little maintenance a used S2K offers vs say a used Boxster, it is still, for me, a car to consider.

Boxsters are cheaper than S2000's now.

Edit: There's even a handful of 987 S's cheaper than S2000's near me, that's 280+ hp on tap. Not to mention many 986 S models which match the S2000's output but with the engine in the middle of the car... If you can DIY I think Porsche is the way to go at this point for a non-Miata performance ragtop under $20k. While the Honda may have the edge in recurring maintenance costs I think I'd take my chances with a well maintained boxster over a Honda that's been thrashed as they so often are at reasonable prices.