Honda considering an S2000 successor - report

[Goneau]

Rice, can I just say I love reason your posts in a non homosexual way? Hahaha
You pretty much hit everything right on target.
The S2k was one of those cars you'd pass and it just looks like a nice, simple roadster. And then you drive one, its almost misleading in a way. They were never really flashy, or say "hey mr. Policeman why don't you pull me over?" Where as in an STi or an EVO, you immediately attract attention, wanted or unwanted. Which is one of the turn offs about the BRZ I own now. I absolutely love the way it looks and it just looks like a rear wheel drive coupe should if you ask me. But at the same time, they do have a tendency to seem flashy in a sense.
Modesty is nice, and if you can find a woman who is just like a good car, a lady on the street and a freak in the bed you've found yourself a keeper

[manonastick]

I just cant trust these article these days the s2000 was a full one off thing by honda that requires a shit load amount of money to be developed considering it shared nearly no parts to their cars at the time.

The Beat is the only thing i can think that they will consider developing using the N-BOX platform if i remember correctly. its offered in 4wd than using a fit 1.5 engine + a small turbo. They will save soo much money in developing this car by using existing parts and make it comparable to the twin. Only problem i can is the rigidity of the car. The N-Box is around 1000kg with the 4wd system and then make it look like this...

Awd, light weight, fuel efficent, convertible for a reasonable price
what else would you want?

[CyberFormula]

by the time this new Honda sports car comes out, the 2nd generation FRS will be out too.

Honda will be behind, but it doesn't sound like it is suppose to be a competitor to the FRS. I somehow doubt many people will buy this pocket rocket because you're not getting much performance nor every day usability out of it much like the Miata. This car is for enthusiast only.

I'm looking forward to the new Z, but wont' get my hopes up because Nissan hasn't been very good with promises for many years even with the GTR (ahem, laugh control when the car was released?).

[Brzetto]

Honduh has it's thumb up it's ass, by the time they remove their thumb a turbo BRZ will be coming out.

[m.wood0213]

Super freaking ugly. no one would but that.

[Sonolin]

I'm fine with honda creating a lighter car with less horsepower (and definitely less $$$), but wth why would they put the s2000 name on that? The s2000 was a great sports car of its time, and was made to compete with more expensive cars. Unless they put closer to 200 horsepower in that little car I don't think it will live up to its name.

I hate this. Its a pet peeve of mine when manufacturers just reuse a name and then trash it or make a completely different car...

[charged86]

is that a solctice

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I can't believe how many people say the S2000 is 'gorgeous', really?

Really. One of the three best looking Japanese cars ever, as far as I'm concerned (240Z, FD RX-7, S2000)

It is literally the most generic convertible of the last 20 years I can imagine, blur the badge and it could have come from literally any motor company.
It's a good looking car, but gorgeous for what is literally a rounded rectangle from the side?

? It's rather wedge-shaped, but of course from a dead-on side view you really can't appreciate the voluptuousness of the front fenders. They are VERY shapely.

Guess I just don't get it.

If you need scoops, flares, exaggerated BOLD flat fender arches (which look HORRENDOUS to me), or any other miscellaneous random b.s. for a car to look attractive, it ain't for you. To my eye, very little that's on the road looks anywhere near as sweet, at *any* price tag.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Really. One of the three best looking Japanese cars ever, as far as I'm concerned (240Z, FD RX-7, S2000)

? It's rather wedge-shaped, but of course from a dead-on side view you really can't appreciate the voluptuousness of the front fenders. They are VERY shapely.

If you need scoops, flares, exaggerated BOLD flat fender arches (which look HORRENDOUS to me), or any other miscellaneous random b.s. for a car to look attractive, it ain't for you. To my eye, very little that's on the road looks anywhere near as sweet, at *any* price tag.

I concur that the RX-7 and 240Z are the best looking cars to come out of the East, but I can't imagine putting the S2000 in the same league, especially considering the 2000GT, NSX, Datsun 2000/1600, and S600. I have a growing fondness for 70's and 80's styling so I won't put up comparisons that are debatable. I see at least 2 a day so no need to describe the car to me. There's no defining features, nothing that makes me go "wow" like the... well just about anything on the RX-7 and 240Z.

I'm in full agreement that it's good looking, hell even great, undeniably classic, but I think "gorgeous" may be a byproduct of how vanilla the last ten years have been (mass produced, under $50k new) aside from Mazda, Muscle Cars, and whatever eccentricities Hyundai tries. Hell even the BMW Z3 at the same price point is arguably more shapely and attractive (although I'd pick the S2k in a heartbeat).

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

IMA is perfect for a light car with tiny engine actually, because it gives you way more torque than a turbo that the manufacturer would feel okay with releasing from the factory, so you have great driveability and excellent power at lower speeds. Now the problem with Honda is that L15 motor which has zero performance potential that they insist on using.

The folks at Honda are a strange bunch. They produce crazy motors like the K20 and F20 once in a while, but mostly just keep on using the same old SOHC workhorses for years and years. Also when they make a crazy motor they decide the car needs more racecar and they give them these transmissions with ratios that look like they came from a racecar. Can someone please tell them that there exists something called a compromise?

That's because for Daily drivers that don't sell on BHP ratings, they can get superior fuel efficiency at a lower cost and weight. The SOHC L series has a much wider torque band and is more responsive than a high revving DOHC at normal RPMs. That's not to say they should use them in sports cars. But the CRZ gets mid 40's MPG in town/highway on econ mode and the Civic SI can only get 30+ MPG on the highway. The CRZ gets ~30MPG driven aggressively in Sport+ mode.

I do agree on the compromise. The CRZ was a compromise on sports car philosophy. They took the Fit chassis and tweaked it. I believe Honda just doesn't understand the difference in car culture. Many car people want a good looking car, derogatorily called poseurs but I digress. But many car enthusiasts also want something fast enough to brag about. It's a given that a sports car is going to be less fuel efficient but a no-compromise sports car isn't really a sports car. Maybe if they had used a K20 or gone RWD they might have reason to call it a sports car. IMHO, they did a good job on a fun Daily Driver, but that's all it ever was.

I have no opinion on this idea of a tiny Honda roadster. Not when Mazda is working on a return-to-roots ND MX-5. I prefer the "big boy" NC myself. Anything with less than 4 seats is considered a toy here anyway. A very expensive toy I might add.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I concur that the RX-7 and 240Z are the best looking cars to come out of the East, but I can't imagine putting the S2000 in the same league, especially considering the 2000GT, NSX, Datsun 2000/1600, and S600. I have a growing fondness for 70's and 80's styling so I won't put up comparisons that are debatable. I see at least 2 a day so no need to describe the car to me. There's no defining features, nothing that makes me go "wow" like the... well just about anything on the RX-7 and 240Z.

For me, front fenders, the breaklines that swoop back from inside the headlights and define the fender peaks, the headlights/tails, the sheer LOWness of the fenders over the wheel openings, the even lower hood, rakish profile, the way the bodywork draws in immediately from the front edges of the wheel openings, etc.

I got to look at all three (240Z, FD RX-7, S2000) every day for several months, and to me, the S2000's forward surfaces are more attractive. I think the 240Z is gorgeous, but the pontoon shape of the fenders is not as elegant as the drawn-down tautness and subtle compound curvatures of the S2000's fenders. And the FD's features are maybe a bit amorphous and melty-looking.

Hell even the BMW Z3 at the same price point is arguably more shapely and attractive (although I'd pick the S2k in a heartbeat).

Z3 is rather lumpy-looking to me. The roadster looks entirely too big in front, to little in back. I love the sheer weirdness of the coupe versions though! The wagonesque back is a great counterbalance to the rather bulbous front end of that car.

Of course looks are subjective and it's entirely a question of taste, I'm definitely not trying to argue "right" or "wrong" here!

[rice_classic]

The Z3 looks like a poorly circumcised penis. I don't think a single one would have ever sold if they didn't have a BMW badge stuck to them.

[n2oinferno]

The Z3 really has to grow on you, I think. I used to hate them. Now, if I could find one that had the subframe issues already dealt with, I'd love an M Coupe or M Roadster.

[regal]

If it would be a coupe they could hit the 2000lb mark and people would actually buy it.