New trim level for s2000
#27
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 124Spider
Wow; where is this anger coming from?
And, for the record, I called you a yahoo (for saying such an amusing thing about Honda), not an ignorant yahoo. But I stand corrected.
And, for the record, I called you a yahoo (for saying such an amusing thing about Honda), not an ignorant yahoo. But I stand corrected.
#28
Originally Posted by 124Spider
I doubt it will be a very comfortable car. For those who just use their car for spirited driving, the normal version probably will continue to be a far better choice. I expect this version to be more spartan--sprung stiffer; less comfortable seats (better on the race track); either no radio or even less radio than the normal version comes with. This probably is meant to compete with the Elise (else there's not a lot of point).
Perhaps, but it will just be to give people a downgraded version of an Elise for a more affordable price. I love my S2000 to death, but I'd take an Elise in a heartbeat over it if I could afford so. I doubt this car will match the Elise in performance, but I'd love to be proven wrong. It definitely can't in looks IMO. The S2000 can't ever touch an Elise without the price tag going insanely high like the Elise. However, this S2000 can be more of a poor man's Elise, and makes for more affordable and practical enthusiast track car.
Last edited by VikingDJ; 03-17-2007 at 05:01 PM.
#29
Originally Posted by 124Spider
Well, aside from lots of interesting posts on the S2ki board, one can rather easily figure out that Honda wouldn't be making an announcement like this if it were just a different color. Since the stock S2000 is 237bhp, 2800 pounds, and the announcement specifically refers to club racing, it's certainly not a stretch to figure that they'll tune the power train a bit to find a few more ponies, knock some weight off (heck, the stock S2k has power top, so they can knock 100 pounds off by making it hand-operated, and it woudn't be very hard to find another 100 pounds by, e.g., eliminating sound-dampening materials, and/or making the air conditioner an option. None of that would be hard for Honda to do, and it would be extremely surprising if they didn't do it on this car.
#31
TEBOW FOR HE15MAN
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gainesville, Florida
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steiner
Please spare us the Junior College semantics. If you actually knew what Ad Hominem meant you would know that you popped the personal attack cherry when you called me an ignorant yahoo almost 24 hours ago. All I did is reveal the motivations of the little man sitting on the other end of the keyboard. The fact is you have an emotional connection to Honda and defend her like it's your next of kin. Your S2K was fast and fun when it was first released almost 8 years ago. Now it's tired and predictable like every other Honda. This new trim, if in fact it ever even happens, is just another attempt to stir up their enthusiast base. Some people see it. Others prefer Honda continue to **** on them and tell them it's raining. As long as it's a nice thick, frothy stream of warm S2K urine you'll always be the latter.
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
Im sorry but who would pay 30k for a car with no radio or AC??? How about leave the 25lbs of radio and AC and give the car some torque?
...says the RX-8 owner...
#34
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
So what you said is all just speculation?
#36
Registered
Originally Posted by Jacques79
...says the RX-8 owner...
#37
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
They both have no torque, but why buy a car that may be stripped down to save a few lbs...
This thread sure is Exhibit A that there are lots of folks out there who are just haters. If you don't find the prospect of the car interesting, why do you feel the need to leap from your own lack of interest to these mindless value judgments, as if actual car enthusiasts (and track junkies) share your pariochial opinions? Such opinions reflect only on the one delivering them, not on the object of the opinon.
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
seems to me youre making mindless value judgements your self calling the yamaha engine in the elise "mediocre", which you have every right to do, just as strokercharged95gt has every right to question who would buy this car. Its a niche trim among a niche market car, hes opinion seems pretty reasonable. is there need to engage in a personal attack of his character?
#39
Originally Posted by pladoh43
seems to me youre making mindless value judgements your self calling the yamaha engine in the elise "mediocre", which you have every right to do, just as strokercharged95gt has every right to question who would buy this car. Its a niche trim among a niche market car, hes opinion seems pretty reasonable. is there need to engage in a personal attack of his character?
Today 09:03 AM
Today 09:03 AM
I was attempting to use irony. I know that that's risky on the internet, but there it is. If I had a spare $45,000 for a track toy, the Elise would be the only thing on my short list.
Next time I'll use quotes around "mediocre," so that you might understand.
He attacked the car as being absolutely unintersting, saying that merely light weight, coupled with a low-torque engine, was uninteresting; he didn't offer a civil opinion that he was not attracted to it, he wondered why anyone would be. As it happens, I am not attracted to big, powerful V-8s, but I don't mindlessly ask why anyone would be; I understand their appeal to some, but I just don't share that. As I said, attempting to use irony, I pointed out that "light weight combined with low torque," which he denigrated, is the formula for the Elise, which some people find quite interesting.
As to your last couple of sentences, I wasn't "attacking his character." Rather, I was questioning why people feel the need to come on a thread about an interesting car being announced, and bash it. If the car isn't interesting to you, why the need to bash it, rather than just ignoring it? That bashing of other cars goes on so much around here.
#40
I seriously doubt 2600lbs/260hp. I fail to believe there is a big enough market for no roof.
If they can get close to those specs and it is somewhat livable, I would consider checking it out for sure. No question it would be a fun car.
If they can get close to those specs and it is somewhat livable, I would consider checking it out for sure. No question it would be a fun car.
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 124Spider
LOL. "Mediocre" compared to the "awesome" engine he has in his Mustang. "Mediocre" to those who think that torque is the be all and end all of automotive technology.
I was attempting to use irony. I know that that's risky on the internet, but there it is. If I had a spare $45,000 for a track toy, the Elise would be the only thing on my short list.
Next time I'll use quotes around "mediocre," so that you might understand.
I was attempting to use irony. I know that that's risky on the internet, but there it is. If I had a spare $45,000 for a track toy, the Elise would be the only thing on my short list.
Next time I'll use quotes around "mediocre," so that you might understand.
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
They both have no torque, but why buy a car that may be stripped down to save a few lbs...
Well 240HP in a 2800 pound car is quite different than 240HP in a 2600 pound car.
Plus if they raise the HP a bit say to 260, than 260HP in a 2600 pound car will be more entertaining than 260HP in a 2800 pound car :D
#43
Originally Posted by playdoh43
um..I knew you were being ironic, but I also see that you called the Elise engine a mediocre engine while the s2k engine a fine engine. the relative differences between the Elise and S2k engine didn't have much to do with your goal of being ironic about the mustang engine....
Happy?
#44
Registered
My point of my argument is that I cant see a person going to the dealer and spending 30k on a car that may be at most a 100 lbs lighter that would be missing most luxuries that you would expect for a car your paying 30k for. My suggestion was to add a little extra tq/hp and keep all those luxuries so people will buy it. Example would you pay 30 k for a car weighing 3000lbs and 260hp with everything comfortable for a daily driver or 30k for a car weighing 2900lbs and 240hp with no comforts. Thats all my comment was getting at.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 124Spider
"Mediocre" was a poor choice of words. The Yamaha engine in the Elise is a wonderful engine; it's just significantly lower in both power and torque than the Honda engine in the S2000. Perhaps I should have said that the Yamaha engine is even lower in torque than the S2000 engine, and yet, when mated with a light car, manages to inspire some pretty enthusiastic responses.
Happy?
Happy?
except that the whole point of your statement is that mustang owners are all about power and torque, yet you seem to place a lot of importance on power and torque your self, refering to the Elise engine as mediocre because it has a lot less power and torque than the s2k engine which you referred to as "fine" because it has more power and torque
j/k,
all im saying is everyones got their opinions, i don't see anything wrong with people voicing their opinion in criticizing a car they don't like, its our place to argue against things that we dont agree with, but its not necessary to criticize the person that deliver them thats all.
#47
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
My point of my argument is that I cant see a person going to the dealer and spending 30k on a car that may be at most a 100 lbs lighter that would be missing most luxuries that you would expect for a car your paying 30k for. My suggestion was to add a little extra tq/hp and keep all those luxuries so people will buy it. Example would you pay 30 k for a car weighing 3000lbs and 260hp with everything comfortable for a daily driver or 30k for a car weighing 2900lbs and 240hp with no comforts. Thats all my comment was getting at.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.
Unlike you, I actually appreciate all neat cars, whether they're pushrod V-8 engines (and the Corvette may well be the best value in a high performance car in the world), or low-torque, high-revving engines which move light, tossable cars around road courses in a remarkable fashion.
And all I did, initially, in response to your first post, doubting that anyone would be interested in a car with more power and less weight than the present S2000, but with fewer amenities, was to point out that the Elise, which takes that formula to an extreme, is rather popular.
The point I am trying to make is that there are many different ways to make cars which please people. Some people think that the ultimate measure of a car is its quarter-mile time. Some think it's the power/torque of its engine. Some look at performance on an autocross course as the measure. Some look to road courses. To each his own, but it is narrow-minded and unhelpful to bash a car just because it doesn't appeal to you.
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captain mercury
doesnt honda make that little astronaut looking robot? that guy is f'ing sweet!
Pretty cool stuff...
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm interested in hearing more about this car, but I have to agree with the earlier sentiment about Hondas being boring. Although, no where near as boring as Toyota pumping out yet another CamRola. =/.
I just don't see Honda bumping up the HP much more, or lightening the car that much more. In other words, I don't see it as being that significant of a difference over the current model.
I agree that it sounds like a stripped-down Club Sport-ish model for racing. Just doesn't sound like a drastic improvement.
I hope Honda proves me wrong.
I just don't see Honda bumping up the HP much more, or lightening the car that much more. In other words, I don't see it as being that significant of a difference over the current model.
I agree that it sounds like a stripped-down Club Sport-ish model for racing. Just doesn't sound like a drastic improvement.
I hope Honda proves me wrong.
#50
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
My point of my argument is that I cant see a person going to the dealer and spending 30k on a car that may be at most a 100 lbs lighter that would be missing most luxuries that you would expect for a car your paying 30k for. My suggestion was to add a little extra tq/hp and keep all those luxuries so people will buy it. Example would you pay 30 k for a car weighing 3000lbs and 260hp with everything comfortable for a daily driver or 30k for a car weighing 2900lbs and 240hp with no comforts. Thats all my comment was getting at.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.
and then you insult the ancient mustang pushrod technology which Ill give you... It has been around forever. But I would put any of your so called super motors against a LS7 pushrod anyday of the week.