S2KI Honda S2000 Forums: Another S2000 mention in C&D - S2KI Honda S2000 Forums

Hope it isn't a repost.

The November Car and Driver has a small comparison, "New vs. Used: $30,000." Here's the half about the S2000. It made me smile.

Quote

I couldn't find the article anywhere online, but I uploaded a scan of the whole thing here: http://imgur.com/HKOsK

Mankind's very best achievements..

This post has been edited by TopGear: 08 October 2011 - 11:05 PM

The superbike of roadsters eh, I like that

Should have sent that to Honda and have C&D write if they ever got a reply from them.

Toyota/Honda would have been alot better if they didnt shoot for the moon on their sports cars and focus on affordable sports cars.

If Toyota kept the MR-S/MR2 alive, it could compete as a baby Cayman/Boxster

If Honda would have kept the S2000 going, it could have used it as a miata fighter, or a step up from the miata but don't want to spend too much for your Boxster/Z4/SLK.



How Nissan makes the 370z/GT-R/G37 amazes me they can sell that car, yet the other big two from Japan can't do a thing. (excluding LFA/ISF)

It'd be nice if Honda kept the S2000 alive, but if you saw the dismal sales for 2008 and 2009, you'd understand why they didn't.

Hopefully they bring back a successor one day using the same mantra. I don't want a fat, hybrid, ugly car plz.

Jorsher, on 09 October 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

Dismal sales should be expected after 10 years of offering basically the same thing.

RC 94, on 09 October 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

I agree, but the bigger problem seemed to be the failing automotive industry in USA (the biggest purchaser of S2000s). The praise continued for the S2000 over it's entire run, from the beginning to end. I don't think people stopped buying them because suddenly they weren't a good vehicle. They were still the best roadster for the money, even 10 years later. Based on the numerous compliments I've received, it doesn't seem like people suddenly thought it was unattractive, either.

Miatas sold just fine for how long with only minimal changes? Civic and Corolla? There are a lot of cars that changed just as little and still sold well. The difference is the S2000 was never a high-volume vehicle, while others were, so were easier to keep alive since they were still generating a profit for the manufacturer.

This post has been edited by Jorsher: 09 October 2011 - 11:25 AM

Jorsher, on 09 October 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

The S2000, IMO, had two issues. It was well praised by the enthusiast press but what about the little old lady who wants a cute convertible. Mazda got those sales with the Miata AND got enthusiast sales. The other issue for Honda was since the car changed so little a new buyer had a choice between a late model used or new car. Now with the Honda's strong resale the new car math wasn't as bad as it might be with other cars but it still meant that Honda was fighting with their previous sales for new sales. It would be interesting to review Wrangler sales vs S2000 and Miata sales. Over the same time period.

I'd rather have the pure-enthusiast s2000 that only was produced for 10 years over the granny-compatible Miata that is produced forever, personally.

/\/\
There's just a touch of selection bias on this forum though

Jorsher, on 09 October 2011 - 12:36 PM, said:

The length of production doesn't mater to me. The experience of the car vs the cost of ownership are bigger deals to me. If the S2000 was granny comparable perhaps we would have received a second generation car. Since it wasn't what is out there to really replace the S2000? The Germans have gone up in price. The Miata is more or less what it was and the S2000 market is dead.

rockville, on 09 October 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

Keep in mind too that when the s came out, it was THE sub 50k roadster with a fresh design. By the time the ap2 ame out, it wasn't embarrassing bimmers porsches anymore, and the 350z also came out. Every car, no matter how bad will have a following, wat makes money unfortunately is broad appeal. Like the cayenne is to porsche, automatics are to sportscars.
Plus the argument remained, why spend 34k new when you could save almost 10k on a barely used ones, which was reflected in the discounts people got buying new.

If Honda wanted sales volume it would have sold an automatic version. Sadly the S2000 was never about making a competitive car, it was a showcase and a tribute, and its great for that, but its not what Honda truly is. Honda is an appliance company.

The sole reason the s2000 didnt sell well was because they never had a auto version. How many younger gen people (24-36) looking to buy a sports car look at the miata? The s2000 is to dam harsh for old people which is most of the buyers of these kinda of cars.

You can't have both, guys. The thing that made the s2000 so much fun was the very thing that made it sell in low numbers. The reason that cars like the 350z sell as well as they do is that they have basically the same performance envelope as the s2000 but they accommodate a broader audience.

The s2000 went unchanged for so long because they could not afford to update it as a byproduct of relatively low sales targets/ figures. To make the car sell more, they would have had to have accommodated a broader audience and the car would have lost its appeal to guys like us. It didn't die on the vine because they couldn't come up with something better. They let it ride until they made their money back to cover the development costs.

I don't think the only reason the S2000 didn't sell well was the lack of an auto. It didn't help but I don't think that would have saved the car. Mr EG is right, the car was too narrowly focused. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of things that kept it from having broad appeal. We already covered the lack of an auto. However, until the 3rd gen Miata I don't think automatic sales were a big part of the Miata's sales success. Certainly when looking at used cars you will find most of the older cars were manual. With the older Miata's the auto was reportedly not much of a transmission (don't know, never drove one). With the third gen car the auto is reportedly much more fun. What I don't know is did Mazda really sell more cars by having a good auto vs a lame one or did they just sell more autos as people who might have bought a stick in the old car decided the new auto was good enough to pass the manual. Anyway, I figure the lack of an auto is perhaps a 10% problem. So if Honda added an auto they might get an extra 10-15% in sales. A good boost but not enough to save the car.

I do think the fact that the Miata undercut the S2000 and thus took the cute car buyers really hurt. I suspect that many "cute car" buyers would have liked or even preferred the S2000 over the Miata but the price gap was simply too big. Realistically the gap was anywhere from $5k-10k (depending on deals, options etc). It wasn't entirely that the car was too hard core for those buyers. I mean really, the stiffer chassis of the S2000 makes it feel like a smoother ride to me vs the 2nd gen Miata and all of it's shakes and shivers. Is the S2000 engine peaky? Sure but it still feels more powerful down low vs the Miata. Really, I only see price as the thing that kept many buyers in a Miata vs the S2000. But what we have is many buyers saw the Miata as a good, cheaper alternative, even ones that otherwise would have preferred the Honda.

As was mentioned, when the S2000 was new it was basically as quick as other cars in the price range and compared nicely to the Germans as well. Over time that lead evaporated. Rather than beating up on Mustangs the S2000 was losing to family sedans. It was hard for Honda to grow the power of the car. So now you lose the buyers who are interested in being faster than the next guy.

Finally, the car sits in a bad price point for a non-luxury brand. Like it or not, and I think this is basically true for all car brands, it's hard to be a "non-luxury" brand and priced in the mid $30ks. It's just a neither fish nor fowl area. This I suspect is also why you largely see the death of many near/entry level luxury cars from Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc. I mean in the 80s a Maxima or Cressida or Ford Thunderbird was a really well equipped car. But since luxury brands seem to start around $30k it's hard to have a non-luxury product at that price point. I suspect that many people with that kind of money to spend just don't want to stop at a non-luxury dealer. Thus the S2000 is rather expensive to be a Honda but not luxury enough to be an Acura.

I can't say which of these, in addition to the lack of updates, really killed S2000 sales. I suspect all contributed but I don't know which did more. Regardless, it does seem that the car was too narrowly focused to make it. Pity that.

Saki GT, on 09 October 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Mr.E.G., on 09 October 2011 - 06:56 PM, said:

Yes.

We all know Honda never intended to sell it for a long period of time. It was a "limited" production car, released as a celebration. They never intended it to sell well and I doubt they even intended to do updates, but fortunately it sold relatively well and they continued with some minor upgrades. They said, "hey, it's selling well, let's keep selling it while we can and make money back on our R&D and tooling costs." When sales dwindled to the point of it being more expensive to continue selling, they axed it.

I think you are all missing that Honda never intended for the S2000 to be a long-term vehicle. It was a limited-time HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN DO deal, and they drug it out as long as possible. If it continued to sell 10,000+ a year, it'd probably still be manufactured today, but I'm positive there wouldn't have been many major changes. I think in the future, years and years into the future, Honda may build a successor, but I have my doubts whether it will hit all the right notes like this one. They weren't trying to build a supercar, they were building an enthusiast "race" car that could be enjoyed on your commute as well. They weren't trying to appeal to everyone. They have been selling vehicles for decades, and I'm sure are fully-aware that giving the automatic option would have garnered more sales -- but that wasn't the purpose of the s2000!

I think the opportunity to make the S more profitable was there. For example, all s2000s came one way, there was no entry level cloth seat halogen light version, simply offering an entry level version alone wouldve broaden its appeal. There was no auto. You can make a platform more profitable by reusing it as long as possible with minor tweaks. There is a market for roadsters as the miata and z4/boxster/etc shows, albeit not a big one, but enough to justify making it. Take the 370z, it's oversimply an updated 350z, not a fresh new design. The fact of the matter is, Honda is just incapable of updating it into a competitive car. Think about it, they would just need to up power a bit, refine the chassis a bit, give it some styling tweaks and let it ride for another 5 years. Imho, I dont think it's the chassis/suspension, it's the engine. You could make the same argument. To take their would be successors to the next level, they would inevitably need more power. The 2.2L I4 makes 240hp, how will they squeeze another 20hp? Maybe make it into a 2.4L, but sounds to me the F2xC was beginning to get difficult to pass emissions and the such. Which means theyd have to mate a K engine, and now there really is some heavy lifting.

It may be sacrilege but I would like to have seen Honda add a V6 option. Perhaps the V6 could have been put in an more luxurious Acura version.

rockville, on 09 October 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

Install J series, acquire higher price tag. Price themselves out of the target market of the original car.

I'm actually quite fine w/ them not "updating" the car. I didn't buy the s2000 to compete against any other vehicle I bought it for the experience. And aside from the ultra-harsh elise/exige there is not a car anywhere near its price point that offers the driving experience it does. And fellas its all about the experience.

sparrow, on 10 October 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Perhaps... but we know how things turned out so who's to say which is worse?

Thanks for posting, OP