AusS2000's letter printed in MOTOR
03-03-2006, 12:59 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AusS2000's letter printed in MOTOR
Well whaddya know? Not only did Aus' letter (from an older thread commenting on the S2000 Past Blast article in MOTOR a couple of months back) get printed, it also received the letter of the month award. It seems a lot of letters printed in the current issue are having a blast at Morley. Aus' letter was edited/shortened a little but the message remains. 
A letter from Ian in SA commenting on the S2000 article also got printed.
Let us know what car collectable prize they send you Aus.
A letter from Ian in SA commenting on the S2000 article also got printed.
Let us know what car collectable prize they send you Aus.
03-03-2006, 05:30 AM
#5
Here's the original text:
I am amazed by the Past Blast article on the Honda S2000. How could David Morley and myself see the same thing and yet hold diametrically opposed opinions on almost every point?
Let's start at the start. "With rear drive and ONLY a six-speed manual gearbox....". Should it have more gears? Or perhaps an automatic? The S2000 has one of the best six speed manual box of cogs ever to bless an automobile according to many reports. And what else should a sports car have?
"The real let down was the visual package." Subjective I know, but he has to be joking. I see it as beautiful, elegant and purposeful. And in light of the current trend of high gunwales, even higher posteriors, and bulbous noses like the TT and 350Z I see a timeless elegant design. David is right that the tail between the legs look of the Boxster certain attracts more attention, but not for the right reasons.
The under bonnet visual may not scream 'high performance' but the engine note surely does. The S2000 achieves a fine balance between low rev civility and screaming VTEC howl with aplomb.
"The big omission was cruise control". I see where this is coming from. Cruise control is anathema to the S2000. If you choose the F3 over the Old Pacific Highway then this car ain't for you.
"Bigger blokes will be pushed for elbow room". Perhaps cut down on the cheese burgers.
"it's then that you notice the dreaded digital dashboard". I think we have Ford and Nissan to blame for the 80s stigma attached to the digital dash. But in the S2000 I wouldn't have it any other way. Speed is immediately clear in the center and the arcing tachometer is the primary feedback when driving hard. I certainly don't have trouble seeing it and I've driven in all sorts of conditions. And the fact is, if analogue gauges had a real advantage you'd see them in V8 Supercars and F1. But you don't.
"getting the thing to shift it's arse requires much pedal stomping and gear sticking". To quote Julie Andrews, "These are a few of my favourite things". Hey, if you don't like driving get a taxi.
"The rear end is the culprit". Much has been made of the S2000's tailyness. It's certainly not for the faint hearted. But those that get to know the S2000 and learn it's limits don't have a problem. There are plenty getting around the road and track that don't seem to see this issue. I haven't heard Drew Russell complain as he overtakes big Fords and Holdens in the twisty bits.
The S2000 is a fun car. I've had mine since March 2000, after a 6 month wait. And I'll part with it when they pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel. If there is only room in your life for one car then perhaps the S is not for you. Or perhaps it is and you put up with the odd inconvenience like I do. I'd much rather carve the Old Pacific Highway in the S than sit in traffic in a Falcondore on the F3.
And then it dawned on me. The reason why Mr Morley's and my perception differed so much. The answer is in the second paragraph:
"An engaging personality, it would seem [to Mr Morley at least], just isn't enough if she doesn't also have the proper jumper monkeys." Is this really what passes for journalistic creativeness in the 21st century?
Perhaps the tag line of the article should have been:
"Not for troglodytes"
I am amazed by the Past Blast article on the Honda S2000. How could David Morley and myself see the same thing and yet hold diametrically opposed opinions on almost every point?
Let's start at the start. "With rear drive and ONLY a six-speed manual gearbox....". Should it have more gears? Or perhaps an automatic? The S2000 has one of the best six speed manual box of cogs ever to bless an automobile according to many reports. And what else should a sports car have?
"The real let down was the visual package." Subjective I know, but he has to be joking. I see it as beautiful, elegant and purposeful. And in light of the current trend of high gunwales, even higher posteriors, and bulbous noses like the TT and 350Z I see a timeless elegant design. David is right that the tail between the legs look of the Boxster certain attracts more attention, but not for the right reasons.
The under bonnet visual may not scream 'high performance' but the engine note surely does. The S2000 achieves a fine balance between low rev civility and screaming VTEC howl with aplomb.
"The big omission was cruise control". I see where this is coming from. Cruise control is anathema to the S2000. If you choose the F3 over the Old Pacific Highway then this car ain't for you.
"Bigger blokes will be pushed for elbow room". Perhaps cut down on the cheese burgers.
"it's then that you notice the dreaded digital dashboard". I think we have Ford and Nissan to blame for the 80s stigma attached to the digital dash. But in the S2000 I wouldn't have it any other way. Speed is immediately clear in the center and the arcing tachometer is the primary feedback when driving hard. I certainly don't have trouble seeing it and I've driven in all sorts of conditions. And the fact is, if analogue gauges had a real advantage you'd see them in V8 Supercars and F1. But you don't.
"getting the thing to shift it's arse requires much pedal stomping and gear sticking". To quote Julie Andrews, "These are a few of my favourite things". Hey, if you don't like driving get a taxi.
"The rear end is the culprit". Much has been made of the S2000's tailyness. It's certainly not for the faint hearted. But those that get to know the S2000 and learn it's limits don't have a problem. There are plenty getting around the road and track that don't seem to see this issue. I haven't heard Drew Russell complain as he overtakes big Fords and Holdens in the twisty bits.
The S2000 is a fun car. I've had mine since March 2000, after a 6 month wait. And I'll part with it when they pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel. If there is only room in your life for one car then perhaps the S is not for you. Or perhaps it is and you put up with the odd inconvenience like I do. I'd much rather carve the Old Pacific Highway in the S than sit in traffic in a Falcondore on the F3.
And then it dawned on me. The reason why Mr Morley's and my perception differed so much. The answer is in the second paragraph:
"An engaging personality, it would seem [to Mr Morley at least], just isn't enough if she doesn't also have the proper jumper monkeys." Is this really what passes for journalistic creativeness in the 21st century?
Perhaps the tag line of the article should have been:
"Not for troglodytes"
03-03-2006, 04:26 PM
#7
Must be the April edition. I shot up to the newsagency this morning and they still had March on the stand. It's the one I looked through previously and there is nothing in it about the article. The April edition hits the stands next week.