Sold a Boxster to get a S2000
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Portland OR
You guys are great, thanks so much for the warm welcome and the comments! It will be a lot of fun swapping ideas and experiences with you.
markfromaurora, I am in biotechnology. I don't work in anything related to the automotive field, I am just a gear head that has been crazy about cars for over 35 years (since before I could even drive). I've owned 97 cars just because I like playing with them, and can't afford to "collect" them. I've never had more than 4 cars at one time (currently 3, a 2008 G37 'daily driver', and a Volvo S60 shared with my wife). Since I can't afford a 'collection' all at once, I tend to go through them serially (but the ones I like I keep for many years, like my old air-cooled 911, a Mazda RX-8, past Miatas, a 1965 Plymouth Valiant (for different reasons) - and, I can tell will be, the S2000).
I agree with the comments on *driving* a Boxster. It is comfortable, luxurious, stable, well planted, feels secure, partly due to the low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia inherent to a mid-engine design, and partly due to its greater weight and wider track. I loved driving my Boxster S. It was *owning* it that was a disappointment. If all I cared about was a half-hour test drive or a few laps around a track, the Boxster would be very compelling (though I still prefer the more raw, visceral, direct-connection feel of the S2000). It was the whole ownership experience that was a let down.
Owning a water cooled Porsche means taking the end of a vacume cleaner hose and sticking it in your wallet, and letting the dealer turn it on full. It's the difference between a company that puts engineering excellence first, vs. one that prioritizes being 'the most profitable car company in the world'.
In the 1980's (yes, I am old enough to remember then), a reporter for Fortune magazine interviewed Roger Smith (then Chairman of GM) and Toyoda-san, then head of Toyota Motor Co. He asked them, "is your company in business to make money, or to make cars?". Smith said that of course, GM is in business to make money, any way it can. Toyoda-san said, no, Toyota is in business first and foremost to make cars, and by virtue of making the best cars in the world, Toyota will make a lot of money. It's a question of what is the first priority. Watching what has happened with both GM's and Toyota's market shares over the past 30 years I think clearly shows which strategy worked best.
The same thing seems to have happened with Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz over the past 10 years. Their first priority is now to make money. Of course, they are a business, they have to make money (I run a business, I certainly aprpeciate that). But it is a question of *how* one makes the money. Does one focus on the long term, with quality product, repeat buyers, and customer loyalty, or the short term, and squeeze whatever dollars you can out of moving the metal out the door TODAY.
Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes used to be known for, and pride themselves, on excellence in engineering. Porsche was the standard of the world for the best sports cars. Mercedes' were over-engineered and built like tanks. BMW created a generation of fans with the 2002. But, IMHO, they got short-sighted, and greedy (like most businesses lately, just look at what is happening on Wall Street right now as the best example of out of control avarice and greed). Now they seem to be selling their cars based on their past reputations, not on what they objectively are today.
About 10 years ago Mercedes decided they could put the 3-pointed star hood ornament on a turd and sell it as a Mercedes. So, they lowered the quality of their product, cut costs, and boosted profits in the short term. It worked for a while, but there are a lot of people that bought M-B cars in the past few years that now swear 'never again' because of all the reliability and quality control problems. The short term profits are nice, but once a car company pisses someone off, they will likely never come back (which is what GM did to a whole generation of people with the rubbish they peddled from the 1970's through the 1990's).
BMW followed suit. If you take a close, careful, *objecitvely critical* look at the 335, it's also a car that is a blast to drive, but will likely be a headache to own, just like M-B products of recent years (or my Boxster). It's luxurious, fast, beautiful and fun to drive - but, IMHO it is a car built to last through the warranty period, and then to provide a repair & maintenance annuity to the dealer. Flimsy windshield wipers (that cost $48 to replace). Some interior control knobs that would shame a Hyundai. No spare tire (saves $50, and most people will still buy it and pay the same price as if it had one). No limited slip differential, which is shameful inn any car with sporting pretensions. Like the Boxster, no oil dipstick. Composite brake rotors, which cannot be turned and must be replaced at every brake job (20,000 miles or so), to the tune of $740. The same save $5 here and $10 there mentality.
More worrisome is the overheating problem with the 335, which clearly points to some serious thermal management issues. First Road & Track experiences an engine overcooking its oil and going into limp mode after a few gentle laps on a track. Then, all sorts of reports of engines grenading themselves start showing up on the BMW forums. BMW seems to have cut the corner too closely on this one, and it
markfromaurora, I am in biotechnology. I don't work in anything related to the automotive field, I am just a gear head that has been crazy about cars for over 35 years (since before I could even drive). I've owned 97 cars just because I like playing with them, and can't afford to "collect" them. I've never had more than 4 cars at one time (currently 3, a 2008 G37 'daily driver', and a Volvo S60 shared with my wife). Since I can't afford a 'collection' all at once, I tend to go through them serially (but the ones I like I keep for many years, like my old air-cooled 911, a Mazda RX-8, past Miatas, a 1965 Plymouth Valiant (for different reasons) - and, I can tell will be, the S2000).
I agree with the comments on *driving* a Boxster. It is comfortable, luxurious, stable, well planted, feels secure, partly due to the low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia inherent to a mid-engine design, and partly due to its greater weight and wider track. I loved driving my Boxster S. It was *owning* it that was a disappointment. If all I cared about was a half-hour test drive or a few laps around a track, the Boxster would be very compelling (though I still prefer the more raw, visceral, direct-connection feel of the S2000). It was the whole ownership experience that was a let down.
Owning a water cooled Porsche means taking the end of a vacume cleaner hose and sticking it in your wallet, and letting the dealer turn it on full. It's the difference between a company that puts engineering excellence first, vs. one that prioritizes being 'the most profitable car company in the world'.
In the 1980's (yes, I am old enough to remember then), a reporter for Fortune magazine interviewed Roger Smith (then Chairman of GM) and Toyoda-san, then head of Toyota Motor Co. He asked them, "is your company in business to make money, or to make cars?". Smith said that of course, GM is in business to make money, any way it can. Toyoda-san said, no, Toyota is in business first and foremost to make cars, and by virtue of making the best cars in the world, Toyota will make a lot of money. It's a question of what is the first priority. Watching what has happened with both GM's and Toyota's market shares over the past 30 years I think clearly shows which strategy worked best.
The same thing seems to have happened with Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz over the past 10 years. Their first priority is now to make money. Of course, they are a business, they have to make money (I run a business, I certainly aprpeciate that). But it is a question of *how* one makes the money. Does one focus on the long term, with quality product, repeat buyers, and customer loyalty, or the short term, and squeeze whatever dollars you can out of moving the metal out the door TODAY.
Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes used to be known for, and pride themselves, on excellence in engineering. Porsche was the standard of the world for the best sports cars. Mercedes' were over-engineered and built like tanks. BMW created a generation of fans with the 2002. But, IMHO, they got short-sighted, and greedy (like most businesses lately, just look at what is happening on Wall Street right now as the best example of out of control avarice and greed). Now they seem to be selling their cars based on their past reputations, not on what they objectively are today.
About 10 years ago Mercedes decided they could put the 3-pointed star hood ornament on a turd and sell it as a Mercedes. So, they lowered the quality of their product, cut costs, and boosted profits in the short term. It worked for a while, but there are a lot of people that bought M-B cars in the past few years that now swear 'never again' because of all the reliability and quality control problems. The short term profits are nice, but once a car company pisses someone off, they will likely never come back (which is what GM did to a whole generation of people with the rubbish they peddled from the 1970's through the 1990's).
BMW followed suit. If you take a close, careful, *objecitvely critical* look at the 335, it's also a car that is a blast to drive, but will likely be a headache to own, just like M-B products of recent years (or my Boxster). It's luxurious, fast, beautiful and fun to drive - but, IMHO it is a car built to last through the warranty period, and then to provide a repair & maintenance annuity to the dealer. Flimsy windshield wipers (that cost $48 to replace). Some interior control knobs that would shame a Hyundai. No spare tire (saves $50, and most people will still buy it and pay the same price as if it had one). No limited slip differential, which is shameful inn any car with sporting pretensions. Like the Boxster, no oil dipstick. Composite brake rotors, which cannot be turned and must be replaced at every brake job (20,000 miles or so), to the tune of $740. The same save $5 here and $10 there mentality.
More worrisome is the overheating problem with the 335, which clearly points to some serious thermal management issues. First Road & Track experiences an engine overcooking its oil and going into limp mode after a few gentle laps on a track. Then, all sorts of reports of engines grenading themselves start showing up on the BMW forums. BMW seems to have cut the corner too closely on this one, and it
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Portland OR
You're right, no car is perfect, and I couldn't afford the greatest car on Earth (whatever that might be, maybe a GT40 for me). Anything mass produced has compromises. If I had my druthers I would like the steering wheel in the S2000 to be higher (it's too low for me), and I personally would much prefer traditional analog guages to the Ginza-by-night electronic display.
But, cars (like people) come off the rack. Unless you're rich enough to have one custom made (or skilled enough to build one yourself), we have to take them as they are, the good with the not-so-good. For the money, I think the S2000 is a great deal, and gives me terrific fun for the dollar.
But, cars (like people) come off the rack. Unless you're rich enough to have one custom made (or skilled enough to build one yourself), we have to take them as they are, the good with the not-so-good. For the money, I think the S2000 is a great deal, and gives me terrific fun for the dollar.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,084
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
I sometimes wonder if Honda keeps the S2000 going due to the fact that cars like it are getting very rare. Mind you, I'm not talking acceleration numbers, or raw performance data, but the experience you get from driving it. Also the history of its reliability. Also, in a market like this, I think its tough to justify so much R&D into an engine and chassis into a niche market as the S2000 is, and would rather piece together a 'mutt' if you will, using other platforms to build from.
On the contrary to that belief....S2k sales numbers are suffering...and i think its because there are so many attractive gently used/low mileage examples out there (similar to what seeker got). I'll be he paid much less (my guess is 10k less) than MSRP for his barely broken in S2000
On the contrary to that belief....S2k sales numbers are suffering...and i think its because there are so many attractive gently used/low mileage examples out there (similar to what seeker got). I'll be he paid much less (my guess is 10k less) than MSRP for his barely broken in S2000
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,874
Likes: 1
From: Lower Mainland
considering it's a production car, the s2000 is special. I think Honda keeps making them solely for the automotive enthusiast market. Considering the R&D $'s spent, they aren't making money selling s2k's. 40-50 years from now the s2000 will be similar to what the s600 and s800 are today; rare with a tremendous history.
especially after a spec s2000 series begins
especially after a spec s2000 series begins
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
nice write up.. i recently got an s2000 too ut a it older i have a 2004 i got it with 95k miles on it but still loving it... imust say in the short 2 months ive had my S its all praises... sure i must fix some soft top probs (actually thinking of getting a hard top just donnt have the $ yet) but other than that it runs perfect..
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Nice write up! I was seriously considering a boxster since they are roughly in the same range. I didnt know ALL the problems you mentioned! Im a DIY'er and I seriously picked the s2000 over the G35, 350z, and a LOT of other cars because I simply LOVE how simple their engine bay is!! have you compared it with a different (new) car? even the 80s, once they started going Fuel Injected...all of the cars all of a sudden had a CRAPLOAD of wires everywhere. The s2k also has lots of wires...but its CLEAN. I just love how everything is accessible! I'm actually looking forward to when I have to change my clutch!
- just fy, I did the clutch on my SS camaro. oh, my god. It was the worst experience ever. I had to actually jack up the front of my engine to just tilt the engine...a good 20+ degrees to get the transmission to pull out. on a CHEVY! those things are supposed to be made to be ripped apart. The spark plugs? the FIRST time i changed them, it took me a DAY. literally. there is no way to get around two of the plugs on the 93-97 camaros.
The honda? all of 15 min!! I am in love with the maintenance on this thing. <3 DIY-heaven for sure.
That being said, I miss the power but I think it was worth the < power and the higher price tag... 10+my car. (V8's dont sell well here in hawaii
)
- just fy, I did the clutch on my SS camaro. oh, my god. It was the worst experience ever. I had to actually jack up the front of my engine to just tilt the engine...a good 20+ degrees to get the transmission to pull out. on a CHEVY! those things are supposed to be made to be ripped apart. The spark plugs? the FIRST time i changed them, it took me a DAY. literally. there is no way to get around two of the plugs on the 93-97 camaros.
The honda? all of 15 min!! I am in love with the maintenance on this thing. <3 DIY-heaven for sure.
That being said, I miss the power but I think it was worth the < power and the higher price tag... 10+my car. (V8's dont sell well here in hawaii
) 
