2.2L....Why ruin a classic?
BTW, I still think it was inappropriate and in bad taste to quote Bieg from articles he specifically removed from this site because he didn't want them here. We should respect his wishes because as much as his involvement in this site didn't work out he is a valued member of the S2K community and a car enthusiast. I wish his remarks would be removed in order to respect his wishes unless he indicates otherwise.
Strike
Two points:
1. With reference to Bieg, I disagree. Unfortunately his stay on s2ki didn't work out, and I for one miss his comments, commentary and his essays. None the less, he had many fine things to say and we all learned from him. I think Brushman's use of his quote is a good example of properly using a fine, well thought out piece of work. I see no reason to remove it, unless Bieg requests that it be removed. In that case I would hope that we would honor Bieg's request.
2. I agree with you about the speculation. I too am tired of it. Each time a thread starts, the speculation grows and grows. I think, however, Brushman's point is worth consideration. Speculation or not, there is no question that change will come to the S. Brushman points out that change may be good if it enhances the car or it may be bad if it causes a loss of focus. This is a valid point even if we don't speculate about the change.
Two points:
1. With reference to Bieg, I disagree. Unfortunately his stay on s2ki didn't work out, and I for one miss his comments, commentary and his essays. None the less, he had many fine things to say and we all learned from him. I think Brushman's use of his quote is a good example of properly using a fine, well thought out piece of work. I see no reason to remove it, unless Bieg requests that it be removed. In that case I would hope that we would honor Bieg's request.
2. I agree with you about the speculation. I too am tired of it. Each time a thread starts, the speculation grows and grows. I think, however, Brushman's point is worth consideration. Speculation or not, there is no question that change will come to the S. Brushman points out that change may be good if it enhances the car or it may be bad if it causes a loss of focus. This is a valid point even if we don't speculate about the change.
Originally posted by hygiene boy
The Prelude came in 2.0 and 2.2 liter versions and it didn't change that car for the worse.
I think Honda does a pretty good job with their products and even if you don't like the new S2000 at first it might just grow on you.
The Prelude came in 2.0 and 2.2 liter versions and it didn't change that car for the worse.
I think Honda does a pretty good job with their products and even if you don't like the new S2000 at first it might just grow on you.
I was also a 99 civic Si owner(1.6 DOHC VTEC). The 2.0 weighed more, had a lower redline, was more expensive when first released(prices went down once sales were extremely low). Here is exactly what i expect of the 04 S2K. 8,000 rpm redline, 2.2liter, 255 horse, 17" wheels, weight increase of 125 pounds, a front bumper change that better allows fog lights as an add on option so they can sell you something else at the dealership. The interior will be changed, but just so it looks different enough to warrant the hike in sticker price. Say goodbye to $32,600, say hello to $34,600. If Nissan can get 35 for the drop top when it comes out, why not make the S $400 less than the Z. The lower redline will 100% kill the raw feeling of the car. The Si went from raw to crap. The Integra GSR and Type R went from extremely raw to too refined with the RSX. The go cart with too much power feeling will disappear. One thing everyone better hope Honda doen't do is go for a cheap suspension set-up, just like the Si had undergone. Going to McPherson struts just plain sucks for the Si. On a 4 door civic, the McPhersons would be fine, but not on a sporty little street fighter. My 2 cents
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
[B]BTW, I still think it was inappropriate and in bad taste to quote Bieg from articles he specifically removed from this site because he didn't want them here.
[B]BTW, I still think it was inappropriate and in bad taste to quote Bieg from articles he specifically removed from this site because he didn't want them here.
Brushman,
I apologize for making a big deal about the quote. It sounded just like something from his "Gods and Roadsters" article but since he deleted the article I couldn't verify it. He also posted that article somewhere else after deleting it here but made it password protected so only people he wanted to have access to it could. In any case, since the quote you used is still publicly available here I officially retract my opposition to it's use. If you'd like I'll edit/remove any posts referring to the quote.
Strike
I apologize for making a big deal about the quote. It sounded just like something from his "Gods and Roadsters" article but since he deleted the article I couldn't verify it. He also posted that article somewhere else after deleting it here but made it password protected so only people he wanted to have access to it could. In any case, since the quote you used is still publicly available here I officially retract my opposition to it's use. If you'd like I'll edit/remove any posts referring to the quote.
Strike
Strike:
I think it is from gods and roadsters, but I can't verify it either... so I gave him credit.
Don't' worry about it. I won't loose any sleep over it.
I didn't agree with most of what Bieg thought, but I enjoyed his writings.
It amazing, Bieg is banned and the SOB is still causing controversy. He is probably reading this and laughing his A$$ off.
I think it is from gods and roadsters, but I can't verify it either... so I gave him credit.
Don't' worry about it. I won't loose any sleep over it.
I didn't agree with most of what Bieg thought, but I enjoyed his writings.
It amazing, Bieg is banned and the SOB is still causing controversy. He is probably reading this and laughing his A$$ off.









