Did 8k kill the S2000
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Likes: 2
I like how people keep talking about the torque of the Ap2 like its a selling point that would make people choose it over Ap1. I came from motorcycles, and twins (RC51, TL1000R, and Ducati 996) make more torque and usable power for the street than most bikes of the same genre. But you can't begin to compare the sales of twins vs. inline fours because there is no comparison. Hands down the higher revving bike with less torque outdistanced it's two cylinder 1st cousin (and I'm a twin fan).
It's a matter of what you like, not which is better. If you like the rawness of the Ap1 then it's for you. If you like the gadgets of the Ap2 then its the one for you.
It's a matter of what you like, not which is better. If you like the rawness of the Ap1 then it's for you. If you like the gadgets of the Ap2 then its the one for you.
I always wanted an RC51 but the drivers in Louisiana are so, so bad that I stopped riding all together.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,863
Likes: 125
From: Pawtucket, RI
1000cc twins do not make more torque than 1000cc I4s, total MYTH. How someone came to the conclusion that a twin that runs out of breath at 11k somehow has more low-end/midrange torque than a 1000cc I4 that revs to 13k+ is beyond me.
I have a 650cc SV650 and I had an RSV Tuono 1000. I love 90degree twins! But fours make just as much torque and rev higher. But they are MUCH wider. From a packaging standpoint, I think twins make a lot of sense. For outright power production, you can't beat the I4s.
I have a 650cc SV650 and I had an RSV Tuono 1000. I love 90degree twins! But fours make just as much torque and rev higher. But they are MUCH wider. From a packaging standpoint, I think twins make a lot of sense. For outright power production, you can't beat the I4s.
Registered User
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
From: Valparaiso
Both AP1 and AP2 S2000's are great cars, yes I have driven both but I have only owned AP2's, I don't care if it had a 9k redline or an 8k redline, the main reason the production of the S2000 stopped is basic economics, the companies go where the consumer goes. Honda was getting out of the "sporty" car side of production and went in to competition with other companies to make, cheap, reliable, and good gas mileage cars (30-40+ mpg), though they have already been producing those cars years ago, by cutting out the S2000 they could focus more on the production of the civics, accords, etc. and increase their profits. That attracted the attention of more potential buyers than a 2 seater sports car selling in the mid to high 30's.
Hondata
Community Organizer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,599
Likes: 79
From: The 604
FYI, the UK/European versions of the S2000 have only had the F20C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_F20C_engine) Yet, it shows a similar sales trend compared to the US. Japan though didn't get the F22C until 2006, where we see a surge in demand for the S2000. So like others, I disagree that this is what killed production in the S2000. In Canada, the car was just overpriced. 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 29,784
Likes: 5,401
From: Ontario Canada
sales figures killed the S2000 plain and simple, Honda saw it coming in the last few years of production. If they could have sold say 100,000 units a year do you think they would have killed off the vehicle ?, no way. How can you keep an entire factory operating with sales figures as low as the S2000 in it's last few years ?. They say not having an auto tranny option drove away a portion of women drivers, and women drivers make up a large percentage of purchasers, it probably drove away quite a few conservative male drivers too. As bad as an auto tranny S2000 would be, the car was limited to a specific group of buyers, and the number of those buyers didn't support keeping the car going and having Honda investing more money into modernizing the vehicle as the years went on.
