a good friend of mine just told me over dinner that a S originated from a del sol. And i was laughing cause i know that wasn't true. True that A lil tiny bit of it looks kinda same, but only like this much. So plz tell my friend that he is totally wrong and that a S is a totaly different car.

 

You're friend is very observant to notice that a longitudinal engine, rear-wheel drive car originated as a transverse engine front-wheel drive car.

I suspect that he/she observes Elvis regularly.

One last question: is this really the reason the taxpayers in your school district paid for computers in study hall?

 

I like your Honda pill, ls. Sometimes I think the S2000 is exactly that... a happy pill!

The S has no blood in common with the Del Sol, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what your friend meant. The S was designed by the same lead designer that did the NSX back in the late '80s. It is (currently) built in the exclusive Takanezawa factory, which it shares with the NSX and the Insight.

There's a good book around, written by Daniel F. Carney in 2001, if you want a full history of the car. It's from MBI Publishing.

 

Well in a sense the S is a product of the Del Sol. Some of the things Honda learned are bound to go from one car to the next. However, by the same token, there is going to be a little of the Civic in the S, and some of the S in the latest Accord.

However, the car is NOT a DIRECT decendant of the Del Sol. The first car Honda made was a two-seat convertable roadster called the S500. It had a 1/2L motor (500cc, Hence the name.) It was for Honda's 50th anniversary that they build the S2000. The car was build from the ground up with a motor that AFAIK as never been used in any other car. it is a Front Engine/Rear drive setup with near perfect 50/50 weight balance. It was designed from the beginning to be a convertable. The suspension and chasis are based on race car technology.

Hopefully this helps expain things to your friend.

 

Wow alot of great information about the origination of the almight S. haha
Chazmo- haha yeh it is pretty funny, actually found it on google images. you should go check

those are 3 great posts to show to my friiend. thanks

 

i always heard that the Del Sol was meant to replace the CRX. Now how true that is i dont know. But i dont think that the Del Sol had anything to do with the S2000.

kevin

 

Your honda pill reminds me of the days of Quaaludes .
One of the worst things you can add to your driving .

 

The other thing to remember is that part of what is going in is "marketing speak."

The marketing dept wanted to replace the cheap, fun to drive coupe with another cheap, fun to drive, coupe and make it convertable to make it more appealing to people. Hence the Del Sol replacing the CRX. Now Honda can't have TWO two-seat convertables can they? So in a sense (marketing sense that is) the S2000 IS a replacement for the Del Sol. Even thought the three cars have little in common from a technical/engineering standpoint.

 

Fun to drive, YES.

Cheap, well I suppose that's relative, but I'd say NO. Certainly not in the same realm as the Del Sol.

I just thought of something... Didn't the Del Sol have VTEC as an option? Was that before or after the 'lude? Perhaps that's a common bloodline (though, of course, the S2000's F20C engine is a unique design).

 

I was referring to the Del Sol and the CRX as "cheap." The S2000 is a big jump in price for Honda. Of course comparing it to other cars in the same "performance class" i.e.: Boxter, Z4, SLK, it is MUCH cheaper. Compare it to a Miata, and well... $$$.

The Del Sol did offer a VTEC motor. I think it had 165 HP. I drove one in '95 or so. LOVED the car, desparatly wanted one, but couldn't afford it. When they discontinued it, I was sad. Of course Honda redeemed themselves in my eyes.