That's a good analogy, Analogy.

 

What's going on here, which is it? Agreed that the cars serve different purposes, are good at different things, and it's hard to compare things 25 years apart. You have to take that frame when looking at the two. Like everyone says it's a testament to how good the S is. But it doesnt make sense to dismiss one car because it isn't like another thing. The S2000 used to be better than the miata because it had more power and more outright handling capability (ignoring the intangibles for a minute). Now, the Miata has the power and torque and they've managed to make it handle at an insane level and (easily) fit basically the same amount of tire. The S2000 offers some great intangibles like the solidity of the drivetrain and the way the engine and chassis feels. The Miata has some intangibles to it as well, they are simply different categories than the S2000.

It's clear this article has definitely been causing a stir all over the net. It's finally "better" because it closed the gap on what the S2k had over it... Now, the reason we prefer the S2000 is how it feels. The miata is a sports car.


There's an unofficial version of this called Club STR! It used to be the AP1s, NC/NBs, and other oddballs like the Z3 that would occasionally come out. The SCCA rules typically favor the newer faster cars, except with purposeful legacy classes like ES. The S2000 is honestly the oddball in terms of having over a decade of being the king between street, touring, and prepared classes. STR is weak right now because the car is so new, not everyone is going to dump the money on the new car and the modifications. With time it'll be as big. I wish i could have been around to see those huge STR classes of the S2000. It seems more exciting than the ND in that frame. There have been people asking for the S2k to get a class again but nothing has come to yet.

 

It's only a contradiction if those two are mutually exclusive, which they are not.

Boring vs. not boring is a subjective argument not only because it's a purely opinionated answer regardless but also because different people "judge" a car differently. A car's usage AND the driver dictate the level of "boring" and that your mileage will vary depending on those 2 factors. To some, a car's ability to auto-x well makes it exciting. To others, this matters little while the "feel" (sounds, less predictable handling, etc) makes the difference. Not everyone here, as unbiased as we may all be , is going to share the same measuring stick.

Think of it like a roller coaster: On one hand, you've got new metal tracked coasters with polyurethane wheels that will do 120mph, flip you every which way and ride smooth as silk. New technology has allowed for those types of advancements. On the other hand, roller coaster "purists" will always appreciate the rickety wooden coaster their crazy uncle built in the back yard when they were 12. Can it go as fast as the new stuff? No, of course not. And could it break your back if some of those 1" shingling nails fall out that had no business being used in the first place? Absolutely....but that's part of what made it exciting.

 

OUCH- today's Vizio TV is better than Samsung's from 10 years ago. Amazing how technology works...

 

Non Justification for presenters & engineers = job loss.

 

ND2s are awesome. If something happened to my AP2 tomorrow I'd probably dump the insurance/part out money into one.

While I don't disagree with any of this I'm pretty sure the person you quoted is saying autocross is boring

 

I like the S2k better. Not sure why. Whatever.

 

My troll was multi-layered, yes.

99.9% of the world doesn't Autocross. I've tried autocross...and both times, I've decided to leave early because I would litetally rather watch paint dry.

Unless you have a narrow focus, the S2000 isn't a worse CAR than a Miata because its not as good to win at autocross.

Nobody cares about how fast it covers ground in a parking lot while nerds in weird hats contest massively controversial and important things like making sure the length of your pants meets SCCA regulations or if you should be disqualified for life.

In the broader view....overall, the Miata is an excellent car. However it lacks the same panaché as the S2000. I think Miatas are great fun to drive. They just don't have the same presence.

Miata's have always come with more features that are genuinely useful. This applies to reasonable people. I know some of you still read paper maps like you're Lewis and Clarke and even a cup holder seems new fangled and frightening.

The ND's power/weight/fun/usefulness make it objectively better...but its lack of compromise makes it less focused and not as much of a "throwback" experience as driving a S2000.

The S2000 was an odd duck when it came out. It had a completely impractical layout, was priced closer to a Corvette. But had a 4cyl, 2 paper speakers, zero features, no traction control, rode badly, made wind noise...etc. So...its no wonder than freakin 20 years later, people are comparing it to a new Miata. Why is this surprising? Wtf would you have compared it to in the past? Any attempt at comparison in the past was "unfair".

The S2000 had some untangible thing going for it that keeps it a relative chassis to this day.

The ND Miata RF is closing that "gravitas" gap. So it's objectively better package, combined with an enticing shape and performance make it a "smarter" buy than a S2000.

Subjectively better? Impossible to answer. And also not consequential. Who TF cares about BETTER if you know what you want?

If you want the experience the S2000 gives you...the only answer is S2000. So why not just buy a S2000 if you can?

If you can't buy or live with a S2000 and you want an objectively better sports car....then buy a Miata. Thst's the message in the article.

Its old news. Other 2 seater sports cars in the past have been objectively better too, minus an apples to apples comparison. A C5 vette is objectively better and of the similar/lesser cost. That was true from day 1.

If you open up past 2 seats...BRZ/FRS, Mustang, E36 or 46 M3, EVO, STi...list goes on. All more feature laden, or more powerful, or more practical.

ANY car can be objectively topped.

But if you want to drive a S2000...buy a S2000.

 

The comparison strikes me as very similar to the "Chevy SS is the spiritual successor to the BMW E39 M5" discussions of a few years ago.

Some accept that the newer car is just better, others are (practically or outright) offended by the very thought that such a humdrum car could possibly supplant such a legend. To me, the fact people are arguing over whether or not the S2000 has been superseded is less relevant than the fact people are still arguing over whether or not the S2000 has been superseded. Twenty years down the line and there's still no definitive consensus of opinion. How many other cars from 1999 are still being held up as a comparison for new cars? Who's looking at a S550 Mustang GT and thinking "yeah, they finally built one better than a SN95..."?

 

Auto-cross definitely isn't for everyone and while road racing is faaaaar more exciting as a participant and a spectator, it isn't as accessible to the masses. It's a good gateway into motorsports that doesn't involve karting, you can drive just about whatever you own and it won't cost a fortune. There are always "those guys" that take things way too far but that's life. I only use auto-x as an example of how, performance-wise in a real world situation, the Miata is an improvement over the S2000. In the end...it all boils down to what you want, as you say. I prefer the S2000 which is why I bought another. The fact that my wife wanted an RF GT is just a coincidence but it does give some good insight into this article and discussion.