S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

S2000 vs 2019 MX-5

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 30, 2019 | 11:17 AM
  #31  
engifineer's Avatar
Moderator
10 Year Member
Community Builder
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 7,892
Likes: 2,466
Default

What in the shit are we talking about again? Thought it was 2 cool cars but now I just feel fat :P
Reply
Old Jul 30, 2019 | 04:01 PM
  #32  
JasonMG's Avatar
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 133
Likes: 8
Default

I know it's odd because it has nothing to do with performance or any other measurable thing... but there's something special about a comparatively low volume car that was so purpose built. IMO, it has fewer compromises than most roadsters and there's a certain purity about why it exists. It has far less appeal, which is demonstrated by the sales figures and production life - but that adds to my personal preference for it.

To put it in perspective, there were fewer than 67,000 S2000s made.

Miata production crossed the 1,000,000 mark years ago.
Reply
Old Jul 30, 2019 | 04:02 PM
  #33  
Car Analogy's Avatar
10 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,751
Likes: 1,855
Default

Originally Posted by Fokker
Yes, BMI is very flawed system (at 160, I would look emaciated). Many people I know that weigh around 160 are slim in build and aren't carrying an excess of weight and the ones I know towards the 140 end of things are very slender with a minimal of muscle...
At 5' 8"?

The claim was 5' 8" 160 was considered thin. Not saying that person is fat, cause maybe they are nothing but muscle. But no matter the composition, a 5' 8" 160# person is not thin. Ever. I don't care where you live and how much fatter everyone else is. That weight that height is not thin.
Reply
Old Jul 30, 2019 | 06:24 PM
  #34  
Hertz Donut's Avatar
Registered User
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 1,109
From: New Zealand
Default

This thread is ruining the stereotype that all Americans are lard-asses who stay doggedly on topic.

Also, point of note: S2000 total production was over 110,000...which is still well short of MX5/Miata production.
Reply
Old Jul 30, 2019 | 11:08 PM
  #35  
vicrc's Avatar
Registered User
5 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 305
Likes: 42
Default

I am really surprised how so few s2000s sold compared to the Miatas? The difference of $7000 is not much for what performance you are getting. Another thing is Honda did a terrible job of marketing the S2000 you can tell with so many people not knowing this car existed. I don't even remember seeing any advertisement of it on TV.
Reply
Old Jul 31, 2019 | 01:41 AM
  #36  
snmalone's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 482
Likes: 12
Default


Reply
Old Jul 31, 2019 | 05:02 AM
  #37  
TsukubaCody's Avatar
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 466
Default

Originally Posted by Car Analogy
At 5' 8"?

The claim was 5' 8" 160 was considered thin. Not saying that person is fat, cause maybe they are nothing but muscle. But no matter the composition, a 5' 8" 160# person is not thin. Ever. I don't care where you live and how much fatter everyone else is. That weight that height is not thin.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by Hertz Donut
This thread is ruining the stereotype that all Americans are lard-asses who stay doggedly on topic.

Also, point of note: S2000 total production was over 110,000...which is still well short of MX5/Miata production.
S2000 was sold for 9 years at a much higher price point as opposed to the 30 or so years of Miata we're at these days.

Originally Posted by vicrc
I am really surprised how so few s2000s sold compared to the Miatas? The difference of $7000 is not much for what performance you are getting. Another thing is Honda did a terrible job of marketing the S2000 you can tell with so many people not knowing this car existed. I don't even remember seeing any advertisement of it on TV.
It wasn't a $7000 difference at the time.

When the S2000 debuted it was a $33,000 car. The MX5 was $19-20,000, so the S2000 was 50-70% more expensive. That's a huge difference. The Miata also only requires regular, its consumables are cheaper and lets face it, its a bit more approachable for the regular joe or jane.

Originally Posted by snmalone
memeish thing
We get it, you don't like the car. I don't think stock S2000 look very good, diff strokes for diff folks.
Reply
Old Aug 1, 2019 | 10:00 AM
  #38  
JasonMG's Avatar
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 133
Likes: 8
Default

Originally Posted by Hertz Donut
This thread is ruining the stereotype that all Americans are lard-asses who stay doggedly on topic.

Also, point of note: S2000 total production was over 110,000...which is still well short of MX5/Miata production.

Good catch. I kept seeing the 68K number, but that's American market.
Reply
Old Aug 1, 2019 | 10:35 AM
  #39  
bradyn's Avatar
Registered User
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 233
Likes: 11
Default

not a huge fan of the front shot, but that side shot is beautiful. Owning a miata isnt for me, i think id rather buy a used 370z with cash in hand than consider a new miata.
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2019 | 10:50 AM
  #40  
Jah2000's Avatar
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 138
From: Cali
Default

Originally Posted by TsukubaCody
When the S2000 debuted it was a $33,000 car. The MX5 was $19-20,000, so the S2000 was 50-70% more expensive. That's a huge difference.
This is the exact reason why I sold my '03 Tacoma for an S2000. (I had ricer Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans in the '90s... missed them and wanted to get into a small car again)

Tacoma was $15k brand new, S2000 was +$33k brand new.

Sold the Tacoma with 125k miles for $10k in 2013, and then got a GPW '03 S2000 with 94k miles for $12k.

I got a car that is worth twice as much brand-new and is twice as quality. Good trade.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:53 AM.