S2000 in Wikipedia
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,290
Likes: 14
From: Atlanta
I like this sentence, "The 2004 model introduced newly designed 17" wheels and Bridgestone RE-050 tyres along with a retuned suspension that reduced the car's tendency to oversteer."
Yes, the tendency to oversteer was reduced but, according to the car magazines, the 2000-2003 models actually did better on the skidpad. I suppose the stiffer suspension and stickier S02 tires contributed. I drove an AP2 for the third time about a month ago and the suspension did feel much different, less stiff, steering a little less sharp etc.
While many of us know the whole story I'd like to see more background info listed on why changes were made from AP1 to AP2.
Good entry though. Glad to see more sites listing the S2000 along with some good information.
Yes, the tendency to oversteer was reduced but, according to the car magazines, the 2000-2003 models actually did better on the skidpad. I suppose the stiffer suspension and stickier S02 tires contributed. I drove an AP2 for the third time about a month ago and the suspension did feel much different, less stiff, steering a little less sharp etc.
While many of us know the whole story I'd like to see more background info listed on why changes were made from AP1 to AP2.
Good entry though. Glad to see more sites listing the S2000 along with some good information.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: Potomac Falls, VA
Kinda funny that the wikipedia has been edited to include some of the AP1 owner's comments about the AP2 being "less raw" and "tamer", and even has a review to back it up ...
I could find a review to backup claims that the new S2000 is more neutral and stable than the older one too ... (Reference: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?ar...&page_number=6)
[QUOTE]The reason the S2000 handled differently from past models is that the suspension system, most notably the rear multilink setup, has been retuned to provide better stability and composure through all types of corners. Gone is the twitchy, nervous rear end that plagued autocrossers and weekend racers. Now those Bridgestone Potenzas stay properly planted on the driving surface, making the entire car behave smoothly and predictably. And speaking of rubber, the S2000 has more of it than before, with P215/45R-17s up front and P245/40R-17s at the rear. The steering is fantastic
I could find a review to backup claims that the new S2000 is more neutral and stable than the older one too ... (Reference: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?ar...&page_number=6)
[QUOTE]The reason the S2000 handled differently from past models is that the suspension system, most notably the rear multilink setup, has been retuned to provide better stability and composure through all types of corners. Gone is the twitchy, nervous rear end that plagued autocrossers and weekend racers. Now those Bridgestone Potenzas stay properly planted on the driving surface, making the entire car behave smoothly and predictably. And speaking of rubber, the S2000 has more of it than before, with P215/45R-17s up front and P245/40R-17s at the rear. The steering is fantastic
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles, CA
Has anyone looked at the Wikipedia S2000 page recently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000
It has a huge "Criticism" section that describes every major complaint directed at the car, and includes links to reviews supporting the complaints. NO OTHER CAR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA has a criticism section except maybe the Hummer and the Ford Pinto. Do a little searching, and you'll see what I mean.
Most of the criticism section is the work of a user called SpinyNorman. You can read about the arguments and revision wars on the talk page associated with the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honda_S2000
I don't understand these people who view it as their sacred mission to complain about someone else's car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000
It has a huge "Criticism" section that describes every major complaint directed at the car, and includes links to reviews supporting the complaints. NO OTHER CAR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA has a criticism section except maybe the Hummer and the Ford Pinto. Do a little searching, and you'll see what I mean.
Most of the criticism section is the work of a user called SpinyNorman. You can read about the arguments and revision wars on the talk page associated with the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honda_S2000
I don't understand these people who view it as their sacred mission to complain about someone else's car.
to that...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles, CA
OWNED! SpinyNorman's criticism section has been removed from the S2000 page on Wikipedia. Now the page is just like all the other car pages, as it should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000
Dustek's explanation for the change was interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000
Dustek's explanation for the change was interesting:
I cannot believe that SpinyNorman's behaviour is being tolerated.
The S2000 is not a widely criticised car. It is in fact widely praised with some criticism & reservations (justified and otherwise). Reading the wiki article as stood made the car out to be a technical and popular failure. The awards and reviews section is extremely short as compared to the outlandish criticisms part. This is material for a Ihate2000.com page not an encyclopedic entry.
There is no need for a technical comparison of revs or speed ratios. This is technical information that is not necessary for a wiki article (I haven't seen such information on a hundred or so different car related pages).
Topgear.co.uk and Jeremy Clarkson (as shown in episodes), love this car so the choice of quotes is tendentious.
Keep your hatred of this car off wiki.
--Dustek 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The S2000 is not a widely criticised car. It is in fact widely praised with some criticism & reservations (justified and otherwise). Reading the wiki article as stood made the car out to be a technical and popular failure. The awards and reviews section is extremely short as compared to the outlandish criticisms part. This is material for a Ihate2000.com page not an encyclopedic entry.
There is no need for a technical comparison of revs or speed ratios. This is technical information that is not necessary for a wiki article (I haven't seen such information on a hundred or so different car related pages).
Topgear.co.uk and Jeremy Clarkson (as shown in episodes), love this car so the choice of quotes is tendentious.
Keep your hatred of this car off wiki.
--Dustek 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,605
Likes: 4
From: Irvine, California
That article confuses me. I read on this board the AP1 revs to 9200 while the AP2 8300.
"Because of its high-revving nature (9,000 rpm redline for the 2000 to 2003 models and 8,200 rpm for the 2004 model onwards), it is one of the few naturally-aspirated engines to produce over 100 hp/L...
...As a result, the redline was reduced to 8,000 rpm (mandated by the longer travel distance of the pistons). "
"Because of its high-revving nature (9,000 rpm redline for the 2000 to 2003 models and 8,200 rpm for the 2004 model onwards), it is one of the few naturally-aspirated engines to produce over 100 hp/L...
...As a result, the redline was reduced to 8,000 rpm (mandated by the longer travel distance of the pistons). "
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,315
Likes: 45
From: Central Massachusetts
Originally Posted by johnny,Jul 14 2006, 07:14 PM
can't people add more to the wikipedia listing? 
it doesn't really do our car justice...
it doesn't really do our car justice...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,315
Likes: 45
From: Central Massachusetts
Originally Posted by AlX Boi,Sep 23 2006, 02:22 AM
That article confuses me. I read on this board the AP1 revs to 9200 while the AP2 8300.
"Because of its high-revving nature (9,000 rpm redline for the 2000 to 2003 models and 8,200 rpm for the 2004 model onwards), it is one of the few naturally-aspirated engines to produce over 100 hp/L...
...As a result, the redline was reduced to 8,000 rpm (mandated by the longer travel distance of the pistons). "
"Because of its high-revving nature (9,000 rpm redline for the 2000 to 2003 models and 8,200 rpm for the 2004 model onwards), it is one of the few naturally-aspirated engines to produce over 100 hp/L...
...As a result, the redline was reduced to 8,000 rpm (mandated by the longer travel distance of the pistons). "