Manual gearboxes may be in the majority of new cars in Europe. The rental cars seem to be all sticks unless renting a premium car. I rent premium cars in the UK and Australia as the gearbox pattern is "backwards" and the steering is on the wrong side of the car which positions the car too far to the left of the lane so I have plenty to keep my occupied. No problems on the Continent.

With manual gearboxes so common in Europe only bringing a few to North America is based on market demand.

-- Chuck

 

The gearbox pattern is "backward" because of the Coriolis effect. Same reason cyclones spin in the opposite direction south of the equator!

 

The pattern really isn't backwards but in a proper (meaning left hand drive ) car low gear is against my leg and forward. In the "backwards" pattern low gear is far away from my leg (and forward). I hate starting out in 5th.

-- Chuck

 

Wow, couldn't disagree more. That's a heck of a generalization you're making. I think what you have is a case of smarter shoppers. It's about value. My wife got a new CX-5 a couple years ago. Fully loaded (AWD, grand touring, etc.) for around $30k. It's got a smaller footprint than an Accord, but way more utility. And I can actually sit in the back. Not because we're obese, but on the taller side. I guess you could say I'm technically overweight, but you probably wouldn't say that to someone who is 210 lbs and 8% body fat . Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by packaging. If you mean manufacturers have improved upon the aesthetics, completely agree. I think there are many fantastic modern looking SUV's. It comes down to utility and value. Why buy a Mustang when you can get something cheaper and more usable? To most people a vehicle is looked at as getting from point A to point B, and they're looking for the best way to maximize their purchasing power. If I could only have one car, it would not be my S2000, rest assured. I truly enjoy driving it, but it's a rather useless vehicle in the grand scheme of things. My Jeep Wrangler on the other hand, much more useful.

I don't anticipate a new S2000. Market just isn't there.

 

And toilet water flushes in the opposite direction! I wonder if the water goes straight down the loo, right on the Equator? Did you notice when you were stationed on old CV-63?

Thanks!

 

As evidenced by flushed toilets, water running down drains, water swirling in estuaries, etc.

 

For the record, the idea that the S2000 was some sort of loss-leader for Honda was never true. Honda did *not* lose money on the S2000 - in fact it was profitable within the first year. I remember this being confirmed by a Honda source in a car magazine in 2001 or so; sorry I don't have the specifc citation, but we can do the math ourselves:

Remember this car was developed fast and under the radar - unlike Civic/Accord/Odyssey it was not focus-grouped to death to ensure maximum sales appeal. Rather, it was already finalized at its (surprise) initial public announcement in Dec '98, and full production of the JDM car started essentially immediately, in April '99. (US production began in June '99.) By April of 2000, about 16,000 cars had been sold worldwide - that means about US$450 million in revenue. If they sold each one at 10% over production cost (reasonable for a low volume car) that would be US$45 million net income, which I guarantee is more than they budgeted to Uehara-san's development team.

 

I disagree that the station wagon was replaced by the SUV or CUV. They're entirely different markets with very different owner demographics. Jeeps were popular back in the 70's with a sporty, off-road reputation. I remember even back then station wagons were considered "old geezer" cars and any fashion-conscious baby boomer wouldn't be caught dead driving one. Lee Iacocca rolled out the Chrysler Caravan and the rest is history.

Most car companies started churning out minivans but their image wasn't much better than the station wagons they replaced. The car companies started making unibody SUVs that functioned and handled like minivans without triggering the gag reflex among prospective buyers. Gradually, the OEMs stopped making minivans. FCA, the last holdout in that market dumped the Caravan moniker, went back to the drawing board and came up with the new Chrysler Pacifica, which IMO is an awesome vehicle that soccer moms don't detest being seen in.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about the wagon thing. I view wagons as those cars that appealed primarily to people that needed to haul dogs and other stuff around in addition to kids, That was until they started being labeled as "old geezer cars", lol. Then yes, they were replaced by the minivans which in turn were replaced by the utility vehicles. Auto makers lost me personally when the whole minivan craze started and today's utility vehicles hold little more appeal (to me). I'm not saying that I consider utility vehicles to be "bad vehicles" — they simply don't appeal to me. We actually own a VW Golf wagon, but have also owned wagons from Volvo and Subaru in the past. I'm only basing my comments on what I see around me every single day.

Perhaps I was overthinking things. Looking at data gathered within the last five years, I see that over 70 percent of Americans are overweight. Over half of them are actually obese (yes, there are actually more obese people in this country than those who are simply overweight). I can't say that I find the success enjoyed by utility vehicles in this country to be surprising at all. If someone can convince me that it's the less than 30% of Americans who aren't overweight who are accounting for the massive success enjoyed by utility vehicles in this country then I'm all ears.

 

That's actually pretty interesting and yet another example of Honda's rather amazing engineering talent. Thanks for sharing.