what's was the point for honda?
07-21-2006, 03:50 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA - near Ballston
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ks320,Jul 7 2006, 03:04 PM
Honda is publicly traded. Assuming that you live in the US, the ADR's ticker is HMC.
Of course, my point is completely off base now ...
07-21-2006, 07:49 PM
#54
Community Organizer
I love the fact that the majority of the car-loving United States either a) has no clue what a S2000 is or what its capable of, OR b) hates it if they do know what the car is. Sure its not an expensive exotic with gobs of bling and power, neither is it a affordable big-displacement with insane torque. That is what is great about it. For about $20K on the used market, you can get a car built by Honda that does it all:
1. Reliable, quality Honda workmanship via hand construction.
2. Great MPG for as fun as the car is to drive.
3. A car that will turn heads without costing a fortune...or at least in Kansas.
4. Insane handling capabilities.
5. Decent acceleration in a straight line, great for coming out of an apex.
6. Great engineering and design, despite being very simple...right down to the interior.
7. It can easily out-perform cars that cost $10K more.
8. Limited production. The other day, on my one-way, 25 minute commute, within 5 minutes I saw 3 350Zs....two of the same color. How many S2000s? None. The next day on the same stretch of road, I saw 3 C5 Corvettes with in 5 miles. How many S2000s? None.
9. Best part: the S2000 community, not just S2KI... I have met some of the coolest car guys and gals because of this car.
Thanks to Honda for producing this amazing, well-engineered machine. I feel like a fighter jet among commercial airlines on the freeway..... and even though I am nearly 27 now...I feel as free as I did at 16 when I am top down, screaming through the gears down a twisty two-lane. 
1. Reliable, quality Honda workmanship via hand construction.
2. Great MPG for as fun as the car is to drive.
3. A car that will turn heads without costing a fortune...or at least in Kansas.
4. Insane handling capabilities.
5. Decent acceleration in a straight line, great for coming out of an apex.
6. Great engineering and design, despite being very simple...right down to the interior.
7. It can easily out-perform cars that cost $10K more.
8. Limited production. The other day, on my one-way, 25 minute commute, within 5 minutes I saw 3 350Zs....two of the same color. How many S2000s? None. The next day on the same stretch of road, I saw 3 C5 Corvettes with in 5 miles. How many S2000s? None.
9. Best part: the S2000 community, not just S2KI... I have met some of the coolest car guys and gals because of this car.
Thanks to Honda for producing this amazing, well-engineered machine. I feel like a fighter jet among commercial airlines on the freeway..... and even though I am nearly 27 now...I feel as free as I did at 16 when I am top down, screaming through the gears down a twisty two-lane.
07-21-2006, 07:57 PM
#55
10: FUN to drive.
11: FUN to drive.
I recently leased mine, and I know these are produced in low numbers, but, if they sold more, would Honda have produced more? I'm referring to item #8 in your post above.
11: FUN to drive.
Thanks to Honda for producing this amazing, well-engineered machine. I feel like a fighter jet among commercial airlines on the freeway.....
07-24-2006, 01:05 AM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a manufacturing engineer taking a hard look at the S2000 I don't think it strictly aligns with what a "halo" car is.
I define a halo car as a small production run high visibility product that stretches the envelope of performance, looks, material qualities, or luxury. This is something that has specialized components that will either stretch it's manufacturing limits or be farmed out to 3rd part suppliers.
The Ford GT is a prime example of a "halo" car. the car was almost COMPLETELY made by it's suppliers and low production gauranteed that a high profit could not be made. The all aluminum chassis was all done like a job shop on a special welding rig by Lincoln electric and with pre-cut bent aluminum pieces. I know this because I work for lincoln. None were done on an assembly line creating a lot wasted money on material movement. Then all the suspension pieces and lots of the kitting was down by saleen and other suppliers. Ford's primary involvement was of course the design and engine. Ford just for PR sent back the cars to the detroit plant to have the windshields put in by their workers for PR pictures. Ford did not make any money on these products because the overhead in the R&D and tooling could not be made up on volume. tooling is a huge killer with a single body panel die can go into the high 100,000 dollars. Like F1 marketing and managment painted broad strokes on how much it would boost other sales of cars. It's an unproven science that is very difficult to justify.
How can anyone really prove whether renault is going to sell cars to really justify alonso winning the F1 championship? Its a game where it can go a million this way or a million that way.
So lets look at the S2000. It's a nice car and I love it but it's not a crazy manufacturing nightmare. It's quite straighforward. It's a steel-bodied car so all the chassis and body panels are made with the same principles as an accord. the suspension pieces are aluminum but the dies for that are not that much more complicated. You just have to go a little slower. The mechanics of the car are very simple and have very little electronics complared to a Z4 or 3 series. If you try to tear apart a modern BMW there is a friggin servo or wiring for everything known to man. The most expensive part of the car is the engine and the drivetrain. But the block and head are beautiful pieces but no more then 20-30 percent more expensive to build then an accord I4. Every piece can be made within honda using the same machines tooling, methdology, and material movement equipment. The people overhead is not all that different. Do you need that many more engineers to develop an S2000 then an accord? An S2000 may be more high tuned so let's say you have 20% more people on it. With engineers making close to maybe 90,000 average 10-15 more people is a million bucks. A million dollars isn't that much when making a car. So the only other thing to look at is volume.
The s2000 is a low volume car but it is hardly a supercar. With something like 12000 sold in the first year I believe that is has declined to something like 7000 last year (correct me if I'm wrong). If you include world sales (europe and japan) most of the tooling and overhead for the tooling and R&D have probably been covered. I of course have no intimate knowledge of honda's finances but look at the fact. The NSX was a halo car. all aluminum, hand built, maybe 8000 total in the world? Material cost is nothing. A stamped piece of steel off of a BMW cost no different then stamped piece off a kia. It's all about labor, overhead, and tooling. That's why car manufacturers are the first to go to india, china, and the like.
I have no doubt that honda makes money off these cars. Of course nothing close to an accord... but they make money. No doubt they did it to show off their ability to the world... but japanese are not keen to take a loss.
I define a halo car as a small production run high visibility product that stretches the envelope of performance, looks, material qualities, or luxury. This is something that has specialized components that will either stretch it's manufacturing limits or be farmed out to 3rd part suppliers.
The Ford GT is a prime example of a "halo" car. the car was almost COMPLETELY made by it's suppliers and low production gauranteed that a high profit could not be made. The all aluminum chassis was all done like a job shop on a special welding rig by Lincoln electric and with pre-cut bent aluminum pieces. I know this because I work for lincoln. None were done on an assembly line creating a lot wasted money on material movement. Then all the suspension pieces and lots of the kitting was down by saleen and other suppliers. Ford's primary involvement was of course the design and engine. Ford just for PR sent back the cars to the detroit plant to have the windshields put in by their workers for PR pictures. Ford did not make any money on these products because the overhead in the R&D and tooling could not be made up on volume. tooling is a huge killer with a single body panel die can go into the high 100,000 dollars. Like F1 marketing and managment painted broad strokes on how much it would boost other sales of cars. It's an unproven science that is very difficult to justify.
How can anyone really prove whether renault is going to sell cars to really justify alonso winning the F1 championship? Its a game where it can go a million this way or a million that way.
So lets look at the S2000. It's a nice car and I love it but it's not a crazy manufacturing nightmare. It's quite straighforward. It's a steel-bodied car so all the chassis and body panels are made with the same principles as an accord. the suspension pieces are aluminum but the dies for that are not that much more complicated. You just have to go a little slower. The mechanics of the car are very simple and have very little electronics complared to a Z4 or 3 series. If you try to tear apart a modern BMW there is a friggin servo or wiring for everything known to man. The most expensive part of the car is the engine and the drivetrain. But the block and head are beautiful pieces but no more then 20-30 percent more expensive to build then an accord I4. Every piece can be made within honda using the same machines tooling, methdology, and material movement equipment. The people overhead is not all that different. Do you need that many more engineers to develop an S2000 then an accord? An S2000 may be more high tuned so let's say you have 20% more people on it. With engineers making close to maybe 90,000 average 10-15 more people is a million bucks. A million dollars isn't that much when making a car. So the only other thing to look at is volume.
The s2000 is a low volume car but it is hardly a supercar. With something like 12000 sold in the first year I believe that is has declined to something like 7000 last year (correct me if I'm wrong). If you include world sales (europe and japan) most of the tooling and overhead for the tooling and R&D have probably been covered. I of course have no intimate knowledge of honda's finances but look at the fact. The NSX was a halo car. all aluminum, hand built, maybe 8000 total in the world? Material cost is nothing. A stamped piece of steel off of a BMW cost no different then stamped piece off a kia. It's all about labor, overhead, and tooling. That's why car manufacturers are the first to go to india, china, and the like.
I have no doubt that honda makes money off these cars. Of course nothing close to an accord... but they make money. No doubt they did it to show off their ability to the world... but japanese are not keen to take a loss.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post