You Sir. have the best answer . Why asked why the sun comes up from the East, just put the top down and enjoy while it last.

 

The car was created to celebrate Honda's 50th, and ended up being sold (relatively unchanged) for 10 years. And for a concept that was initially unveiled in 1995, it still does not look dated at all - honestly it has better curves and overall look than a lot of cars being introduced today, 16 years later, IMO. But obviously I'm biased, and so are a lot of us I'd imagine.

I think the combination of the recession and the fact that it was never intended to be a long term production car are probably the two biggest contributing factors. And as a previous poster mentioned, the MSRP for a new S2000 was too high for most of the world's youth, but the car itself is too youthful for the majority of folks who had that kind of money to spend on a 2 seat drop-top. This is why the Miata persists despite the economy's decline, it is more accessible because of the price point. For me, the S2K was the clear choice, but I'd never have been able to justify it as a 2nd car at the MSRP.

As a closing point, I think the ultimate reason it was discontinued is because there was really no way for Honda to improve upon what they'd accomplished. This could be argued ad nausea, but they wanted a purist roadster with a unique look and feel, and they got it right off the bat. The car was reviewed highly in almost every category from its inception until the last one rolled off the line, while remaining relatively unchanged. AP1 and AP2 differences aside, it's helped to create the tight knit feel that S2000 owners have with each other - an S2000 is an S2000, regardless of model year. To continue producing the car, it would have needed a major overhaul and it'd have become something else entirely - which is normal for something like a Civic, but I'm glad they opted not to go that route with the S.

/end rant

 

... because it does? My AP2 gets about 22mpg mixed while the highest I've ever gotten is 25.5mpg. For a Honda 4 cylinder that is laughably low. I don't care though and I don't think many folks who buy this car care either.

Just sayin'

 

I personally am sitting at 27.5mpg overall for my last 3 fills, but a majority of my driving is at a pretty decent, relatively stable speed.

However, I still agree it doesn't get the greatest mileage considering the engine size and power output compared to other vehicles that are out today.

 

I wasn't saying it gets horrible gas mileage. Now we have cars with double the power and three times the displacement getting the same MPGs. That's not good lol

By 2009-2010, for the price of an s2000 you could get a well equipped 370z with 90 more hp and way more torque. It's would be a little more modern looking and have more modern technology than the s. For the average person, the Nissan would be an easy choice over the s. Only some purists would pick the Honda. This is just my two cents

 

Nobody said you said it has horrible mileage.

I was expecting under 25 and still would be driving it every day.

My point was what you said above -- there are faster, bigger, more powerful cars now with better mpg ratings.

 

You forgot a lot more weight.

 

^^^ agreed but how many people actually take that into account when they buy a car. The average person doesn't. In this economy if people are going to spend their money, they want to get th emost band for their buck and I can see why buying an s2000 wouldn't be the best decision.

 

Maybe it's bad MPG when you consider the displacement of the motor, but I don't think it's bad at all when you consider the power it puts out and the revs it produces. The 6- and 8-cylinder cars out today do get the same or better on the highway but they're still not even close in the city (especially driving spiritedly) which is where & how I do much of my driving.

 

Dont forget this commercial!!


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy66OCILOiY[/media]