RE: Will Honda replace the S2000?
Discussion
havoc said:
[quote=WildCards]Where the weakness shows itself is in mid-range 'responsiveness', either on a motorway or an open road...if you don't drop it a gear (2 in the S2000), you'll find yourself making the same progress as you would in an ordinary petrol Focus (for example), which is OK, but for the type of car not really what you'd be expecting.
I think that goes for alot of cars though mate. My car seems to be the opposite, it's all torque (Nearly 280lbs-ft). It will pass things pretty quickly in 5th, but for really brisk/safe overtaking I still drop a gear. Not so much on the motorway though I admit.
You'll pay alot for a car that is mind numbingly fast in all situations. The S2000 has always been a very capable all rounder to me. Something that most car manufacturers aspire to.
Whether Honda will replace the S2000 and with what is a guess for all of us (I imagine) 
Honda has done one of the smartest things with the current S2000. There is no direct competitor for it. While it does compete with things like the 350Z it's a car that you either love or you do not. Most people who wil consider the S2000 would not replace it with the 350Z and vice versa.
I do not know what the price situation is in the UK but in Continental Europe the S2000 is not great in the price/performance department. Its sales mean that Honda can, with a product, which does not directly compete against all the competition capture a higher customer loyalty and higher margins
A common failing of most car manufacturers in the past decades (Honda amongst them) was to try and expand at all costs. 30 years ago someone in the market for a Mercedes would not even visit a BMW dealership when looking for a new car and vice versa. While it seemed such a tempting idea to get the customers of the other brand as potential customers, it was a double edged sword. It led to direct competition, which hasn't existed before and to price wars. Marques such as MB or BMW (OK, at least when getting to the dealer BMW does) do not compete on lowering sales prices, they hve a price war through lowering costs more than necessary and therefore lowering quality. The new quality is not in line with their brand promise and in the long run this leads to lower customer loyalty and with the result of people starting to shop around. Which again means lower margins.
Where does Honda fit in? If the new S2000 gets a V6 or even a V8, you'll have a direct competitor for the Boxster, Z4, TT, SLK, 350Z etc. It might get higher sales. But as the Honda brand to most buyers does not command the price premium the others do, they will either have to build the cars much more eficiently (unlikely), or their margins will have to be lower, as a result of a lower sales price. If they compete on price, they will never get the brand up. If they stick to the concept and refine it, they will be able to count on loyal customers such as most the Honda drivers here at Pistonheads are, who love the concept and (as there is a lack of direct competition) will not think of switching.
So from a management perspective it would be a very short termist decision to shoehorn a V6 in (something managers love, since they are paid for short term performance) and that is something I can evaluate. I have too little technical knowledge to give a good evaluation as to what should be done technologically.
Perhaps a S1600 with a superbike derived engine revving even higher and being at around 900kg? Making some use of the clever packaging Honda has become famous for in the past couple of years perhaps the same interior space, same engine between axles concept can be achieved in a more compact, lighter package. In addition you could have an S2000 with a V5 derived from their MotoGP contestant? Revving even higher. Making it more of what the S2000 is but more special, too. I'd love to see a Honda S800, with perhaps not more than 700kg and an IMA to allow the small capacity engine to pull away cleanly. All of those things could be a lot eaier to develop for Honda than it's competition, as they are the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world. Capitalise on it and stay ahead!
Honda has done one of the smartest things with the current S2000. There is no direct competitor for it. While it does compete with things like the 350Z it's a car that you either love or you do not. Most people who wil consider the S2000 would not replace it with the 350Z and vice versa.
I do not know what the price situation is in the UK but in Continental Europe the S2000 is not great in the price/performance department. Its sales mean that Honda can, with a product, which does not directly compete against all the competition capture a higher customer loyalty and higher margins
A common failing of most car manufacturers in the past decades (Honda amongst them) was to try and expand at all costs. 30 years ago someone in the market for a Mercedes would not even visit a BMW dealership when looking for a new car and vice versa. While it seemed such a tempting idea to get the customers of the other brand as potential customers, it was a double edged sword. It led to direct competition, which hasn't existed before and to price wars. Marques such as MB or BMW (OK, at least when getting to the dealer BMW does) do not compete on lowering sales prices, they hve a price war through lowering costs more than necessary and therefore lowering quality. The new quality is not in line with their brand promise and in the long run this leads to lower customer loyalty and with the result of people starting to shop around. Which again means lower margins.
Where does Honda fit in? If the new S2000 gets a V6 or even a V8, you'll have a direct competitor for the Boxster, Z4, TT, SLK, 350Z etc. It might get higher sales. But as the Honda brand to most buyers does not command the price premium the others do, they will either have to build the cars much more eficiently (unlikely), or their margins will have to be lower, as a result of a lower sales price. If they compete on price, they will never get the brand up. If they stick to the concept and refine it, they will be able to count on loyal customers such as most the Honda drivers here at Pistonheads are, who love the concept and (as there is a lack of direct competition) will not think of switching.
So from a management perspective it would be a very short termist decision to shoehorn a V6 in (something managers love, since they are paid for short term performance) and that is something I can evaluate. I have too little technical knowledge to give a good evaluation as to what should be done technologically.
Perhaps a S1600 with a superbike derived engine revving even higher and being at around 900kg? Making some use of the clever packaging Honda has become famous for in the past couple of years perhaps the same interior space, same engine between axles concept can be achieved in a more compact, lighter package. In addition you could have an S2000 with a V5 derived from their MotoGP contestant? Revving even higher. Making it more of what the S2000 is but more special, too. I'd love to see a Honda S800, with perhaps not more than 700kg and an IMA to allow the small capacity engine to pull away cleanly. All of those things could be a lot eaier to develop for Honda than it's competition, as they are the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world. Capitalise on it and stay ahead!
I don't think the S2000 has been as successful as Honda hoped. It DOES compete with the Z4 (and stock Boxster?), and to a degree with the 350Z and Elise/VX...and it's also an aspirational alternative to the MX5 and MR2.
Yet the Z4 is FAR more common on the roads, as is the Boxster and the MR2, while the MX5 is more mainstream than a Mondeo now!
Honda have tried to create a practical 'everyday' sports car, but have fitted a race-spec engine which requires concentration to get the best of. As such it was always going to be a 'marmite' car, and it doesn't enjoy the badge cachet of BMW or Porsche, despite being a better all-rounder than any Z4 below the 3.0 (which suffers from sport suspension and run-flats on UK roads).
IMHO Honda are more likely to go down the S2200 (or larger) route, tame the bonkers engine a bit (same/more power, but lower revs and more torque), but retain the quality and handling of the original. Hopefully no foldy-metal-roof though...or at least two versions a-la MX5 Mk3.
Yet the Z4 is FAR more common on the roads, as is the Boxster and the MR2, while the MX5 is more mainstream than a Mondeo now!
Honda have tried to create a practical 'everyday' sports car, but have fitted a race-spec engine which requires concentration to get the best of. As such it was always going to be a 'marmite' car, and it doesn't enjoy the badge cachet of BMW or Porsche, despite being a better all-rounder than any Z4 below the 3.0 (which suffers from sport suspension and run-flats on UK roads).
IMHO Honda are more likely to go down the S2200 (or larger) route, tame the bonkers engine a bit (same/more power, but lower revs and more torque), but retain the quality and handling of the original. Hopefully no foldy-metal-roof though...or at least two versions a-la MX5 Mk3.
Success depends on what the anchor wa. Compete? Well they do share the same space / niche broadly, as do a Subaru Legacy 3.0 and an Audi A4 3.2. Still there is hardly any switching between the two 
I imagine (have no hard data) that there are almost no people switching from the S2000 to the Z4 or Boxster or vice versa. Making it less bonkers will only make it more of a budget Z4 alternative, which IMO is bad. Cars perceived as a budget alternative usually suffer worse depreciation, not to say that it will take Honda another step away from becoming the premium brand that it probably wants to become.
I guess it's generally rather academic what our opinions here are, at least to Honda
Btw. making it more mainstream might make it go down the route of the other Hondas, where the subsequent generations appeal to totally different buyer circles, alienating the ones who liked the previous generation. And that surely is not the solution?
I imagine (have no hard data) that there are almost no people switching from the S2000 to the Z4 or Boxster or vice versa. Making it less bonkers will only make it more of a budget Z4 alternative, which IMO is bad. Cars perceived as a budget alternative usually suffer worse depreciation, not to say that it will take Honda another step away from becoming the premium brand that it probably wants to become. I guess it's generally rather academic what our opinions here are, at least to Honda
Btw. making it more mainstream might make it go down the route of the other Hondas, where the subsequent generations appeal to totally different buyer circles, alienating the ones who liked the previous generation. And that surely is not the solution?
Edited by KM2 on Friday 4th August 11:31
KM2 said:
And that surely is not the solution?
Dunno. The new Accord has sold very well, by all accounts, despite a clear move 'upmarket'. I have to confess I am struggling with Honda's current 'identity' as a car-maker.
Historic: Engineering-led, very high-quality, very reliable, mainstream but with flashes of individuality and brilliance (NSX, Type-Rs, S2000).
Current: Aspirational-rep (Accord), plus mainstream reliable (old Civic, Jazz), plus avant-garde design (new Civic). Engineering quality starting to take 2nd place, although still very good.
Future: ?!?
Honda is a fourpot brand.
So maybe stick a turbo on, but then Honda isn't about turboes.
Shoehorn a V6 . . . the V6 isn't that big.
Honda is about original concepts so they could come up with something completely different.
I'd love a S3500 . . . Imagine a small capacity V8 in there: 2.5 litre and 300 hp.
So maybe stick a turbo on, but then Honda isn't about turboes.
Shoehorn a V6 . . . the V6 isn't that big.
Honda is about original concepts so they could come up with something completely different.
I'd love a S3500 . . . Imagine a small capacity V8 in there: 2.5 litre and 300 hp.
havoc said:
KM2 said:
And that surely is not the solution?
Dunno. The new Accord has sold very well, by all accounts, despite a clear move 'upmarket'. I have to confess I am struggling with Honda's current 'identity' as a car-maker.
Historic: Engineering-led, very high-quality, very reliable, mainstream but with flashes of individuality and brilliance (NSX, Type-Rs, S2000).
Current: Aspirational-rep (Accord), plus mainstream reliable (old Civic, Jazz), plus avant-garde design (new Civic). Engineering quality starting to take 2nd place, although still very good.
Future: ?!?
Perhaps in the UK. In Germany it is outsold 10-1 by the Mazda 6 for instance.
Upmarket is not bad if the core qualities remain. The Civic used to be a drivers car but the previous generation was designed for old age pensioners (apart from the R). They got into the thing but cannot really be expected to like the new one. The new one is nice, will get some younger buyers but the question is, will the next one continue where this one left off or where th previous one did? :
Too many compromises are made, like the 1.7 Isuzu diesel for the previous Civic, many of their SUVs, the mainstream cars not really being class leading to drive (or in the engineering department).
WildCards said:
havoc said:
Yet the Z4 is FAR more common on the roads, as is the Boxster and the MR2, while the MX5 is more mainstream than a Mondeo now!
I suspet that's down to the badge, not the ability oif the car.
This weekend we test drove a 3.0 Z4 and an S2000. I can wholly confirm that people are buying Z4s for the badge (or looks - if that's what floats your boat) - it simply ain't for the driving experience! I didn't think it was possible for a roadster to be so boring. It's anodyne in the exreme: steering is far too light and lacks any feedback, for a 3 litre is seemed a bit gutless, interior quality was not that great and certainly not up to other BMWs I've been in.
In contrast, I pick up my S2000 weekend after next
Gazboy said:
Is this instead of, or aswell as the 350Z?
Unfortunately instead-of
Had the Z for a couple of months now and it's not 'jelled' if you see what I mean. Don't get me wrong - it's a fantastic car, but ultimately not the right car for me at the moment. The plan was always to get a roadster, but we got kinda sidetracked
Now gone back to the original plan and having had a good long test drive in the S2000 decided that was the best route. A Boxster S was the only other car in the frame and we ruled that out as we want to minimise running costs for the next few years, which meant it had to be nearly new and under warranty and have sensible servicing costs.The man who suggested taming the 'bonkers engine' is missing the point, which is the bonkers engine. Without that what do you have but an MX5 with a big engine, and even less to distinguish it from the Z4.
Just now it has got a unique, focussed, race inspired feel. Getting into a Porsche doesnt quite make you feel like Steve McQueen. Getting into a S2000 makes you feel like someone. Just havent worked out who yet.
If they did anything but update the existing concept it would be a waste of their time.
Just now it has got a unique, focussed, race inspired feel. Getting into a Porsche doesnt quite make you feel like Steve McQueen. Getting into a S2000 makes you feel like someone. Just havent worked out who yet.
If they did anything but update the existing concept it would be a waste of their time.
danwww said:
I love my s2000 but does any other car need to be kept in the top 1/3 revs to be fast?! I know turbo's come in at certain revs and stuff... is there another car that has nearly all its power there like from 4000-6000rpm?
Pretty much every N/A petrol engine. Albeit not quite to the same degree in most.
Modern n/a engines have their torque curves 'tuned' to give lots of mid-range as that's what everyone says the market wants. What that does is gives a very flexible car which isn't a lot of fun to drive to the limit.
But take some of the 'most fun' cars out there:-
- Elise 111R / 190 / Exige S1 / Exige S2 - both the VHPD and the VVTi-L engines are at least as peaky as VTEC
- Many caterhams/westys - bike engines or t-bodied car engines, all tuned, and all developing most of the power at the top-end.
- E46 M3 - not AS peaky as VTEC, but still same sort of thing
- 911GT3 - as for M3 - in both cases it's the extra capacity that gives the additional torque, plus a slightly-less single-minded focus.
- TVR Speed-6. As M3/GT3. Only here, because it's a bonkers engine in a light car, you don't notice so much.
VTEC/VVTi-L/VHPD (slightly different)/bike engines are all at the extreme end of engine design in terms of power curve. But it gives them character. Drive a MkV Golf GTi and it's engine is amazingly flexible but there's little reward in taking it to the redline.
Did Evo not recently test the car and got 5.7sec 0-60mph time? The 6.2 time is VERY conservative. Most websites state a better time than 6.2.
I was looking at a 111R but decided to go for a S2K as it is much more user friendly for everyday driving. As i do a fair few miles each day it was my best option. The S2K to me was the next best thing, as in more of a drivers car than it's competition. As it's easier to live with everyday than the Elise it was the overall winner for me.
I was looking at a 111R but decided to go for a S2K as it is much more user friendly for everyday driving. As i do a fair few miles each day it was my best option. The S2K to me was the next best thing, as in more of a drivers car than it's competition. As it's easier to live with everyday than the Elise it was the overall winner for me.
2+2? are you out of your mind? You're missing the S2K's point then . . .
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=71&t=294713&p=4
Now supercharge it to 350 will get it into Tammy territory
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=71&t=294713&p=4
Now supercharge it to 350 will get it into Tammy territory
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff