Hmmm...

"Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow" (chriskf)
12/07/2015 at 09:06 • Filed to: None

supposed new S2000 confirmation.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-c…

I’ll believe it when I see it.

DISCUSSION (15)

bob and john > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
12/07/2015 at 09:12

dont worry, they are teasing it now, and like the NSX, it will come out in 10 years

Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras > bob and john
12/07/2015 at 09:34

Perfect time for me

bob and john > Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras
12/07/2015 at 09:38

nah, because you will still have to pay new prices then. you want it released NOW so some shuck buys it new and you buy it used 10 years down the line

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
12/07/2015 at 11:01

Based on indications in the article, it looks like they’d be taking a parts-bin approach, meaning no unique and high-strung NA engine. Not all that surprising, considering Honda sold 6,000 S2000s per year in the US on average. In comparison, Mazda sold 9,000 NC Miatas per year in the US over its lifespan, and Toyota/Subaru are selling roughly 20,000 FR-S/BRZs per year right now (you can assume the average for the model is likely to be between 15k and 18k if it follows a similar decline curve). The S2000 was a commercial liability at its price, and Honda won’t try again until they can compete with the existing market.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/07/2015 at 11:27

Yes to all of that.

I often use the point of the S2000 when people try to say the FR-S/BRZ clearly suck because nobody is buying them.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
12/07/2015 at 11:43

Honda screwed the pooch on the S2000 from a marketing perspective. The twins are a significantly better-executed product (not car, product), and the sales reflect that.

The S2000 cost $34,000 in 2003. Not only is that around $45k now, but you could have purchased a fully-loaded 350Z for the same price. Hell, the SVT Cobra in 2003 came in about $500 less than an S2000 on MSRP.

Nauraushaun > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/08/2015 at 04:53

You just posted accurate, comparable sales figures! Man, it’s so easy to skew the figures. Like to say that the NC sold more in 2005 than the S2000 did - of course it did, it was opening year sales vs the 6 year old S2K.

Well done.

Anyway the results themselves are shocking. But any metric I’d say the S2000 is better than both. I’d say maybe the back seats of the 86 twins helped, but they’re so much less exciting and the MX-5 makes do without them. I don’t know how the MX-5 just keeps on selling when sports cars just aren’t, I wish cars like the S2K and MR2 could pull off the same trick.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Nauraushaun
12/08/2015 at 06:45

The only issue with the S2000 is it priced itself out of the market completely, it cost 8-12k more than a Miata at the time. Even the Mazdaspeed Miata was 7-8k less than an S2000.

I actually read a few comparison tests between the NB Miata and the MR2 Spyder that were published at the time...the Miata won nearly all of them. Part of it was once again price (the two were comparable but the Miata started 3k lower), and part of it was fun factor. The other big one, though less to enthusiasts, was that the MR2 Spyder had no trunk.

Nauraushaun > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/08/2015 at 16:56

But surely it was more powerful than both? Not to mention better. Stiffer, more of a performance car.

No trunk? My SW20 has a trunk (and some usable space in the frunk). If the Spyder has no trunk at all that’s a death sentence.

It sounds like the MX5 is in some sort of sweet spot. Just the right price with just the right practicality. Competitors skew that by a small amount in either direction and they’re boned.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Nauraushaun
12/08/2015 at 20:36

The 3rd gen MR2 had no trunk, other than a small storage space in the frunk. The 1st and 2nd gens both had trunks, though.

The real problem with the S2000 and pricing was not necessarily the Miata, though the Miata was close enough that only being 60% of the price made it interesting...it was that the S2000 cost the same amount as a fully loaded 350Z and a Ford Mustang SVT Cobra in 2003.

Nauraushaun > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/08/2015 at 21:07

Well, damn. The trunk in mine is what turns it from useless toy into usable daily driver. Every time I open it it’s bigger than I remember it being. I’ve taken my girlfriend away for 2 nights with that trunk. The car’s a bit long to accommodate, but dammit it’s useful.

I can see the 350Z giving it trouble, though I’d take an S2000 any day. It’s a little slower in a straight line, but the trade off is it’s much quicker and more rewarding in the corners. I’m not sure how to place the Mustang, most of the world never got it.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Nauraushaun
12/09/2015 at 08:14

Yeah, that design choice in the Spyder scuppered it versus the Miata. It is, on the other hand, one of the reasons the Spyder weighs 500 lbs less than an SW20.

As for the Mustang, the 03-04 Cobra is the one known as “Terminator”, with independent rear suspension and a 400hp supercharged motor. Today they command significantly higher prices on the used market than similar condition S2000s (20-25k v. 12-15k). While they were mostly available in the US, 60% of S2000s sold were sold in the US, so it’s a relevant competitor.

The 350Z sold six times as many cars as the S2000 per year, which also equates to roughly 2.5 times as many cars as Mazda sold Miatas...so Nissan was, on average, selling as many 350Zs per year as Mazda and Honda were selling Miatas and S2000s combined. The only other entrants in the roadster market were Porsche, who was selling around 6000 Boxsters that year, and BMW, which sold 20,000 Z4s (though that number is high since 2003 was the introduction year for the Z4. Still, outsells everyone but Nissan on average).

Nauraushaun > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/14/2015 at 21:31

I never knew. I sort of assumed the Spyder was a softer, less exciting MR2 made for the masses. I had no idea it was a lightened compromised thing.

I did see one of those “terminators” the other day, in Australia no less. I didn’t think they’d command more than an S2K, in Australia our domestics depreciate like you wouldn’t believe.

I didn’t think the Z sold as well as it did either! I think that’s a common theme of the Zs. With regard to the Z32 at least, people put it down for being a little fatter and slower than competitors Supra and 3000GT, but it outsold both by a wide margin. Nissan have been pitching the Z as a bit more luxury, a bit less sports. It turns away the kids, but is tailored more for those who are actually buying and driving it. It’s perhaps the reason the Z is one of few cars to survive past the 90s/early naughties.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Nauraushaun
12/15/2015 at 08:50

Yeah, the issue with the Z now is that car that came out in 2003 and made them buckets of money for a good eight years now pales in comparison to the competition. As soon as the Mustang had over 400hp in a standard GT model and Porsche had solved the IMS issue, there really was no reason to buy a 370z. The real issue is that they don’t particularly care...the body dies are long amortized and the chassis still makes them money in the form of the Infinitis.

Nauraushaun > Aaron M - MasoFiST
12/15/2015 at 21:28

I suppose that’s great for them. But it’d be great for us , and Nissan’s image, if they made something exciting and new. The 370 can’t go on forever.