So the new NSX (that isn't happening) was supposed to have a V10...

[Xsjado]

thats true they blame this crisis on halting the s2000 model.
if they can't sell a car with a small engine theres no chance to sell a v10.
can only hope a new s2000 is in the works.
it's one of the very few cars that i actually like the electronic stability of.

miata's (mx-5) aren't cheap if you buy one new.
my vote is the ft86 I'm set on it if only they can keep it around the goal of around 20,000. I estimate it to be around 40,000 fully loaded.

it's a shame honda can make good rwd cars.

[deevergote]

RWD doesn't appeal to the masses. It's best left to sports cars and high end luxury cars (both of which are leaning towards AWD... at least Honda can still compete there!)

The Miata/MX-5 (that name failed miserably in the US... ) is relatively cheap in base form, certainly in comparison to anything else on the market.

The FT86 will be interesting... I'm curious about that myself.


If Honda wanted to enter the realm of 6 figure sports cars, the V10 would certainly be a viable option. However, it wouldn't be much use. They wouldn't sell enough to justify production or advertising. They don't have to show off how immensely powerful they are as a company like Toyota is doing (especially since the LFA is a Lexus, and Toyota is just now branching out worldwide with the Lexus brand...), and they don't have the "tough" reputation that Nissan has, which justifies the obscene GT-R.

Honda would do very well to make a replacement for the S2000 AND the NSX when the economy is ready to support such vehicles again. The NSX replacement being a hybrid... slightly less powerful than the competition, but something innovative, that handles like a dream... THAT would be true to their reputation.

Honestly, as much as I hate to suggest it... and as much as it might be doomed to failure... I feel Honda should make a true competitor to the MX-5.
The S2000 was like an MX-5 on steroids. It was Honda saying "yeah, we can make a roadster too, remember? But we can make 240hp with a 2.0L engine! Try doing THAT, Mazda!" (Mazda's turbocharged MX-5 barely made 200hp, if I recall correctly... )
However, it was priced too high to be anything but a rich-boy's toy, or a midlife-crisis-mobile. It was priced beyond that of an MX-5 competitor.

I'd be happy if the next S roadster had a RWD version of the CR-Z's drivetrain. I'd also love it if they did something whacky and made a version similar to BMW's "M Coupe" (the coupe version of the Z3... the Z3 being, oddly enough, an intentional attempt for BMW to compete with the MX-5!)

[owequitit]

I never said the CR-Z wasn't sporty or capable (even though I dominated one with my Fit on bald tires... ) It's just not a "sports car". The Civic never was either, nor the CRX, or the Integra. They were economy cars. Sporty, simple, relaible... economy cars. People carriers.

Remember, the S2000 traces it's routes back to Honda's FIRST non-motorcycle vehicle... the S500. Honda's automotive roots lie in sports cars, not econoboxes. The S500/S600/S800 had already run their course 3 years before the Civic was introduced.

The S2000 and NSX are the only TRUE Honda sports cars produced in the past 40 years. They are not economy cars. They are not people carriers. They are not grocery getters. They are impractical machines, good only for driving enjoyment and looking cool... which are the ONLY functions of a sports car!


You're right, Scott... all of the world's sports cars are struggling a good deal. Right now, the best sports car on the market for this economy is the Mazda Miata. It's inexpensive, and gives exactly what is promised.

Your assertions are mostly incorrect, especially in the context of total Honda history.

1) "Spots car" is not synonymous with "sporty car." A car does not have to be a sports car to be "fun," and in some cases, the "sporty cars" are actually more fun because they provide 90% of the thrills with several magnitudes the utility. That said, the S500/S600/S800 never sold in the states, and thus has ZERO to do with Honda's enthusiast reputation in this country. Honda's entire enthusiast identity in this country is predicated and founded on the "sporty" cars I mentioned. The only S cars in this country were imported, registered and grandfathered.

2) While the S series was Honda's first CAR, it was not their first production automobile. A subtle but important distinction. Their first "automobile" was a truck. Ironic, no?

Historically, Honda's main purpose was to provide reliable and affordable transportation to the masses with high value content. Like I said, the NSX and S2K were great cars, but they are not the roots of Honda.

[deevergote]

Of course my assertions seem incorrect when you read them entirely wrong... or when I was hasty in my research.

1) I am speaking of sports cars, not sporty cars. The entire point of what I said was to make that distinction. I do not disagree that many of Honda's cars are "sporty"... but none are sports cars. Furthermore, I'm speaking worldwide, not just about the US.

2) You are correct. The T360 came before the S500. 4 months earlier. Essentially based on the same platform. My mistake.
Regardless, Honda's first "car" was a sports car. A roadster. Not an econobox.



Yes, as I said in my previous posts (the ones that you're clearly choosing to ignore in this argument, because they support exactly what you are saying)... Honda's reputation has been built largely on their efficient, affordable, reliable vehicles.
They do not "need" a sports car in the lineup, and there is no use for having one.
However, Honda's history does not dictate that a true sports car is in any way a deviation from Honda's roots.

If you want to go with the evolution of Honda's roots... their original, from the beginning roots... you could look at 3 vehicles that are (or were recently) on the market:
The Goldwing motorcycle (chosen because it is considered the top of the line of Honda motorcycles, and currently the highest priced)
The S2000
The Ridgeline

Though I do not disagree that Honda's current position was built upon the Civic, and later the Accord.

[owequitit]

Of course my assertions seem incorrect when you read them entirely wrong... or when I was hasty in my research.

1) I am speaking of sports cars, not sporty cars. The entire point of what I said was to make that distinction. I do not disagree that many of Honda's cars are "sporty"... but none are sports cars. Furthermore, I'm speaking worldwide, not just about the US.

2) You are correct. The T360 came before the S500. 4 months earlier. Essentially based on the same platform. My mistake.
Regardless, Honda's first "car" was a sports car. A roadster. Not an econobox.



Yes, as I said in my previous posts (the ones that you're clearly choosing to ignore in this argument, because they support exactly what you are saying)... Honda's reputation has been built largely on their efficient, affordable, reliable vehicles.
They do not "need" a sports car in the lineup, and there is no use for having one.
However, Honda's history does not dictate that a true sports car is in any way a deviation from Honda's roots.

If you want to go with the evolution of Honda's roots... their original, from the beginning roots... you could look at 3 vehicles that are (or were recently) on the market:
The Goldwing motorcycle (chosen because it is considered the top of the line of Honda motorcycles, and currently the highest priced)
The S2000
The Ridgeline

Though I do not disagree that Honda's current position was built upon the Civic, and later the Accord.

No, I am not ignoring them, I am simply not refuting the whole thing. I am posting my position. Some of it agrees, some of it does not.

When they have built several thousand total sports cars, (including S2K, NSX and original S production, you are looking at a fraction of 1 year of Civic sales) compared to well over 20 million "regular cars," I would argue that sports car are indeed not their roots. Some trees have flowers, but that doesn't mean the flower is the most important part of the tree (creation purposes aside, since sports cars don't recreate themselves). I am not, and have never said that Honda CAN'T do sports cars, or shouldn't do sports cars, merely that Honda doesn't necessarily suck because they didn't have them.

Yet another case in point. The S series (original version) was cancelled to provide resources to produce the CVCC. Honda would not have another sports car until 1991, which was just under 20 years later. The problem with this history is that this is also the period that Honda was most successful in terms of growth.

And if you REALLY want to be technical, Honda Motor Company's roots are actually in small, efficient, mass produced motorcycles, and engine powered bicycles. Their original intent in post war Japan was to make cheap transportation for tons of people. Sporting never entered the equation, but "fun to drive" did. As we all know with our CB7's, "sports" and "fun to drive" are not necessarily synonymous in the Honda idiom. More than anything, I am arguing against this mythical ideology that in order to be fun a car must be a "sports" car, and that Honda has always had a sports car. I am vehemently speaking out about it because of people who post an EPA sticker on the internet and then make claims about a car they have never driven. Especially when people like that seem lament the "good old days" of Honda, even though the CR-Z very closely represents the REAL "good old days" of Honda. It is a Honda through and through, and while I feel it is a bit underpowered currently, it is certainly no shit box of a car. No, it isn't an S2K or NSX, nor was it intended to be.

[gloryaccordy]

Honda's roots are and should be of little consequence with regards to what cars they build today. Some of Honda's branching outs have resulted in some of the greatest cars of all time.

Plus even w/or w/o Honda's roots, they've always made cars that have made sense- until recently. Cars like the ZDX and the CR-Z just seem to defy logic. ZDX combines the utility of a 2+2 coupe with the size + height + fuel economy of an SUV. CR-Z, with IMA, 2 less seats, and more gear ratios in MT/AT trims barely outdoes the Fit fuel economy wise, which has significantly more utility & not much less in performance. The Fit is way closer to Honda's "roots" than the CR-Z

[owequitit]

Honda's roots are and should be of little consequence with regards to what cars they build today. Some of Honda's branching outs have resulted in some of the greatest cars of all time.

Plus even w/or w/o Honda's roots, they've always made cars that have made sense- until recently. Cars like the ZDX and the CR-Z just seem to defy logic. ZDX combines the utility of a 2+2 coupe with the size + height + fuel economy of an SUV. CR-Z, with IMA, 2 less seats, and more gear ratios in MT/AT trims barely outdoes the Fit fuel economy wise, which has significantly more utility & not much less in performance. The Fit is way closer to Honda's "roots" than the CR-Z

1) Forgetting your roots as a business is the number one way to go under. There is a difference between adapting and uprooting your company.

2) To a degree I agree with the ZDX. However, that is in direct defiance to the FACT that the ZDX exists because at that time, it was all about excessive luxury, and people wanted Honda to uproot Acura's roots as a Honda + brand in favor of big engines, RWD, dedicated platforms. Etc. The fact that the entire market fell out of that segment (even the stalwarts are hurting), is less than secondary to the point.

3)How does the CR-Z not make any sense? It gets absolutely phenomonal MPG (better than the Fit in the REAL WORLD), and handles extremely well. It is small, easy to maneuver, looks good in person, has GREAT feature content for the price, and is the best built Honda in recent memory. Of course, I suppose the CRX was a total waste too wasn't it? EPA is bunk. Get over it. Like I said, I had ZERO trouble topping Deev's averages(last I saw he claimed about 40MPG, and IIRC a lot of highway), in a car that had less than 50 miles, with 2 people, in traffic, in sport mode. Of course, the power delivery of the CR-Z is much more useable in town, due to the huge increase in torque.

In terms of quality, it really isn't a contest compared to the Fit. The Fit is a great car, but in some ways it is nowhere near the essence of Honda. It is great from a packaging standpoint, but the CR-Z is equally along Honda's roots. Why? Because the powertrain is unique in a car that is actually FUN to drive (not saying the Fit isn't, but let's face it, most other hybrids are decidedly not). It does not ride, handle or drive like a hybrid, and yet it is returning the MPG of one, EPA be damned. It rides, drives, and feels like a CRX. The fact is that the CR-Z is starting to represent the way foward for cars. Back in the 1970's, Honda said they could make a compact, 1.2-1.3L FWD econobox fun to drive. The industry laughed. Who wanted a tiny little Civic with a CVCC engine?

The point is that spec sheets (of which you are so fond, well that and computer spreadsheets) does not do the actual car justice. It is not the fastest car you will encounter, nor does it have the soul of a DOHC VTEC engine, but it legitimately makes you have fun driving. It feels right, it drives right, and it is built right. Spec sheets don't cover that stuff. Also, if you look at it historically, many Hondas didn't significantly outperform their rivals on a spec sheet, and yet, there was certainly a reason to own one...

Honda pushes the boundaries on powertrain technology, and like it or not, while IMA has been around awhile, it HAS been improved, and it IS a new concept in a vehicle like this. Look for more hybrid and electric advancement from Honda in the not so near future as well. I am still curious to see if their KERS technology goes anywhere. In all of those ways, the CR-Z is arguably closer than the Fit. But like I said, you clearly haven't driven one, so I don't expect you to understand. If I lived in an urban area, or an area of ridiculous gas prices, the Si would probably be gone in favor of a CR-Z. It would be even better if they release the turbocharged version floating around.

[deevergote]

Ok, I'm locking this, as it's beginning to annoy me. The whole purpose was simply to say "hey, wouldn't it be kinda cool if Honda's 'never going to be sold' V10 actually made it to the market and could be a coo headswap for the oddball G series?"

I think we had about 3 posts that were actually about that, and then it went far beyond the scope of the thread. Done.