RedRover

In thinking about this issue of differing magazine coverage I would like to contribute a few points for discussion. I must say at the outset that these points are strictly my theories and may possibly be quite off the mark and/or just plain wrong.

The first point is that in Japan it has long been the custom for motor vehicle manufacturers to reward journalists who publish favourable articles about their cars. These rewards have not been confined to just cash but have also extended to travel, accommodation and other luxuries. In Japan, Honda and Mazda are great rivals and both seek every opportunity to gain favourable comparison against the other.

I would hope that such corruption has not found its way to Australia but I can't help but recall the case of one prominent Australian journalist who was a strong advocate of Honda cars in the 1970's. Then sometime in the 1980's he took a few trips to the Mazda factory in Japan and suddenly became a great Mazda fan, praising all their cars and pouring scorn on anything Honda. This one-sided approach lasted well into the 1990's but now that he's in semi-retirement he's become much more even-handed again.

Naturally, the Australian defamation laws mean that I can't identify this individual but for those of you who may have seen him on TV you may have thought that the size of his belly is a good indication that he enjoys his tucker.

My second point is the rivalry within the Australian motor magazine market. In 1999 the big state motoring organisations, NRMA, RACQ & RACV decided to start their Car of the Year awards and nominated cars from several categories, including sports cars. The traditional magazines such as Wheels & Motor were alarmed at this development. The NRMA & RACV magazines have circulations that are counted in the millions whereas Wheels & Motor would be lucky to circulate 20,000 - 30,000.

Similarly, the NRMA & RACV have extensive engineering facilities and they employ qualified mechanical engineers whereas Wheels & Motor only have low paid journalists with no particular qualifications. It is obvious that Wheels & Motor felt threatened and/or miffed at the traditional motoring organisations entering "their" territory and embarked on a number of retaliatory strategies. This included a number of published derogatory remarks about the "Mum & Dad" nature of the NRMA & RACV magazines and extended to a number of comparison articles about cars that won the NRMA/RACV categories. Naturally, the NRMA/RACV winner copped quite a hiding in these articles.

By an unfortunate coincidence of timing the Honda S2000 was released in September 1999 and won the first NRMA/RACV sports car award in October 1999. The chief tester of the NRMA, Bill McKinnon, said in an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18/10/99 ......

"If the S2000 doesn't win every car award this year, the judges should pack up and go home."

and

"Only badge victims would ignore the $69500 Japanese car and pay $88,100 for a Benz SLK or $109,000 for a 2.4 Porsche Boxter"

I believe these comments would have stung the people at Wheels & Motor. When the S2000 again won the NRMA/RACV 2000 awards I suspect that Wheels & Motor decided to show that they were better judges than NRMA/RACV.

My third discussion point is the nature of the S2000 itself. It is a rear wheel drive car that is not quite so forgiving of driver mistakes. It will handle well when driven correctly but will spin if driven in a ham-fisted way. Also, a number of expert drivers have commented that the S2000 is very sensitive to tyre pressure. Without wishing to re-ignite the up/down tyre pressure debate I would claim that the S2000 handles noticeably better when the correct pressures are used.

What I'm suggesting here is that the journalists who have given poor reviews to the S2000 may not have had the most suitable driving technique for rear wheel drive and/or may not have had the right tyre pressures for the circumstances.

In the 2000 Motor PCOTY what Cameron McConville said was ... "The car was a little bit nervous but it's probably the windiest its been today, and I think that knocked a lot of top speed off......"

The other journalists said.... "But we remain unconvinced by the rear-end which has a bit of a mind of its own. Dunno what's going on there."

and

"........ the tail, while secure, squats, rolls and falls over itself on long sweepers and FEELS JUST A BIT SOFT......"

To me this sounds exactly like the way the S2000 handles when the tyre pressures are wrong.

The fourth point is the difference between the American & English reviews. The high-revving S2000 would have been a breath of fresh air for the Americans. I've watched the testing methods of the British magazine "Top Gear" on Foxtel. What they do is go belting down the middle of an airstrip and then suddenly give the steering wheel an almighty yank.

If the car continues straight ahead they say "This car understeers" but if the car spins they say "This car oversteers". I have grave doubts about the suitability of this stunt as a valid testing technique.

So, these are my points/theories (raised to provoke a discussion) and I look forward to seeing them supported or shot down in flames.

naishou

If it weren't for the "long sweepers" bit I'd agree. It's in tight corners that I think it's got the most problems, and over bumps especially. I'm not a fan of the rear suspension design/tune on this car. Pity, because the front is excellent.

DavidM

Another point -

- In US most of the tests involve 'tracking' the car while here it's pretty race (and same in the UK). 'Tracking' the car 'hides' S2000 low-end power. Also, on a racetrack the S2000 handles a lot better then on the road. On a race track the S2000 handles like a dream (very few flaws) while on the road the S2000 gets a bit more upset (ie. what Naishou mentions).

Here they only take the cars on track in events like PCOTY and BFYB ... which should still imply that they should 'love' it ... right :-)

Still does not explain how they maneged such slow times and honeslty I find the S2000's road manor pretty good. Not as good as some other cars but still plenty good enough.

ps. locally when they test cars they generally improve the 'times' with each test. So cars that get tested a fair bit will get very good times (sooner or later) while cars rarelly tested have a bad shot at a good time.

Bernie

This has turned into quite an interesting post.

I've had a few performance cars in the past so I have the luxury of being able to make some observations from that position.

What exactly makes a premier performance car? I think there would be factors we all agree on but there are also ones we may not. Is forgiveness one? Predictability? Ease of extracting performance?

The S2000 is not an easy vehicle to extract maximum performance from. It is not a forgiving vehicle on the careless or incompetent. It is also not a particularly quick vehicle on a comparative basis. That said, I've also found it to be one of the most enjoyable vehicles I have ever owned. It is fun, it is a challenge to exact that extra little bit of performance from and quite frankly, I love that little bit of unpredicability. Driven with some common sense, you are unlikely to ever lose the car.

Every car will ultimately lose it if the driver is a moron.

Of all the cars I've driven, the most predictable, the easiest handling, most forgiving is the Nissan GTR. In its R34 guise, it is a standard bearer. I've never owned an R34 but my R32 remains the most powerful and fastest car I've owned (it was modified). I had a 993 after this and it was not comparable. Could it be as quick? Possibly, in the right circumstances (not in a straight line) but it never felt as sure or predictable. That said, the GTR was a little boring (to me) as it was just too easy to drive.

I don't think I ever warmed to the 993. I lost it badly soon after getting it through a corner that the Nissan would have eaten. My fault but I never really trusted the vehicle after that. My brother still has one and he can get incredible performance out of it. That said, it is still a far more challenging car to extract 100% out of than the GTR.

I don't ever remember either so-called premier car magazine come out and criticise the 993 on its handling. Don't get me wrong, it was a great car but near the limit, it was bloody unpredictable but it was a hell of a lot better than previous generations of the 911. They were brutes. I could apply the same to any of the Ferraris prior to the era of traction control. Ever see a magazine come and criticise those? Even when the NSX was released and became the standard in the early 90s, I clearly remember one of our esteemed magazines making the statement that it had no soul. That was the only justification for why the European marques were better.

Look, for the past three decades, the English car magazines have continued to insist that the Jaguars were a better car than the BMW or MB.

I regard the writers in car magazines the same way I regard those in wine magazines. They have an opinion (of questionable integrity at times IMHO) but my own opinion is more important. My real pet hate is how Motor (I think) has this test whereby the drivers rate the cars as value for money. None of those guys can afford the cars, they have no concept of how hard one works to be able to afford one of those and yet they believe they are in a position to offer an opinion on value on cars up to $1/4 million.

Trust your own judgment. You people drive a sports car most days. These writers get to drive them for a morning or afternoon before they return to their EK Holdens or whatever it is they drive.

.....and after all these years, I still don't understand the fuss over the MX-5.

2kturkey

I remember, about 5 years ago, reading a copy of a British car mag that specialised in older collectible vehicles - it was called Classic Cars or something similar. They compared the mid 1960s vintage 6 cylinder E-type to the equivalent year Corvette. They ended up insisting that the Corvette was a much better sports car.

That totally blew my mind!

Bernie

I'm lost for words..

goul

Well said Bernie i cannot say anything more other than my S2000 handles better and runs better than my Mighty Boy
I for one have worked and continue to work my ass of to buy and maintain and repay the s2000, and i seriously dont care what some magazine says about the car, the bottom line is the car as a whole package is great, from its great performance and handling capabilities write thru to its looks, it makes me do this every time i get in

Bernie

I still reckon that if we put some work into the Mighty Boy that it could be competition. That said, do you really have a Mighty Boy? If so, why? They are about the smallest car around with the exception of those poxy little things by MB (the Smart)

As I wrote, I enjoy the S2000 as much as any car I've had. Glad to see you're the same. It is a lot easier on my finances and I think that is a lot fo the reason why I like it so much!

goul

Bernie i seriously do have a Mighty Boy, its my run around car, i take it when i dont want to take the s2000 somewhere, like the gym etc. Its a funny car, people are always laughing at it.
Come to think of it i might take it on the next club drive

Cheers

Bernie

The S2000 necessitates another vehicle so I think most of us have at least a vehicle with some practicality. I'm not sure the Mighty Boy is much more practical than the S2000! I remember these when they were released - I think 1986 and there were a few around with sports wheels and spotlights on them!