Personally, I don't think one is well placed to judge value for money unless one can afford the damn thing in the first place. For everyone, a car is like everything else. You have to balance off its costs against your other needs and expenses. We all have a limit to what we can buy and afford.

How the hell can you judge something to be good value of you can't afford it?

That's very true .... how about these two cars of better value that S2000 (value = 28):
- SL55 AMG at $359,474 (value = 38)
- E55 AMG at $219,000 (value = 42)

ps. Though, on a more positive note this is what Cameron McConville had to say abot the S2000 ... he does not care about the 'value', design/function or the actual data ... just the way the car perfroms on the track:

"Feels fast 'cause it's loud. One of the quickest throught the sweeper, steering too twitchy, not enough progression. Best engine/gearbox combo, revs forever, feels likea race 'box."

And this is what he says about Boxster S:
"Awesome, but run out of steem once it warmed up. Well balanced, a bit twitchy at the limit. Brakes are fantastic, smooth gearchange, hard to fault overall."

btw, I have no idea what that 1st sentence means.

 

They were complaining that the S2000 was cramped... And in previous PCOTY, people were divided on whether or not to put it in top 6 or to cut it...

My guess is that the S2k is either a love it or hate it affair... And if you read David Morley's article about it (toward the end of the mag) you'll see him write "the S2000's engine left me colder than a witch's tit" and "the Honda ain't fast enough" though interestingly he thinks the XR6T is faster even though its really slower!??

my conclusion on reading issue after issue on dave morley's journalise is that he favours RWD, loves Turbos, Loves Porsches, loves MID range punch and likes comfy big seats for his fat arse... so the S2k scores 1/5...

seriously, the majority of those motor journos are overweight...

 

btw, how on earth can u make that kind of statement about the F20C!?? its like the closest thing to a F1 engine on the road!

 

My guess is that the S2k is either a love it or hate it affair... And if you read David Morley's article about it (toward the end of the mag) you'll see him write "the S2000's engine left me colder than a witch's tit" and "the Honda ain't fast enough" though interestingly he thinks the XR6T is faster even though its really slower!??

Well, don't think he took into account the fact F20C is only just a 2.0L naturally aspirated engine, whereas XR6T has twice the displacement in addition to a turbo.

Come on Honda, give us a 4.0L vtec with a turbo........

 

....WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN IS LOVES CARS WHERE DRIVING ABILITY IS NOT A FACTOR

 

I was thinking about the data that they used to score the cars in PCOTY and got myself thinking - "what does 'design/function' have to do with a PCOTY?". How does it add anything if you already scored it on perfromance, dynamics, drivalility and value? So what I did is changed my spreadsheet to ignore that value. ie.

PCOTY - Perfromance + Votes + Value (each of equal weight).

where:
- Perfmormance = Perfromance data + lap times (each of equal weight. The Performance data = acceleration + top speed + braking ... again, each of equal weight).
- Votes = Dynamics + Drivability (each of equal weight)
- Value = A figure directly related to the cost of cars where the lower the cost, the higher the value.

This is the order the cars come in (and their respecive PCOTY scores):
1) Porsche BoxsterS'03 (106.58)
2) Subaru Impreza WRX Sti'03 (82.46)
3) Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo (78.71)
4) HSV GTS'03 (77.99)
5) Lotus Elise 111S (77.39)
6) Mazda6 Luxuy Sports (71.42)
7) Audi S3 (71.34)
8) Holden Monaro CV8'03 (70.17)
9) Mercedes E55 AMG (69.19)
10) Holden Commodore SV8 (61.92)
11) Chrisler Viper RT/10 (60.24)
12) HSV Mallo R8 (59.22)
13) Honda S2000 (55.49)
14) Mini Cooper S (55.05)
15) Mitsubishi Raliant Magna (53.89)
16) Mercedes SL55 AMG (53.55)
17) Alfa Romeo 156 GTA (50.31)
18) Toyota Camry Sportivo (46.11)
19) Jaguar S-Type R (42.11)
20) Ford Fairmont Ghia (v8) (37.10)
21) BMW X5 4.6is (5.14)
22) Jaguar XKR (-1.76)

This moves the S2000 to 13th, but the score Motor gave it for 'dynamics' and 'drivability' still keep it pretty low.

Interesing thing is that some cars fall in a very different spot to the way Motor ordered them. One of them being the SL55 AMG which finished 2nd for Motor, but here it is 16th! Reason is that I cannot get the SL55 AMG to be anywhere as high if I am to retain the 'value' criteria so that the 200SX beats the 911 Turbo (in 2001). Looks like they are not sticking to their own rules ... they probably just make it up as they go. Still, would be nice if they stuck to the same standards from one year to the next. 2 years ago 911 TT was not fast enough and too expensive to beat 200SX. And that is despite it having very favourable votes. Then this year they have a more expensive SL55 AMG which is slower in every respect that the 911 TT and it finishes ahead of the STi.

Also, the Elise 111S shoots up to 5th. Probably that's where it should be if it handles, accelerates and drives as well as they scored it.

... if you read David Morley's article about it (toward the end of the mag) you'll see him write "the S2000's engine left me colder than a witch's tit" and "the Honda ain't fast enough" though interestingly he thinks the XR6T is faster even though its really slower!??

I read that but I don't think your quote captured what he was talking about. He was saying that sometimes he'd rather a slower car than a faster one if the slower one feels good. His example was the XR6-T which he said was slower than all the Commodorres in the straighline as well as around the track, but he'd rather the XR6-T because of how it makes him feel and how balanced it is etc. He's saying that it's not all about the 'numbers' ... to some degree I agree with him and MX5 is a prime example - averager numbers but awesome feel, balance etc.

Then he goes a bit on a tangent and starts talking about how torque figure of an engine is the most important thing about an engine. That is what makes the car 'feel' fast while kW are just a unit of measurement (imlying they do nothing). His example of an engine with nice flat torque curve was the XR6-T again, and as a contrast was the S2000's engine about which he said that "the S2000's engine left me colder than a witch's tit". Then he says the S2000 is just as fast in the straightline as the XR6-T and over 2 secs quicker around Winton, but "the Honda ain't fast enough" . This is where he lost me .... wasn't he just saying it's not about the 'numbers' and now it's not fast enough while whoopping on the XR6-T in terms of 'fastness'?!

Guy is a bafoon and from the sound of it does not have a very good understanding of 'torque' and 'power'. 'Torque' is a stationary force and if you have torque and no kW (ie. no revs) then you will not be moving anywhere, let alone be accelerating. kW is the 'energy' that is produced and that is what moves a car (and hence accelerates it). Let's put it this way - a car with 1000Nm of torque and 0kW will not move off the line at all (ever) and hence will have no acceleration. On the other hand a car with 1Nm and 100kW will certainly move of the line and accelerate at a certain rate. It's true that you need 'torque' to have 'power' (ie. kW) and hance acceleration at low revs ... but that does not dispute the fact that a car with more 'power' (ie. kW) across the power curve will accelerate quicker.

From reading this Motor article I don't think that the guy knows that. Also anyone who thinks that Mazda 6 handles better and is more drivable than the S2000 (and to a degree Elise) needs their head examined.

 

Those are sharp observations, DavidM. I was having a go at Morely because of his hypocrisy. I paraphrased and worded my reply for the benefit of those who didn't read the article.

But I did agree with him with the rest of the article, though sometimes his rationale just confuses me. A friend of mine had his car in one of the issues (modified WRX vs S15 vs Type R) and when the DC2 cut 13s across the standing quarter, his reply was "heeyy... bad for a naturally aspirated car."

Well, don't think he took into account the fact F20C is only just a 2.0L naturally aspirated engine, whereas XR6T has twice the displacement in addition to a turbo.

Come on Honda, give us a 4.0L vtec with a turbo........

Well, i generally don't agree with honda going turbo again, though an interesting thing to point out of anyone read an interview with the president of the time (is he still the president?) when the S2000 was unveiled. He was quoted as saying:

"in my heart, i wanted the S2000 to be a naturally aspirated 2.0L V8" [insert your gasps here]

but the beancounters were saying to him that the market wouldn't appreciate the technology ($$) hence came the 5 cylinder concept SSM becoming the 4 cylinder S2K that we have all come to love.

Honda bring out the V8 2.0L!! and bring out the 3.5L V10 for the next-gen NSX while you're at it...

 

Way back when, Ferrari used to make 1.5L V12s. No doubt a 2L V8 would be really very nice, and just think how compact they could make it. The whole car could be shorter, with a shorter wheelbase. Just think how twitchy they could make the handling then

 

The current vehicles are twitchy enough if you're game to switch the traction control off!

 

I really mean't in an S2000. I didn't make myself clear with all that Ferrari talk.