If the S2000 never existed
08-09-2011, 08:01 PM
#16
Probably an RX-8 or 350Z/370Z, initially.
08-09-2011, 08:32 PM
#18
Probably would've bought a 350Z. Not saying the Z was inferior, but back when I was shopping, the S was just a much more compelling value since it had 3 years on the Z and the Zs early on had their share of problems. Either that or I'd still have my Si which in retrospect I should've never traded in, took a bath on it and it would've served me for many many many years freeing my choices on cars a bit more (like I always wanted to do an older car like a muscle car or a 240z kinda thing). Who knows.
Also, going to what someone said earlier, the NSX imo didn't make that much of an impact on supercars, when it came out it wasn't that much faster than its competitors, it was more than its competitors weren't super reliable (still not) or refined (competition brought this up). Performane wise, I don't think Ferrari or Lambo was ever shaking in their boots about the NSX, now porsches, corvettes, GTRs, etc on the other hand...
And yes, the s2000 was dominant in its debut, but to say it was the reason the other makes stepped up their game is just short sighted, how many improvements have the other makes made since that first wave of improvements after the s2000 debut, and continued to make since the s2000 was axed? The s2000 came in at just the right time as none of those cars just debuted in 2000. Sorta like the nsx with its competitors. The s2000 and nsx, while significant to Honda, weren't significant to the automotive history in the way that the mustang was, or the miura, or the ford deuce, or the chrysler minivan, or the toyota camry, etc etc, the s2000 was just a well executed 2 seat roadster. You could say the 9000 rpms redline pushed the envelope, but again, the competitors didnt rush to outrev it, hell even honda lowered it. Other than that, what do you have? a 240hp, rwd roadster, with very little in the way of creature comforts, and yet gets outhandled by fwd sedan stablemates.
Also, going to what someone said earlier, the NSX imo didn't make that much of an impact on supercars, when it came out it wasn't that much faster than its competitors, it was more than its competitors weren't super reliable (still not) or refined (competition brought this up). Performane wise, I don't think Ferrari or Lambo was ever shaking in their boots about the NSX, now porsches, corvettes, GTRs, etc on the other hand...
And yes, the s2000 was dominant in its debut, but to say it was the reason the other makes stepped up their game is just short sighted, how many improvements have the other makes made since that first wave of improvements after the s2000 debut, and continued to make since the s2000 was axed? The s2000 came in at just the right time as none of those cars just debuted in 2000. Sorta like the nsx with its competitors. The s2000 and nsx, while significant to Honda, weren't significant to the automotive history in the way that the mustang was, or the miura, or the ford deuce, or the chrysler minivan, or the toyota camry, etc etc, the s2000 was just a well executed 2 seat roadster. You could say the 9000 rpms redline pushed the envelope, but again, the competitors didnt rush to outrev it, hell even honda lowered it. Other than that, what do you have? a 240hp, rwd roadster, with very little in the way of creature comforts, and yet gets outhandled by fwd sedan stablemates.
