Car and Driver
#2
They should have waited for the 350Z to come out in convertible and did the test with all cars being convertibles. Is the mustang offered with a hot setup in convertible form?
To put a convertible in a coupe test is an irresponsible thing to do. But it's interesting... I can't disagree with their conclusions.
I think the editor's wife just put him through a divorce or something. Quite a bit of the magazine was negative (I just read the article on the Baja a few minutes ago).
Oh well... I still love my car just as much as I did last week
To put a convertible in a coupe test is an irresponsible thing to do. But it's interesting... I can't disagree with their conclusions.
I think the editor's wife just put him through a divorce or something. Quite a bit of the magazine was negative (I just read the article on the Baja a few minutes ago).
Oh well... I still love my car just as much as I did last week
#3
Does seem like an odd comparison of cars, but bodes well for the new Z. It was predictable that the Z would be rated higher than the the others, as it's a new "reborn" model & the writers would tend to go for that, barring serious flaws. It was interesting to read how loud the S becomes with a hardtop on- does the usual music of the engine become grating in that condition?
#4
The reason the S2000 came in third is that the "features and amenities" rating was a 3 -- a very low score. If it had been even a 5, the car would have come in second. The transmission score was a perfect 10! (Obviously, these guys don't know much about 2nd gear grind...)
IMHO, the reviewers really missed it on this one. Who needs magic fingers in the seats or toe warmers? It's a sports car.
IMHO, the reviewers really missed it on this one. Who needs magic fingers in the seats or toe warmers? It's a sports car.
#5
ToyBoy you got it right, a 3 in features is B.S. Three years ago it was the S2000's no frills pure sports car that landed it all the praise in the first place. Now it gets criticized for lacking crap like navigation systems?
#6
Sure you can consider the lack of features a feature (if you want) but other cars in the price class (and now the performance class) seem to be able to provide a good deal more content for the dollar. Don't forget, we undoubtedly have the crappiest radio in any $30k car. A better stereo wouldn't have to be any heavier, now would it.
The car got rated where it belonged: high in performance, low in features. I don't miss anything (that I can't add like better sounds) but it's a little silly to keep your head in the sand about things like the radio, one speed intermittents, and through the steering wheel pushbuttons -- to name a few.
Honda could have remedied these problems at no performance penalty but didn't because there was so little performance competition. They chose to engineer for the xtra buck of profit. Now that even a Neon has comparable acceleration, this omission will mean they'll get handed their hat in the marketplace.
The car got rated where it belonged: high in performance, low in features. I don't miss anything (that I can't add like better sounds) but it's a little silly to keep your head in the sand about things like the radio, one speed intermittents, and through the steering wheel pushbuttons -- to name a few.
Honda could have remedied these problems at no performance penalty but didn't because there was so little performance competition. They chose to engineer for the xtra buck of profit. Now that even a Neon has comparable acceleration, this omission will mean they'll get handed their hat in the marketplace.
Trending Topics
#10
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jschmidt
[B]Sure you can consider the lack of features a feature (if you want) but other cars in the price class (and now the performance class) seem to be able to provide a good deal more content for the dollar. Don't forget, we undoubtedly have the crappiest radio in any $30k car. A better stereo wouldn't have to be any heavier, now would it.
The car got rated where it belonged: high in performance, low in features. I don't miss anything (that I can't add like better sounds) but it's a little silly to keep your head in the sand about things like the radio, one speed intermittents, and through the steering wheel pushbuttons -- to name a few.
[B]Sure you can consider the lack of features a feature (if you want) but other cars in the price class (and now the performance class) seem to be able to provide a good deal more content for the dollar. Don't forget, we undoubtedly have the crappiest radio in any $30k car. A better stereo wouldn't have to be any heavier, now would it.
The car got rated where it belonged: high in performance, low in features. I don't miss anything (that I can't add like better sounds) but it's a little silly to keep your head in the sand about things like the radio, one speed intermittents, and through the steering wheel pushbuttons -- to name a few.