I don't see what's wrong with the review. Every publication leans toward a certain perspective (i.e. performance, luxury, etc.) and evaluates cars based on different criteria. I can easily understand why a non-performance oriented magazine would rate the S2000 low. After all, it is a small roadster with a simple interior, stiff suspension, and loud engine. It seems to me that Smart Money magazine is taking the perspective of someone who is not a driving enthusiast, and primarily sees cars as a means of transportation. These people are the majority of car buyers, and they value things like comfort and quiet over performance.

On the flip side of the coin, us S2000 owners are probably accustomed to reading performance-oriented reviews, which tend to rate the S2000 favorably. Those same performance-oriented reviewers will crap on cars like the Accord, Camry, Civic, TL, etc., all day. That doesn't mean too much, because we all know those cars aren't made to be performance cars; likewise, we know that the S2000 is made for performance and isn't intended to appeal to the masses. It's all a matter of perspective.

Relative to the other 4 cars that were rated above the S2000 by Smart Money, I would agree that the S2000 is relatively cramped and has a relatively stiff suspension. That shows what criteria they used. As for exterior styling, that's 100% subjective, and will vary with every reviewer. I've never understood why they even bother including something so completely subjective as styling into car reviews.

Btw, I drive my S2000 an average of 100 miles a day, and often take it on 400-600 mile road trips, and have no major complaints. So, I don't necessarily personally concur will the Smart Money review, but I can see where they're coming from.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cyber_x
[B]...It seems to me that Smart Money magazine is taking the perspective of someone who is not a driving enthusiast, and primarily sees cars as a means of transportation...

 

Personally, I am suprised the S made it to on the list. The way I see it, they are right about the testing they did on it. The Interior on the S does not compare with any of those cars mentioned as it shouldn't because it is the lowest priced one in the group. They all have lotts more features and creature comforts, and they have all gone through a "facelift" since the S.

 

two words, sports car. s2k is a SPORT CAR not a damn luxury 2 seater convertable.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w1ngman
[B]

Fair enough...and all of your points are valid.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w1ngman
[B]

Fair enough...and all of your points are valid.

 

so some 70 year old snotty guy thinks the car is too rough and small for his fat ass - who cares

 

How did the TT come in first?

A few months after getting my S2000, I looked at the TT. When I went to the dealership, the salesman approached me and told me I had a nice Honda and asked a few questions about it. He then asked how he could help me. I threw around the idea of trading in my S2000 for a TT(wasn't really going to do it, but wanted to see what he would say). Well, his response shocked me because he's supposed to be selling this car. He laughed in my face and said the TT doesn't even come close the being as good as the S2000. He also mentioned(not in these words) that I'd be an idiot if I traded in my S for a TT. The TT vs. S2K debate has been mentioned many times before, and Jenner put it best. He said, I own a S2000 and a TT, look at which one is for sale(his TT).

BTW, the guy who drove probably drives some boat of a car everyday and doesn't appreciate cars. Heck, the G35 should've gone higher than it did.

 

Just got back from the dealer. I'm now the proud owner of an Audi TT coupe Quattro. The mag was right. The S sucks. I'm glad to be rid of it. Unfortunately, they only gave me 12k for my S but no biggy. I'm just glad to be in a real sports car now. Thank god I won't have the sun beating down on me every day too!! I was really getting tired of that.

 

Strike three you're out!