S2000 Vintage Owners Knowledge, age and life experiences represent the members of the Vintage Owners

The gals say the S2000 is sexy & gota have

Thread Tools
 
Old 06-07-2005 | 08:46 PM
  #21  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Originally Posted by ralper,Jun 7 2005, 08:33 PM
The funny thing is that while I mostly like the styling of our S, some parts of it don't work perfectly. It isn't and wasn't for me the "most beautiful" design I'd ever seen.
No, I wanted it for the engine right from the start. I had a CRX SI and had been tempted to get a Del Sol, but when I first saw the concept for the convertible I knew I would wait for it.

I was thinking "SSM or SSX?" so I must have seen both designations.
Old 06-07-2005 | 08:53 PM
  #22  
dlq04's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 42,345
Likes: 5,925
From: Mish-she-gan
Default

Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Jun 7 2005, 11:46 PM
I was thinking "SSM or SSX?" so I must have seen both designations.
Both designations were widely published in mag's.

Like several of you, it was the ENGINE that hooked me and the total package (handling, gearbox, suspension, etc.) sold me.
Old 06-08-2005 | 05:01 AM
  #23  
paS2K's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 18,875
Likes: 31
From: Philly (Narberth)
Default

I like the fact that the Boxster is NOT on the list
Old 06-08-2005 | 05:12 AM
  #24  
MsPerky's Avatar
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 43,942
Likes: 3,040
From: Arlington, VA
Default

Well, I happen to agree! Four years and counting...
Old 06-08-2005 | 05:31 AM
  #25  
valentine's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 22,581
Likes: 834
From: The (S)Low Country
Default

3+ years for me and I can't stop doing this:
Old 06-08-2005 | 06:58 AM
  #26  
Chazmo's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,311
Likes: 36
From: Central Massachusetts
Default

I'm curious which parts of the styling you guys don't like...

For me, I think the front end of the car is absolutely gorgeous. The front fenders -- which start mostly vertical by the windshield and reach out to mostly horizontal by the headlights -- are works of art (IMO). What I don't like is the rear quarter panels above the wheels. Because there's no crease or vents, a side view of the car (because it's a wedge) gives an optical illusion that the wheels are smaller than the fronts.

But, really, overall I think the S is a really good-looking car. It ain't a Pininfarina design, yeah, but few look as good to me. Just my opin.
Old 06-08-2005 | 07:19 AM
  #27  
dlq04's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 42,345
Likes: 5,925
From: Mish-she-gan
Default

The front carries ALL the styling clues. Almost every ad or professional photo of the car is the front. The sides are a just a little to conservative (bland?) for me. I find both the sides and back nice to look at but I wish the sides had a little more excitement.... brake vents or something other than a plain slab. When the top is up the car's shape works well, as it gives off a 50s hot rod look - a well done one to be sure. A stunning car to me, for comparison, is the new Aston Martin. That is drop dead beautiful IMO.
Old 06-09-2005 | 11:34 AM
  #28  
anarky's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
From: Milford
Default

Originally Posted by dlq04,Jun 8 2005, 09:19 AM
...The sides are a just a little to conservative (bland?) for me. I find both the sides and back nice to look at but I wish the sides had a little more excitement.... brake vents or something other than a plain slab.
...A stunning car to me, for comparison, is the new Aston Martin. That is drop dead beautiful IMO.
I have to agree about the Aston Martin, Dave. I was close enough to one to leave "breath-prints" on her. sigh.....

I think the bare-ish look of the S2000 sides is nice. The Z4 is waaay too busy with their side styling for my tastes. Too much of that stuff can ruin classic lines and age a design too quickly. KISS. The understatement, to me, only brings out the flow of the lines more.
Old 06-09-2005 | 02:01 PM
  #29  
dlq04's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 42,345
Likes: 5,925
From: Mish-she-gan
Default

Jeff, I agree with understatement approach. I think the Z3 and Z4 are two of the ugliest sports cars made. The new Lotus is an example of extreme overkill styling that would get old quickly. However, since the S2000 lacks the advantage of roundness except around the front wheels & nose, it fails to capture the reflective qualities of cars like the new Aston. Maybe what it needs is a racing number on the side!
Old 06-09-2005 | 02:10 PM
  #30  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Originally Posted by Chazmo,Jun 8 2005, 06:58 AM
I'm curious which parts of the styling you guys don't like...
I like the original SSM-type rear styling better than the final S2000 rear. But I don't know if they changed it for cost, trunk space, aero, or what. Or if somebody just decided it looked better.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:52 PM.