Topic: Honda mulls new S2000, BMW i8 to go topless, and Mazda takes aim at Outback

[Autos_Editor]

BMW, Mazda, Honda rumours get a shot in the S2000
Read More...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

[SKYMTL]

lower, sporty SUV, close to a wagon

Shhhh!  Don't say its a pure wagon or you'll be lynched. 

A lower, sporty SUV is a wagon for crying out loud.  Any lower than that diminutive CX-3 (which has a lower ride height than the Outback already) and its a what? 

The problem is that if they want to challenge the Outback here in North America, they'll need to one-up the internal sizes and capacity of the CX-5 rather than target whatever imaginary niche they perceive between the CX-5 and CX-3.

[Noto]

Yup, the Mazda idea is stupid.  Very stupid.  The Outback is loved for its ease of use.  Making the Mazda similar to the X4 (slant-back design) would limit its effectiveness on a platform that's already mulled as "too small" for many (i.e. the CX-5 compared to, say, the Santa Fe).  Add in the lack of people's knowledge of Mazda's AWD system prowess and I think Mazda is barking up the wrong tree.  The Outback is the anti-stylish, go-anywhere, easy-to-live-with option.  A CX-4 would not offer any benefits that Outback buyers enjoy.

Just because Mazda and Subaru both have 2.5L NA 4-bangers does not make them direct competitors!!

I saw an i8 yesterday on my way home from work.  Still a disappointment, IMO.  Futuristic, for sure, but not ageing well (also IMO).  Performance still remains middling comparatively (looking at the MT tests...).

The S2000 has a TON of potential, but I think Honda beancounters will ruin it.  I can understand why the Kei car that Honda just unleashed on Japan won't be offered here (due to crashtesting regulations), and I'm sure building SOMETHING on the NSX platform would be in the cards (the "baby NSX" we've all been waiting for).

However, if Honda goes back to the drawing board, makes a MX-5/BR-Z competitor that is F/R, lightweight, and >200hp (and popular with the tuning crowd), it'll be a huge hit.

Target the Fiat 124 on the other hand, and I agree...pricing will be an issue.

This thing has to be in the $26,000-35,000 range.  Top $40k and it's no longer reasonable.

[PJ]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines. 

[JohnnyMac]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines.

The problem isn't finding the right engines, it's finding the right platform to put all that on.  They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive and that Kei car over in Asia won't cut the mustard either.  It's expensive to build a new platform on your own and might only be used for one car.  Too bad Acura doesn't make any compact RWD vehicles.

[Weels]

However, if Honda goes back to the drawing board, makes a MX-5/BR-Z competitor that is F/R, lightweight, and >200hp (and popular with the tuning crowd), it'll be a huge hit.

Target the Fiat 124 on the other hand, and I agree...pricing will be an issue.

This thing has to be in the $26,000-35,000 range.  Top $40k and it's no longer reasonable.

Don't think $40K is unreasonable - the MX-5 GT is 39K, ask me how i know.. 
If there was a new S2000 that could be had in the 40-45K range that offered significantly more power (and be significantly quicker than the 'old' S2000) i wouldn't balk at spending the extra few K's

[PJ]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines.

The problem isn't finding the right engines, it's finding the right platform to put all that on.  They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive and that Kei car over in Asia won't cut the mustard either.  It's expensive to build a new platform on your own and might only be used for one car.  Too bad Acura doesn't make any compact RWD vehicles.

That's the problem with building the car at all.  I was referring to if they do build it they should build both a main stream version priced at the Mazda and a high powered version in the tradition of the original. 

RE: platforms, if little Mazda can do it then Honda should have no problem. 

[dkaz]

The Mazda concept seems more like a Venza competitor.

[Solstice2006]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines.

The problem isn't finding the right engines, it's finding the right platform to put all that on.  They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive and that Kei car over in Asia won't cut the mustard either.  It's expensive to build a new platform on your own and might only be used for one car.  Too bad Acura doesn't make any compact RWD vehicles.

That's the problem with building the car at all.  I was referring to if they do build it they should build both a main stream version priced at the Mazda and a high powered version in the tradition of the original. 

RE: platforms, if little Mazda can do it then Honda should have no problem.

But the plant that made the platform for the S2000, probably isn't tooled to do that anymore.  Where the plant the does the MX-5 hasn't stopped building the MX-5. 

[Noto]

They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive

Swap out materials and is it really too expensive?  Aluminium/Steel in place of carbon fibre...sure, it'd be heavier than the NSX, but without a V6 and all the hybrid components, surely it'd be less expensive?

Don't think $40K is unreasonable - the MX-5 GT is 39K, ask me how i know.. 
If there was a new S2000 that could be had in the 40-45K range that offered significantly more power (and be significantly quicker than the 'old' S2000) i wouldn't balk at spending the extra few K's

The number of folk like you that can afford this car and can live with a 2-seater sports car is small.  Honda really needs to go after the young money/tuner crowd (20-35 years old, single/no children).  I think Johnny's idea of a dual-purpose Honda/Acura is a great idea, actually.  Honda = $26-35k; Acura = $38-50k.  Both would undercut the Z4 by a massive margin.

But I think it is the Z4 that is the problem here.  For $52k, you're getting a 240+hp 2.0T, power hardtop, etc.  It's hard to beat that 'deal'.  A soft-top S2000 with a 1.5T could not come anywhere close to $50k if there's any chance of it selling.  With a 300hp hi-po 2.0T...well...I think it'd be a different story.

The FR-S/BR-Z have a great chassis.  The tranny is 'aiight'.  The MX-5 is low-powered 'perfection'.  The S2000 has to focus squarely on the Miata, but make sufficient changes to be more powerful (not 20hp...but 50+) and maintain the dynamic perfection for similar money in order to be successful (IMO).

[Weels]

The number of folk like you that can afford this car and can live with a 2-seater sports car is small.

There's a world outside of me?   

[PJ]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines.

The problem isn't finding the right engines, it's finding the right platform to put all that on.  They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive and that Kei car over in Asia won't cut the mustard either.  It's expensive to build a new platform on your own and might only be used for one car.  Too bad Acura doesn't make any compact RWD vehicles.

That's the problem with building the car at all.  I was referring to if they do build it they should build both a main stream version priced at the Mazda and a high powered version in the tradition of the original. 

RE: platforms, if little Mazda can do it then Honda should have no problem.

But the plant that made the platform for the S2000, probably isn't tooled to do that anymore.  Where the plant the does the MX-5 hasn't stopped building the MX-5.

Lol.  Even if it was I doubt they would use any of the old tooling in making the new version.  They would start a new line.  If they say it's too expensive to do so they are looking for an excuse not to build it. 

[OliverD]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

The price in the US was fine, but the Canadian model was literally 50% more expensive which really limited its appeal here.

[OliverD]

Yup, the Mazda idea is stupid.  Very stupid.  The Outback is loved for its ease of use.  Making the Mazda similar to the X4 (slant-back design) would limit its effectiveness on a platform that's already mulled as "too small" for many (i.e. the CX-5 compared to, say, the Santa Fe).  Add in the lack of people's knowledge of Mazda's AWD system prowess and I think Mazda is barking up the wrong tree.  The Outback is the anti-stylish, go-anywhere, easy-to-live-with option.  A CX-4 would not offer any benefits that Outback buyers enjoy.

I think you're jumping to conclusions. The Mazda concept's roofline is nowhere near as aggressive as the X4's:





In fact I'd argue that the Mazda is closer to the Outback than the BMW:

[JohnnyMac]

The biggest issue with the S2000 was it's price. It ended up limiting its sales over its entire run to about what the Corvette sells in a single year.

An MX-5 competitor is a great idea, a Z4 competitor, not so much.

I think Honda should do both.  A 1.5 turbo version to compete with the MX-5 and a high powered  version for the status,  endless magazine raves and those who can afford it. 


They already have both engines.

The problem isn't finding the right engines, it's finding the right platform to put all that on.  They can't use the NSX because it'll be too expensive and that Kei car over in Asia won't cut the mustard either.  It's expensive to build a new platform on your own and might only be used for one car.  Too bad Acura doesn't make any compact RWD vehicles.

That's the problem with building the car at all.  I was referring to if they do build it they should build both a main stream version priced at the Mazda and a high powered version in the tradition of the original. 

RE: platforms, if little Mazda can do it then Honda should have no problem.

Ummm, you do know that Mazda did the new MX-5 with Fiat right.  So no, little old Mazda did not do it by itself, they had financial help.  Toyota is doing the same with Subaru and also BMW.  Maybe Honda and Nissan can come up with a joined platform.  Give Nissan the coupe version and let Honda have the convertible.  That'd be a neat idea.

[Solstice2006]

The Nissan version could be the 240sx replacement.  But Honda is known to do joint ventures.  Pretty hard to do. 

Don't forget Mazda and Toyota alliance (which I think Mazda got the short end of the stick).  Mazda should have asked Toyota for the 3.5L to go in the CX-9, in exchange Toyota gets the Mazda2! 

[SKYMTL]

I think Honda's direction should be pretty straightforward on this one given how much folks (me included!) are willing to pay for a clean, unmodified, relatively low mileage S2000. 

-  Excellent steering feedback
-  Convertible
-  Razor-sharp suspension
-  A fully manual gearbox
-  200HP+
-  Leave the whole hybrid BS they pulled with the CR-Z in the hands of tree-huggers, not car enthusiasts. 
-  No tacky chrome bits or "beak" like so many of their cars currently have

Put that all out for $45K Canadian or less and I'm all ears. 

[OliverD]

BTW, we already have a pretty good idea of what the production version of the Mazda will look like:

[Noto]

There's a world outside of me?   

Touche!

I think you're jumping to conclusions. The Mazda concept's roofline is nowhere near as aggressive as the X4's:

*Oliver's attack-No-san's sense is tingling*

"Did No-san say something? Must. Refute. His. Claims!!"

I'd argue it's closer to the RX...



Either way, Mazda still doesn't quite get why folks like the Outback - it's down to the large cargo hold, decent rear-seat legroom, and Subaru's reputation for AWD awesomesauce.