Talk:Honda S2000/Archive 1

September Revisions

Retractions and reasons

"Despite the high power output of the engine, the torque of 153 ft·lb (207 Nm) in the 2.0 L version and 162 ft·lbf (220 Nm) in the 2.2 L version was quite low even compared to other sports cars with four-cylinder engines. One reviewer described the 162 ft·lb as "measly" [2]. Another complained that "High revs and a lack of low-down punch were only two of the major drawbacks" of the vehicle.[3]

In addition, the power curve of the engine is unusually steep, with just 25% of the engine's power available below 3000 rpm where most driving is done and only about 8% available from idle.[4]"

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=5155 Pistonheads, a source cited by the main poster of criticisms, states: "Great at high revs but crap at low revs, which is a real problem for a road car - or would be without Honda's ingenious VTEC system" "Having read the S2000's power delivery described as "all or nothing" I was interested to see what it was really like, so on my first outing I ran up through the rev range waiting for a point when the power kicked in with a bang. It never happened, the S2000 accelerating with what seemed like a very linear power delivery. A subsequent look at the power curve graph in the press pack (which the post office belatedly delivered after I'd finished testing the car) confirmed that this is indeed the case."

Another area where the car was singled out for criticism was handling and roadholding. Many drivers commented on the early cars' tendency for snap oversteer, especially in wet or otherwise slippery conditions. In the words of one reviewer, the car was described as "unpredictable at its limit, prone to enthusiastic oversteer". Another reviewer complained that "oversteer came on pretty suddenly" [3] and that the car was "was known to be unpredictable at its limit".[2] Still others said "Squeeze the throttle too hard, though, and all hell would break loose. It would snap into oversteer, and only lightning-quick reactions could save you from an excursion into the undergrowth" [5]"The AP2 model, with its revised suspension and wider tyres reduced this characteristic but did not eliminate it. The introduction of electronic stability control in 2006 was deemed necessary to further reduce this tendency. Still, some reviewers remained unconvinced, saying of the updated car that "the rear is still eager to break away with little provocation" [5]"

Pistonheads: "Honda have recently revised the all-round double wishbone suspension to make it more progressive at the limit, with stiffer springs, softer anti-roll bars and recalibrated dampers.

The resulting ride is pretty much what you want in a sports car - firm enough to inform you what's happening beneath the wheels and prevent undue roll in corners but compliant enough to be comfortable." "Getting the back end round required the use of either the handbrake or the clutch, at which point a heavy right foot could provoke the S2000 into power oversteer, resulting in some very sideways attitudes and violent fishtailing, though suitable adjustments to the steering and throttle always managed to keep it heading in the intended direction.

In less extreme use on a grippy surface though the S2000 generally feels quite neutral, sticking doggedly to its line through numerous fast circuits round large roundabouts. Steering it wide then tightening your line and getting on the throttle induced just enough power oversteer to help the car turn in but not enough to get it sideways. In fact the only time I had to apply opposite lock on the road was when getting off the throttle mid-bend, which can result in sudden lift-off oversteer. Fortunately you only have to be a Pistonheader rather than a Schumacher to sort it out when it happens.?

Another criticism of the S2000 is the way the car is geared. The short gearing allows the car to accelerate reasonably quickly, yet it forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise while traveling at highway speeds.

Pistonheads: "With the engine running on the mild cams the S2000 remains reasonably quiet, hood up or down, which with little wind noise or buffeting makes for a relaxed, comfortable cruiser. Start putting those central cams to work though and things understandably get rather raucous, though that's not because of any harshness from the engine but down to the exhaust, which if you keep the engine working in its upper range through the lanes produces a glorious race car soundtrack."

Statistics Summary

Engine 2004 Honda S2000 Type 16-Valve DOHC VTEC Inline-4 (F22C1) Bore & Stroke (mm/in.) 87.0 x 84.0/3.42 x 3.30 Displacement (cc) 2157/131.6 Horsepower @ rpm 240 @ 8300 Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 162 @ 6500 Block Material Aluminum Alloy w/Fiber-Reinforced (FRM) Cylinder Walls Cylinder-Head Material Aluminum Alloy Valve Train 16-Valve DOHC VTEC Lightweight, MIM (Metal-Injection Molded), Sintered-Steel Rocker Arms, Low-Fricition Roller-Bearing Cam Followers, Compact, 2-Stage Cam-Drive with Silent Chain, Scissors Gears and Fully Automatic Tensioner Fuel Induction System Multi-Point Programmed Fuel Injection (PGM-FI) Ignition System Electronic Emission Control Low Back Pressure, Metal-Honeycomb Catalytic Converter Electric-Motor-Drive, Multi-Port Secondary Air-Asist Injection System Recommended Fuel Premium Unleaded Compression Ratio 11.1:1

Powertrain 2004 Honda S2000 Drive System Type Front Engine / Rear-Wheel Drive Manual Transmission 6-Speed w/Torque-Sensing Limited-Slip Differential Transmissions Gear Ratios:

    1st gear 3.133 
    2nd gear 2.045 
    3rd gear 1.481 
    4th gear 1.161 
    5th gear 0.942 
    6th gear 0.763 
 Reverse: 2.800 

Primary Gear Reduction 1.208 Final Drive Ratio 4.1

Chassis 2004 Honda S2000 Type High X-Bone Monocoque Frame Suspension Front Independent In-Wheel Double Wishbone & Coil Springs w/ Stabilizer Bar (28.2 mm) Rear Independent In-Wheel Double Wishbone & Coil Springs w/ Stabilizer Bar (27.2 mm) Shock Absorbers Gas- Pressurized Mono-Tube w/ External Resevoir Steering Type Electric Power Rack-and-Pinion Steering Wheel Turns (lock-to-lock) 2.6 Steering Ratio 14.9 Turning Diameter (ft., at wheel center) 35.4

Wheels and Tires 2004 Honda S2000 Wheels Front 17" x 7.0" Aluminum Alloy Rear 17" x 8.5" Aluminum Alloy Tires Front Bridgestone RE 050 P215/ 45 R17 Rear Bridgestone RE 050 P245/ 40 R17 Ventilated Front Disc Brakes (diameter) 11.8 in. Rear Disc Brakes (diameter) 11.1 in. Stabilizer Bar Front 26.5 mm Rear 25.4 mm Parking Brake Rear Mechanical

Exterior Dimensions 2004 Honda S2000 Vehicle Type

Front-Engine, Rear-Wheel-Drive, 2-Passenger, 2-Door Roadster 

Wheelbase (in.) 94.5 Track Front 57.9 Rear 59.4 Length (in.) 162.2 Width (in.) 68.9 Height (in.) 50.0 Minimum Ground Clearance (in.) Non-Load 5.1 Full-Load 4.2 Curb Weight (lbs.) 2835 Weight Distribution (%, Front / Rear) 49 / 51 Power to Weight Ratio 5.4:1

Interior 2004 Honda S2000 Headroom (in.) 34.6 Legroom (in.) 44.3 Hiproom (in.) 49.8 Shoulder Room (in.) 50.7 EPA Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 45.1 EPA Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 5.00

Capacities 2004 Honda S2000 Oil, Engine & Filter (liters/qt.) 5.6 Transmission (qt./liter) 1.56 / 1.48 Cooling System (liters/qt.) 7.6 Fuel Tank (gal. / liter) 13.2 / 50

EPA Mileage Estimates 2004 Honda S2000 EPA Mileage, City / Highway (mpg) 20 / 26

Power or horsepower?

I'm not going to revert without talking, but I don't think that it's correct to use 'horsepower' to refer to power output simply to avoid it being mistaken for torque. I know the metrication mavens on here will have fits, as well. Thoughts, anyone? —Morven 08:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted before I read this. Sorry! Anyways, it has to be "power" not "horsepower". I don't think anyone would mistake "power" to mean "torque" and "hp" is just too unit-specific. --SFoskett 15:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is unit specific, I am attempting to distinguish between the generic term "power" and the specific units of horsepower and torque.--JonGwynne 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Jon, you ought to look up what torque and power are. Anyone who has taken high school level physics should know that torque is a distinct dimension different from power.

Thank you, I not only have taken high-school physics, but I am familiar with the meanings of these words. I meant power in the generic sense as in definition #3 - not the term of art used by physicists. Perhaps next time you might want to consider phrasing your statements so they sound less arrogant and condescending. Just a suggestion... --JonGwynne 04:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jon, I didn’t mean to be rude, I just thought your notions of torque and power were confused. Yes, you are correct that engine torque has an effect on a car’s acceleration, but the effect is rather indirect. You must also account the engine speed. The instant power the engine at any certain engine speed produces is the better indicator of acceleration. As you would know the power output of an engine is the product of its torque and speed. At the driven wheels, it is the power that is conserved (ignoring frictional losses), but torque and speed can be converted by the transmission gearing. Therefore, if a small high-rev engine is producing high power at high engine speed but low torque versus a big engine with the same power but at lower engine speed and higher torque, the two car’s wheels will experience the same wheel torque if they are rotating at the same speed, and therefore the 2 drivers (provided the cars weight the same) will experience the same acceleration. --IvanYQu

Hold on a second, are you saying that given identical cars that the ones whose engine is revving higher will always produce more torque at the wheels? I understand what you mean about issues like gearing and drivetrain losses being a factor in acceleration, but I don't see how you can argue that engine RPMs are a factor all by themselves. Just because torque can be "converted" by the transmission doesn't necessarily mean it is. One of the reasons that the S2000 accelerates as fast as it does is because of the ludicrous rear-end gearing that results in an 18mph/1000rpm figure for 6th gear. Most performance cars can manage at least 25mph/1000rpm and a torquey, pushrod-powered beast like the Dodge Viper gets 52mph/1000rpm. Put a standard rear end in the S2000 and it would be in the Mazda Miata league for acceleration. But, in the meantime, I'm returning the previous version of the article - the new version just isn't clear enough.--JonGwynne 04:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually the reason why a driver cruising in high gear would need to downshift when he or she wants to pass someone quicker. In the instant before and after the downshift, the wheel speed will be the same, but the wheel torque will be increased immediately (this is all assuming the driver is pressing the throttle fully) after the downshift – due to increased engine speed from the downshift, hence more engine power - and thus wheel power. Since the wheel speed cannot “jump” instantaneously (must be continuous), a sudden increase in power at the wheels can only result in a sudden increase in torque at the wheels. Remember, power is the product of torque and (rotational) speed. --IvanYQu

I think you have it backwards Ivan, you downshift when you want to pass someone in order to get a lower gear so that you can deliver more torque to the wheels. The increased engine RPM is a byproduct of the downshift, not the reason for it.--JonGwynne 03:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jon, you ought to know that this same argument has cropped up repeatedly over the last year in various automobile articles. The consensus of wikipedia was to never use a specific unit name in text and instead use the generic term. Specifically, all mentions of "horsepower" are systematically eliminated by User:Bobblewik and others in favor of "power". Also, all uses of "xx hp" are having "xx kW" added, and vice versa. The reason people were getting testy is that this has been discussed and decided previously. Expect your "horsepower" text to be changed to "power" soon by any number of other people than me and Morven. --SFoskett 13:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Let the style Nazis do their worst...  ;-> But thanks for the warning. BTW, they're completely wrong. In certain cases (like this one), it is preferable and even necessary to mention specific units. I assume we all agree that there is a difference between horsepower and torque. I assume we can also all agree that it is also possible to be talking about the generic "power" of an engine (e.g. "Wow, that's a powerful engine!") and not be specifically mean any particular unit of measurement. --JonGwynne 14:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely "hp" should be "bhp" or am I just being British? --Kamrock 00:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I recognise the need for encylopedic dryness, there are times when surely it is sylistically prefereable to use horsepower rather than power. If this 'policy' of not using units in text is rigorously applied, references to rpm or revs would have to be revised (radians per second anybody?) to something unwieldy such as "crankshaft rotational speed". I would hate to see dogma win over good writing. Epeeist smudge 12:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

minor revert

I reverted the the small footnote on the different tyres found on the AP1 and AP2 models. The extra info is unnecessary, I feel the one sentence in the main text covers it well enough. Also the 2nd person tone was extremely unencyclopedic. Zunaid 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article have such a huge criticism section?

It seems a bit superfluous. It's a car, not a film. I think we're seeing internet forum flame wars spill into this article. There's more "criticism" than actual information; there's more "criticism" here than in the Ford Pinto article, and that car received widespread negative press in its day. The S2000, in contrast, has generally been very well-received by the automotive press and the general public, and has never had a true safety or reliability scare that got it into the mainstream press.

Also, there is a possible factual error that I want confirmed before I edit. The 2004 suspension wasn't made overall stiffer, but rather softened in the rear, stiffened in the front, and given revised geometry that would cause the rear wheels to toe-in slightly when cornering. Just making a car stiffer would worsen snap oversteer, not correct it. AKADriver 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To expound on this further, while I recognize the need for NPOV, the article would be perfectly neutral if it merely stated the facts. There's no need to represent every minority viewpoint (see: WP:NPOV#Undue weight). It's a car - a physical object with measurable properties. Heaven knows we humans like to get emotional about them, but I'd consider such emotions and opinion to be un-encyclopedic, unless (as in the case of the aforementioned Ford Pinto) this opinion is driven by documented facts and events. All the S2000 "criticism" is just typical enthusiast community bickering and nitpicking. Since I can't find a mainstream media news article that mentions the S2000's handling characteristics or power delivery, I'm going to trim the hell out of the Criticism section. AKADriver 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason the article has a criticism section is because the car has been criticized. No car is perfect. Criticism is a valid part of any car article. Thus, I am returning the criticism section. --SpinyNorman 05:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, everything that's ever existed has its critics, that's not the point. The point is the criticism, which was completely unsourced, unverifiable, and full of weasel words, was overshadowing the facts. Again, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. — AKADriver ☎ 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a hagiography, it is an article about a car. To exclude criticism is inherently POV. I'm restoring it. --SpinyNorman 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still completely unsourced, unverifiable, and full of weasel words. This is unacceptable. — AKADriver ☎ 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You think it's broken? Fix it. But removing criticism isn't going to work. --SpinyNorman 20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, I couldn't find reliable sources for any of this criticism, and I tried. It's all typical internet forum bickering and whining - not true criticism. My idea of criticism of a car would be, like, if it had a major safety flaw. This car just has driving characteristics that a segment of the population doesn't like. — AKADriver ☎ 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has owned one of these cars, I can tell you from personal experience that the criticism is not only valid but downplayed in this article. I added a reference to the snap oversteer and an actual quote from the reviewer. That should help. The complaints about lack of low-end torque are completely objective - the car does lack low-end torque compared with much of its competition. What else is there, rear-end gearing? That's also an objectively measured. The speed per thousand RPM in top gear isn't a matter of personal interpretation. Most cars manage at least 25mph/1000, the Honda only makes 18. Anything else? --SpinyNorman 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions the torque rating, and should have the gear ratios, do they need to be repeated below as "criticism"? The torque and gear ratios are verifiable but your opinions about them aren't. Isn't it enough to let the reader form their own opinion?

What's wrong with mentioning that the torque rating for this car is unusually low? I could also mention that the torque curve is unusually steep. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Steep, compared to what? It is actually a flatter curve than the V6 Mustang, Miata, or any other car discussed here. Your views are biased and plainly false

Steep compared to just about anything with four wheels. Take a look at the curve sometime - I posted a link to it in the article. The reason for the steep curve is that the S2000's engine has more in common with a motorcycle's than that of a car. That's how they get such high revs out of it. --SpinyNorman 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really just plainly wrong. Apparently you've never taken apart a motorcycle engine or placed one on a dynamometer - the engineering is radically different, and the resulting torque curve of even a "torquey" liter bike makes the S2000's look flat as Kansas. [1] Having 85% of peak torque from 3000 to 9000 is incredibly flat. This is another example of your POV in the Criticism section - you say "most driving" is done under 3000rpm, with no qualifiers, but that's not necessarily so, certainly not in a racing situation. — AKADriver ☎ 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Snap oversteer is arguably the sort of safety flaw that I was talking about, bit it's still not endemic - we've all seen pictures of people tossing their cars off the side of Deal's Gap, and I have a friend who crashed one on a rainy day, but it didn't lead to a recall. It did lead to a design change, though, which is enough, I suppose. Though I'd include that into the Models or Design section. — AKADriver ☎ 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many cars can break traction - particularly on slippery surfaces, but the S2000's tendencies in this area are nothing short of extraordinary. I've driven a TVR Griffith through wet roundabouts with more confidence than the Honda. For those unfamiliar with th TVR, it weights almost 300kg less than the Honda and has a 5.0 liter V-8 that pumps out 340 lb/ft of torque - more than twice the Honda's figure. Plus, given the respective power curves of the two engines, the TVR's tuned Rover V-8 probably puts out more torque at idle than Honda's engine does at peak revs. That the Honda's rear end is squirrelier than the TVR is astonishing. And who said anything about a recall? I haven't heard anyone say the S2000 should be recalled. I think you're going to have to deal with the fact that anytime a manufacturer brags about a car to the extent that Honda has about the S2000, it will attract criticism. And don't get me started on the poor quality of the interior.  ;-> --SpinyNorman 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing one source doesn't justify removing the tags from the whole section. Every claim needs a source. Beyond that, I really think you're letting your own opinions get in the way here. To me, having this huge criticism section would be like writing a criticism section for swiss cheese. I can cite hundreds of sources of people who don't like the taste of swiss cheese, but does it matter? Is it encyclopedic? — AKADriver ☎ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't disproportionately large compared to the whole of the article, what's the problem? --SpinyNorman 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It contains opinion, and opinion that has no verification. Here are specific examples, since you seem keen on reverting my tags:

• "Despite the high power output of the engine, the torque of 153 ft·lb (207 Nm) in the 2.0 L version and 162 ft·lbf (220 Nm) in the 2.2 L version was quite low even compared to other sports cars with four-cylinder engines" - it's "quite high" compared to a moped, so what? It's even "quite high" compared to my own four cylinder sports car. One could rightfully say the 968 has exceptionally high torque for a four, since it's so huge. Deeming a car's specs as "quite low" is inherently POV unless it's a superlative (best or worst). 153 ft·lbf is actually well above average in the history of 4cyl sports cars. This is verifiable... there are scads of sports cars from the '50s through the '00s with under 100 ft·lbf.

Quite high compared to your Mazda? I don't know which Miata you've got but the latest 2.0 liter Mazda puts out 140 lb/ft - not far off of the 2.0 liter Honda. That, combined with the lighter weight, gives the Mazda a virtually identical 0-60 time. As for the figure being "quite high" for four-cylinder cars, I can think of several engines off the top of my head that do as well or better than the Honda's F20C in the torque department. Nissan's KA24 engine (240SX) managed 160 lb/ft - with with its longer stroke, more of that torque will be available at lower revs. That's the reason Nissan used the engine in both performance cars and trucks. No one in their right mind would put the F20C engine in a truck. The Mitsubishi 4G69 (Eclipse) puts out 162 lb/ft. And these are just Japanese engines. The Jensen Healey roadster's engine put out about 140 lb/ft of torque... in 1972... with carburetors and fixed valve-timing. Of course, it was a Lotus engine and they're famous for, in the works of the British, "squeezing a quart into a pint pot". The same engine, after Lotus developed a little (stretched it to 2.2 liters and strapped on a turbocharger) and popped it into the last four-cylinder Esprit, was, by the mid 90s, good for almost 300 lb/ft of torque. So, these "scads of sports cars" from the '00s with "under 100" lb/ft of torque... name 'em. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This absolutely could not be further from the truth. No production Mazda Miata --turbocharged included--EVER came close to any production S2000 in terms of acceleration... 0-60, 1/4mile, top speed, or otherwise

Actually, that's not true, the current Miata comes within three tenths of a second of the S2000's 0-60 time. --SpinyNorman 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

From the '50s to the '00s. MG MGA, MG T-type, MG Midget, Austin-Healey Sprite, Honda Beat, Suzuki Cappucino... My Miata is an early NB 1.8 without variable timing. — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on... you're seriously going to compare vintage MGs and Austin Healys with a Honda S2000? And you don't really expect us to consider the Beat or the Cappucino to be "sports cars", do you? They're designed to take advantage of tax and insurance loopholes in Japan. I held up my end, I gave you several examples of engines that produce as much or more torque than the F20C. I'm still waiting... where are these "scads" of sports cars from the '00s with less than 100 lb/ft of torque? --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

153 lb/ft is well below the norm for performance cars. Even the lowly V6 Ford Mustang makes 240 lb/ft of torque [2]. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And the lowly V6 Mustang runs as fast as my former stock 1993 Nissan Sentra 2.0 Liter with 132/lb peak of torque. You need to educate yourself on torque and its applications to automotive performance

Below your norm of what you consider a performance car. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Name a performance car on sale today in the same price range as the Honda S2000 that has less torque. If you can't, does that mean I can edit the article to say that the Honda S2000 has less torque than anything else its class? Like I said, even the weakest of the Ford Mustangs (the V6) has almost 100 lb/ft on the Honda. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In Europe, the BMW Z4 is available with a 2.0L gas four. [3] — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just an option primarily intended for countries like Italy who levy punitive taxes against cars whose engines displace more than 2.0 liters. Even Ferrari and Maserati have produced 2.0 liter cars for their home market. The Maserati Ghibli Cup II with its impressive 330bhp from a 2.0 liter V6 is just one example. Both Lamborghini and Ferrari have produced 2.0 liter V8s to satisfy this market niche. But back to the BMW, the 2.0 liter four isn't the only engine. If you want more power, you can have more. You can even have the 3.2 liter I6 that puts out an impressive 262 lb/ft of torque - an even hundred more than the Honda. So the Z4 doesn't really count. --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Many drivers commented on the early cars' tendency for snap oversteer..." - "many drivers" is a weasel word, pure and simple.

Actually, "many drivers" is two words. But there is no absolute prohibition on "weasel words", it is more a guideline than a rule. There is an "Exceptions" section to the wikipedia article on avoiding "weasel words" that you should probably read. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Without more than one source, it's a weasel word. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll get more sources. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• "it forces the occupant(s) to endure high-engine revs" - high revs? absolutely true. but forces and endure are unquestionably loaded. My car is louder and revs higher on the highway and I'm not burdened or forced. If I didn't like that, I'd buy a Camry.

The term "forced" isn't loaded in the sense that an S2000 driver doesn't have an option. There is no alternate rear-end gearing offered, there is no switchable overdrive... --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is loaded in the sense that it casts those attributes as necessarily negative. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They *are* negative. NVH is one of the keey automotive design critera. You can argue that in performance cars, some sacrifice of NVH is going to be made to performance, but you can't pretend it isn't a sacrifice. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Negative to your POV. It is your POV. — AKADriver ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Find someone who thinks NVH is a good thing. --SpinyNorman 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

in regards to the section regarding cabin volume levels, i was able to find citable data on autoweek's site for the s2000, vette and z06 ( the ones in that transmission MPH/1000rpm table before the recent additions of other roadsters or roughly similar priced sportscars ). autoweek's figures for dBA (idle/full throttle/60mph cruising) demonstrate similar noise levels for all three cars. the actual cumulative sources of the dBA are not cited (transmission/road noise insulation/engine/etc), just the overall dBA. does this help to solve the "forced to endure" debacle in any way? Jrrs 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Handling experts and enthusiasts were doubtful about the usefulness of the newly implemented VSA system" - which experts and enthusiasts?

— AKADriver ☎ 21:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not personally aware of any specific complaints about the S2000's VSA system - though I personally abhor all electronic driving aids. --SpinyNorman 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of it either, but here is where your hypocrisy is obvious - when you disagree with the criticism you're open to removing it, but where you agree you fight tooth and nail to keep it. That's just POV and that's why I removed the entire section. — AKADriver ☎ 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I think that electronic drivers' aids are a bad thing. I agreed with the criticism. However, I haven't driven one of the new cars fitted with the system and I haven't read any reviews which claimed it was a bad thing... and also I wanted to cut as a sort of gesture of compromize to you. I'll do some research and put it back if you want. --SpinyNorman 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that the worst thing about the S2000 is the fact that it has four wheels, and not six. Six wheels means better traction and greater lateral grip. Plus I don't like the fact that it uses a steering wheel, when a slider would have made a much more interesting car and matched the tachometer. I also think that it should have had three seats, abreast, so that you could fit an extra passenger, because only two people is kind of small. Also, I don't like the fact that it has a drivetrain. It would be much better to have a constant RPM engine powering a generator and have electric motors at the rear wheels.

--If that doesn't make you relise how completely absurd the criticism section is, I don't know what will. Nothing in the criticism section could be regarded as an actual criticism (maybe, like, the car catching fire or something); everything is pure opinion-based dualities. Just because a car journalist decided that he didn't like the 9,000 rpm redline doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Just because 153 foot-pounds of torque isn't enough for one reviewer doesn't mean that we must all prescribe to, or even read, his opinion. If every car page had a criticism section that marked every journalist's opinion, WikiPedia would be flooded with this drivel. Next thing you know, people will go on the RX8 page and remark how some feel that the rotary engine is a weak point and should be replaced by an I4.--71.235.66.254 05:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A link to ONE single reviewer commenting on "measly" torque output? Not one from any noteworthy publication, at that... gone.

Quote "The remainder of Honda's consumer cars are primarily front wheel drive." Erm.... CR-V? Erm.... HR-V?!

Quote "The remainder of Honda's consumer cars are primarily front wheel drive." Erm.... CR-V? Erm.... HR-V?!

The CR-V is primarily front wheel drive, but it does have an on-demand 4-wheel drive.

Massive hp per litre is a joke

The hp/L is high for this car but at significant cost. Considering the size of the engine, this car EATS gas in day to day use. Here are some numbers from the USEPA site [www.fueleconomy.gov]:

For comparison I have used the Mazda Miata, a car in the same class and the oft maligned muscle car, the Ford Mustang:

Car:
S2000; Miata; Mustang GT

Fuel Type:
Premium; Premium; Regular;

MPG (city):
20; 24; 17

MPG (hwy):
26; 30; 25

MPG (combined):
22; 27; 20

Regular Gasoline: $2.91 per gallon Premium Gasoline: $3.12 per gallon

(Using combined numbers)
Cost to Drive 25 Miles:
$3.55; $2.89; $3.64
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles:
1.14 gal; 0.93 gal; 1.25 gal

Hilarious. So the S2000 which is HALF the engine capacity of the Mustang uses about the same amount of gas as a 'inffecient' V8? That's 14.3 vs 14.5 cents a mile? Way to go Honda. Using that much gas you only can get 240 hp? Wow. Give me a Miata. CJ DUB 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. What does that have to do with this article? The word "efficient" never appears in the current edit. — AKADriver ☎ 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Made a change to my comments. The title stands though. >100 hp/L is not much of an accomplisment when you need to burn that much gasoline to do it. By the same stretch you could use methanol/rocket fuel mixture and make 50,000 hp with 2.2L CJ DUB 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, what does this have to do with the article (aside from the table of EPA economy figures that you added in response)? This isn't the place to vent your dislike for a particular make or model. — AKADriver ☎ 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. But it is a place to set people straight. Probably 50-80% of the renowned import badges (Skyline, Supra, S2000, heck even some ancient Lexuses, etc. etc.) pages are full of hyperbole nonsense. I can't stand that: when the text of the article is hardly noteworthy and its POV and anecdotal. It'll happen. Just wait. Take a look at this article. Is this car all about driving or about breaking some COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT hp/L record? I choose the former. CJ DUB 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I excised quite a bit of that from this article a while back, along with a pointlessly long list of internet-fanboy criticisms (basically a three-paragraph, poorly-worded whine about torque). It could probably still use some work, but I don't see a problem with noting the unique engineering details of the model. Specific output is only mentioned in passing in a larger passage about the design of the engine, which includes the part where the engine was made bigger. There's not a lot you can say about how fun it is without going into POV-land, though if someone scould add some autocross and road racing results (with citations) that would be nice.

I was more put off by your confrontational tone. You didn't seem interested in improving the article, only insulting the car... — AKADriver ☎ 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• No autocross nonsense unless its a sanctioned body. This just leaves the door open for more hyperbole on this car. Fact is it's not really in any notable series. Its more of a showpiece anyway. CJ DUB 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're amazed that a V8 and an I4 with similar power output get similar gas mileage? If you have it set in stone that an I4 must get a certain gas mileage, then go buy yourself a Miata; engine displacement means absolutely nothing when compared to tuning. If Ford tuned their engine as highly as Honda, their gas mileage would be pitiful in comparison. If you're so obsessed with this notion that an I4 must get X gas mileage, a 2.0 litre must get Y gas mileage, then why don't you go to the RX8 or RX7 pages and go complain about how pitiful it is that they're pulling that gas mileage out of a 1.3 litre engine; you may compare the rotary cycle to actual engine tuning, rather than pegging an extra bank of cylinders to the car. The fact that the F20 and F22C get their power per litre and are driveable on the street is an accomplishment and a half; Honda doesn't resort to big motors for their sports cars. The gas mileage is completely irrelevant in a sports car; I guarantee you 90% of S2000 owners wouldn't give a Mustang a glance, nor do any of them care that they had to sacrifice mpg for real performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.66.254 (talk • contribs)

Hahah. The S2000 is a nice car, but all we know what kind of people drive S2000s. By the way, the consumption is similar Mustang vs. S2000 but the engine output is miles different. That's the hilarious part. 300 hp vs. 237 hp? How about 320 ft.lbs. of torque vs. 167 ft.lbs. I'd just like to know why the mileage is so brutal considering the size of the engine, and pathetic output numbers. If i were a S2000 owner I'd be pissed that a 350Z and a Porsche (Boxster) make better numbers, and the same or better mileage. Your right, Honda doesn't resort to big motors, they resort to gimmicks for their cars without delivering the goods. F1 inspired? What the valve covers? CJ DUB 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "kind of people" you're referring to. You're still not saying much relevant to the article, either, just bashing the car. No wonder the Criticism section got so big.

The reason for the relation between mileage and economy in this case is quite clear - gearing. Note that the S2000's city mileage is 20% better than the GT's. 4.4:1 final drive ratio will do that to you. The 4.4:1 final drive is also why the torque rating at the engine is irrelevant to actual performance (unless you short-shift or are too lazy to downshift to pass).

You should be bashing the Miata, since it only ekes out 30mpg for 170bhp - and my older model does even worse (27mpg for 140bhp). Again, gearing - 4000rpm on the highway is fun... — AKADriver ☎ 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the hp/L is a "joke" or not, it is a FACT and surely that is what counts in this article. I am, actually, one of the "kind of people", who buys an S2000. I used to own one until very recently. However, it is also irrelevant (and frankly inadmissable)in the main article how superb a car I found it. Good, lucid refutions from AKADriver and an anonymous editor by the way Epeeist smudge 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when we talk about HP/L is really engine design in my opinion, because of the smaller displacment, the engine is smaller and lighter. Showing how much HP/L shows what type of engine it really is its high revving and samll displacement is worth being in this page.

Major Revert

I've reverted the article to the last version by Russbot (with minor edits) for two reasons:

1. As repeatedly mentioned here by others, the article had an unduely lengthy (and IMHO unwieldy) Criticism section, which does not agree with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is unnecessary (and not good encyclopedic style) to quote every particular critic verbatim, nor is it necessary to mention the torque and other output figures of competing vehicles (surely this info belongs in articles on those particular cars?). It is enough to mention the shortcomings of this car. The rewrite IMHO captures the essential criticisms (with a single reference that encapsulates everything) in a manner that is consistent with the content and style of the rest of the article and simply "flows" better when read in its totality.
2. The incremental changes made by the anon IP (RPM figures etc.) need to be referenced, hence have been reverted for the time being. Zunaid 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason the critics are quoted is because another editor objected to the use of "weasel words" - e.g. "some critics said..." You can't have it both ways. In any case, the criticism section is staying. Any attempts to remove it or water it down will be reverted. The section does not in any way contradict the "undue weight" recommendations. --SpinyNorman 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I've posted a RFC in order to try to resolve the content dispute over the criticism section. Hopefully a few external editors will take a look at this page and recommend the best course of action. Zunaid 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: you said in the RfC that the dispute was between a short and long Criticism section. I believe there should be NO Criticism section, any more than there should be a Criticism section for icosahedron or swiss cheese. — AKADriver ☎ 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Outsider's comment: The criticism does seem to take up a lot of the page (between 1/4 and 1/3 by a non-scientific scroll count). A shorter summary would be better, or perhaps a separate section on how the car was improved and why. SB Johnny 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The car hasn't been around long enough for it to have a developed criticism section. All of the criticism of the car is based on subjective opinions, not facts. They don't explode, they haven't had a major historical impact. Hell, you can still buy one new. The purpose of the criticism section, plain and simple, is to insult the car for the fact that it is a Honda. The Mazda RX-8, which shares many of the "problems" indentified in the criticism section has no criticism section of its own because people don't set out to make fun of Mazdas. Having a criticism section on a car this new is absurd, partially because it's unwarranted, and mainly because the car has no direct comparison. There is no single car that has all of the attributes of the S2000 (the main competitors: the Boxster is Mid-engined and the Z4 is available as a coupé), therefore nothing to compare it to. And the criticism listed is absurd. As I said, it's all subjective opinion. Some people prefer an engine with a high torque curve, while others prefer gobs of torque the second they step on the gas. If this article has a criticism section, then it's warranted that almost every other article in WikiPedia have a criticism section. The reason they do not is because it's absurd to record every single opinion, especially when they are the opinions of individuals, not general reflections on the object itself.

You complain that the criticism is subjective? That's what criticism is by definition. Not everyone likes this car. That is a fact and needs to be reported in an encylopedia article. If you feel the RX-8 is deserving of criticism, perhaps you should write a criticism section for it. --SpinyNorman 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like okra. I think it tastes like snot. Does that need a criticism section now too? — AKADriver ☎ 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add your comments to the article on okra if you like. But censoring legitimate criticism is unacceptable. --SpinyNorman 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section. No other similar cars have a criticism section. The only similar section would be the Hummer H2, which has had a huge social impact because of its size and fuel economy (or lack of). There is no reason for the S2000 to be an exception just because one editor seems to have a person vendetta against it. Besides, most of the quoted negative reviews are from articles that are generally favorable of the car. There is no reason to add the section back.

I restored the censored section. There is no excuse for removing legitimate criticism from the article. If you want to add criticism sections to other articles, that is certainly your perogative but don't try to remove useful content here. --SpinyNorman 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one finding it useful at this point.— AKADriver ☎ 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could that be because I don't believe in trying to cover up something's shortcomings by removing descriptions of them in an encylopedia article? --SpinyNorman 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to believe strongly in making mountains out of molehills and turning subjective opinion into "encyclopedic fact", though, which is why everyone disagrees. — AKADriver ☎ 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Froth and foam all you like, but you're not censoring discussion of legitimate criticism by the motoring press of a car that, like ALL CARS, has its share of flaws. --SpinyNorman 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(resetting margin) Just a side comment: Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means anyone is free to edit it. However, in order to prevent anarchy and the type of revert war happening here, one of the principles of Wikipedia is that contributions are made on the basis of consensus of opinion of all the editors involved. I myself think that a shortish criticism section is warranted (IMHO it would make a good middle ground), but I am only one voice and so is SpinyNorman. The majority of editors, as well as one or two outside opinions, feel that a criticism section shouldn't be there at all. That is the consensus, so that's what should stand. Zunaid 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship and it WILL NOT STAND. --SpinyNorman 09:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, let the revert war begin. This has become childish. All this over a car. I added a neutrality tag to the section in question. Let's get a final consensus on this and lock the article. I for one could go for a short criticism section for the sake of reaching a middle ground, but presently is still has too many weasel words, criticism taken out of context and the last part does not have a source article. --Jnbwade69 05:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would concur with a concise, referenced criticism section (as I myself created before, before the revert war took it away). On a side note, SpinyNorman, it is disturbing to note your unwillingness to even consider the viewpoints of other editors, and your refusal to compromise on a summarised criticism section which most people here would not object to. Like I mentioned before, differences are sorted out by discussion and consensus. Labelling everyone else's edits as "censorship" and refusing to even discuss a compromise is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Zunaid 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the concise version as well. In fact, I did restore your version once after it was reverted to the long one. I still don't think it's necessary, but the concise version doesn't interrupt the flow of the article and was free of heavy-handed absolutes (just because some or many reviewers don't like something doesn't mean that attribute is absolutely a negative). — AKADriver ☎ 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're disturbed, but removing legitimate criticism of a subject from the article can't really be considered anything but censorship - particularly when the only motivation for its removal is disagreement with it and/or the feeling that the criticism somehow demeans the car. --SpinyNorman 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Posting that 1 internet reviewer described the peak torque output as measley does not conform to an encyclopediac entry. Thats just slanderous junk

It is unfortunate that because he cannot afford the car SpinyNorman has to bash it on the internet

ROTFL! Actually, I used to own one. I put almost 10,000 miles on it before I sold it again. So I have a certain amount of perspective on this issue. I'm also familiar with MANY other sports cars that have more power and ability - many of them that can be had for considerably less money than the Honda. From an engineering point of view, the F20C engine is an impressive achievement and something of which Honda can rightfully be proud. But as a package, the S2000 is like any other car in that it has its strengths and weaknesses. To remove discussion of its weaknesses because a handful of "fanboys" can't tolerate the subject of their adulation being criticized... well, that's just wrong. --SpinyNorman 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

unsigned comment above =

I can take up this case as a mediator but before doing so, I'd just like to ask whether a criticism section is common for all the entries about cars in general? Jsw663 05:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not criticism sections exist for other cars is irrelevant. If you want to add a criticism section to any other car, feel free to do so. If anyone deletes it for the same reason as they do here, just let me know and I'll be happy to back you up in replacing it. --SpinyNorman 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Most automotive articles tend to be free of any record of opinion, positive or negative, aside from external links to reviews, or lists of major awards. Exceptions are for cars such as the Ford Pinto, Audi 100, or Chevrolet Corvair whose historical impact is largely due to specific pieces of criticism (Unsafe At Any Speed, Audi "unintended acceleration", or the Pinto fuel tank fiasco). Even then, the criticism is framed in the context of the historical impact. The Corvair article doesn't just state that some drivers found it to snap oversteer; it explains how that led to Ralph Nader's book and the automotive safety movement in the US. — AKADriver ☎ 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not even trying to delete the section. But every attempt to clean it up and shorten it is met with a revert and childish rage. It reads like a poorly written blog or talk page. It should be encyclopedic, but instead it's been turned into a bash site. For example: "Another criticism of the S2000 is the way the car is geared. The short gearing allows the car to accelerate reasonably quickly, yet it forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise while travelling at highway speeds". Who said this? Where is the quote from? Nowhere. It's just one person editorializing. And comparing it to a Viper and Corvette, muscle cars that cost twice as much, is ridiculous. Look at the article history. Look at all the reverts. At this point it's almost vandalism. Gee, a high reving sports car with a tendency to fishtail, from this article you would think it's killed thousands. How many reverts is one user allowed to make to one article? --Jnbwade69 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because I object to the censorship of valid criticism, I'm supposed to be in a "childish rage"? Perhaps you should concentrate more on the content of the article and less on personal insults. Comparing the S2000 to other high-performance cars is perfectly valid. Just because you don't like the way the S2000 comes out in the comparison, is that a reason to object to it? You want to add other cars to the comparison? Feel free... In fact, I'd love to see ANY performance car that makes less than 18mph/1000 RPM. I've looked and I can't find a single one. Even relatively weedy vehicles like the Mazda Miata and the RX8 manage low 20s. --SpinyNorman 05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the S2000 is geared for high RPM, this is how Honda got so much performance out of a 4cyl engine. Even with this gearing the S2000's top speed is about 150. If it topped out at 90mph I could see a complaint. The ratio for calculating Horse Power from Torque rewards torque at higher RPM. This is why Torque alone doesn't tell the whole picture, and how Honda pulled 237 horse power from this motor. This a feature of the Car. Honda did this on purpose. This is a sports car, not a tourer. I'm sorry you bought this car without doing research. If you had we all would have been saved this trouble. __redruM

Oh... so you want to be condescending. Well, two can play that game. Perhaps you weren't aware that the car has more than one forward gear. There's nothing wrong with shortening the lower ratios for improved acceleration but what's why not make the top gear suitable for long-distance travel? This certainly doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. With a six-speed transmission, there's simply no excuse not to give the car some "legs". --SpinyNorman 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No excuse? There's a reason 6th is where it is. But either way, 6th tops out over 150mph, that doesn't "have legs"? If it was a tourer it would have much lower highway rpm. But it's actually a sports car. So, 6th gear is where it is so that switching gears from the Redline of 5th keeps you in the power band for 6th. You can follow the same logic all the way down to 1st. I agree that doin it the other way would make a quieter and more comfortable cruiser. But thats not the S2000. Honda made very few compromises. You'd probable be hapier in the RX8. If I wanted a more comfortable car, I would have gone this way. I didn't I wanted the S2000. If this car had a redline of 5000 rpms, then the gearing wouldn't have legs, but with a 8000/9000 rpm redline, the gearing is perfect for getting all the way up into the mid hundreds. The top of 3rd alone is speeding in most states, and is fast enough to get a reckless driving ticket where I live. It has legs because of the red line. Check the numbers at: http://www.turnzero.com/technical_resources.php?resource=gear_calculator __redruM

When I said "no excuse", I meant it. There are five other gears to provide spirited performance, what's wrong with having just one for cruising? And spare me the "no compromises" talk about the S2000, Honda made plenty of them. The power-top for one. Honda could have saved hundreds of pounds of weight and a grand or two from the sticker price by making the top manual. And the original plastic rear window was a poor design decision - even Honda admitted as much when they replaced it with glass. Though they had to make the glass window much smaller - which killed rear visibility. What was this you were saying about no compromises? --SpinyNorman 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My specific wording was "Honda made very few compromises." Without the compromises, I'd be driving an 06 Elise. I might only use the 5th redline shift on a race track, I'd be at 122 mph! So I'd be happier without it, but you gotta admire the attitude. --__redruM

By the way I wondered why it took so much time for your response, did they suspend you again? This isn't the only subject you don't agree on. Are you trolling or something? I feel so silly for feeding a troll, but I guess someone has to. --__redruM

I don't always see all the different responses to my various comments. Sorry if the delay inconvenienced you. As for your accusations of me being a troll... If I were a troll, would I have agreed with your decision to add the sales figures? I mean, wouldn't I argue with them just for the sake of arguing with them if I were really a troll? --SpinyNorman 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to the request for comment, remove the section. It feels like a personal crusade by SpinyNorman. Spiny should take his crusade to a blog or a forum, it doesn't belong here. __redruM

I'm not sure how much more SpineyNorman could possibly demonstrate his personal agenda against this car. Spiney, if you see all of these aspects of the S2000 as being negative, why did you buy one in the first place. No research? No test drive? I have to say, this doesn't speak highly of your reasoning skills.

Why did I buy one? I was persuaded by the many charms of the car - not the least of which was the promise that, should the time come to resell the vehicle, the limited availability in the UK kept residual values high. As an alternative, I was also considering a pre-owned TVR Griffith 5.0. In hindsight, I probably should have gone with the TVR - better fit for me... better performance, better handling, better noise (louder when you want it louder and quieter when you don't) and also the benefit of being hand-made by artisans. --SpinyNorman 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag for criticism section

Feel free to justify the addition of this tag. If no one can support it in a week or so, I'll delete it. --SpinyNorman 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is proof enough that the neutrality of the section is disputed. — AKADriver ☎ 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it isn't. Just disputing something doesn't necessarily mean the dispute is valid. So far, the only complain anyone seems to have is that they don't agree with the assessments of the other reviewers, but given the subjective nature of this article, that's just not enough to warrant a special tag. By its very nature, subjective criticism is disputed by someone. --SpinyNorman 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let children be children, and spindoctors be spindoctors. The Miata is geared taller than the S2000... so what? so is a Chevrolet Aveo. Neither performs anywhere close to the S2000. The Corvette and Viper cost 2 to 3 times as much, and are hardtop... what use of it to compare it to a 2-seater roadster? While we're on the subject on Viper, let's criticize it for consuming too much gasoline. Formula 1 cars rev too high. Ferraris ride too rough. Thus, both are terrible cars. The Audi TT, on the otherhand, by SpinyNorman's ruler stick, has handling characteristics most ideal for a sports car: it understeers like a pig! Additionally, it can't move anywhere because it cannot rev. Certain traits of a car are exclusive. Taken as a whole, the S2000 is universally lauded as a great car in its segment, and as a sports car overall. This SpinyNorman character wants a car that's fast like a Corvette but consumes gas like a Civic and cruises like a Cadillac. It has to handle like a Ferrari, but be safe like a Volvo. Can be comparable to an BMW, but cost as little as a Mazda. Critics will be critics, and losers will be losers.

Actually, the Miata can make it to 60 in just over six seconds. That's within spitting distance of the Honda and for a lot less money. The S2000, Corvette and Viper are all popular, mainstream performance cars - though obviously at different price points. The comparison is a valid one - particularly to highlight the "short-legged" nature of the Honda. --SpinyNorman 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be rediculous. If the Miata is just over six seconds, and the S2000 is 5.5* (conservative), by your definition of "spitting distance", the S2000 is within "spitting distance" of Corvettes, 911s, Aston Martins, and other supercars. So should there be a criticism for those cars for being vastly overpriced, rougher riding, costlier to insure, and more gas consuming than the S2000? Aside from the 0-60, the Miata's lateral grip, 1/4 mile, top speed, and any other measure of performance isn't anywhere close to the S2000; it competes in 2 SCCA classes BELOW the S2000. Should there be large criticism section on the Miata noting all of the aforementioned? No. Why? Because it's irrelevant--The Miata is a great for what it is (at its pricepoint); and because you have an ardent, steadfast agenda of criticising the S2000. Remember that this is an *encyclopediac* article, not "SpineyNorman's whining". It's easy to see that this "short-legged" nature can be better attributed to someONE rather than some Thing here...

The Mazda Miata's time is 6.5 seconds and the S2000 does in 6.2. Yeah, I'd say that's "spitting distance". --SpinyNorman 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

5.2 seconds (Motor Trend, Feb ‘00) 5.3 seconds (R&T, Sept ‘99 and R&T Buyer’s Guide Jan ‘01) 5.4 seconds (C&D, Aug '03 Roadser Shoot Out S2000,350ZC, Boxster, Z4, TT) 5.5 seconds (R&T - Comparison in Road Test Annual 2001) 5.5 seconds (R&T, Aug 03' Roadster compare 350ZC)

6.4 seconds [4], 6.2 seconds [5], etc... I used to have one. I also have a car that I have personally clocked a reliable (and non-abusive) <6 second second dash to 60 in and the Honda doesn't even come close. The Honda isn't a bad car when it comes to acceleration, and it is in fact better than many cars in this regard. But don't let's pretend it is something more than it isn't. If you want to get below six seconds for the 0-60 time in this car, you'd have to resort to a full-bore takeoff and run the engine up to max revs before dumping the clutch. Great for performance stats but a bit hard on the oily and rubbery bits. As for handling and roadholding, the S2000 can't hold a candle to the Miata. Outside of Lotus, you're not going to find a sweeter handling car than the Miata. Of course that might have something to do with the fact that the Mazda is carrying almost 500lbs less weight. This may also have something to do with the fact that even though the engine makes less power, the Miata "feels" just as fast as the Honda. --SpinyNorman 05:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This smacks of desperation. 1) This is not a discussion regarding your dream car, which is irrelevant both to the article and point of contention. The Miata is being compared because you judge it in only certain merits against the s2000 yet not in others. 2) Who's pretending it is more than what? the Vagueness meter is redlining. 3) "full-bore" takeoff? Vagueness meter just shot through the roof. Nobody brings the motor up to max rev to get good acceleration, further disproving your claim of ever owning the S2000 less an automobile. did you mean to exclaim that to get maximum performance out of A car--any car--youd have to use its motor to its capacity? Further share with the wiki community your sagacity, and clarify how and which other cars can go fast without redlining, or grip hard without loading the tires near their limits. 4) Very encyclopediac and academic of you to claim that the the S2000 "can't hold a handle to the Miata" or how the miata "feels" just as fast. a) the S2000 is faster. in any sanctioned racing competition, the s2000 is in a higher class than the miata because it is faster. period. SCCA Solo2 Stock category anybody? b) roadholding and feel is quantified by acceleration figures ("g forces" if youre far confused). the S2000 (and tires) can sustain .93g both ways laterally and .36g accelerating forward (motor trend march 04). let's see miata figures? 5. very, very convenient for you to bring up Lotus, because being a minimalist sports car with a small motor, it too runs best (and makes occupant "endure") high engine speeds. it is by far noisier (decibel figures), less equipped, and incontrovertibly rougher riding. now why do sane persons not note all of the above weaknesses in the Lotus' wiki? because they are fitting and acceptable (almost even welcomed) in a car designed purely for sporting functions. now why do YOU/spinynorman, adhering to your standards of motorcar excellence, not note them in the Lotus' wiki? beacuse it is testament to your personal agenda to only criticize the s2000.

I'm not talking about anyone's "dream car", I'm talking about the Honda S2000. The official Honda claim for 0-60 time is 6.2 seconds. I have no doubt that a handful of automotive journalists who aren't driving their own car can better this time slightly by treating the clutch in an entirely uncivilized manner, but that's not relevant either. I notice you didn't pay any attention to the point I made about the difference in weights between the Honda and the Mazda. I guess the whole concept of the power:weight ratio doesn't mean anything to you. Oh well. It isn't my job to educate you. --SpinyNorman 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Educate yourself to some elementary mathematics and calculate which car has the superior power to weight ratio. Hint: it's not your daddy's MX-5, little boy

Actually, the MX-5's specific torque figure is actually slightly higher than the S2000 (126 lb/feet per ton, compared with 125), and since more of that power is available lower in the rev range, that might tend to explain why, even with less specific horsepower and longer legs, the MX5 comes within three tenths of a second in matching the S2000 in a dash from 0-60. In case you had forgotten (or never knew) torque is what counts in acceleration. And that's only the normally-aspirated engine. The upcoming turbocharged version (though I'd prefer to see them put a larger-displacement N/A engine) should see the Mazda handing the S2000 its head on a plate. Sorry if I made you cry. --SpinyNorman 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So you cry and cry on about power:weight ratio, and then you come back with torque:weight? Keep back tracking. To continue on YOUR tangent, power is work done over TIME. competition involves time. fastest, quickest.. its all about doing work over the shortest amount of TIME. thus the common POWER/Weight ratio. ever heard of people talking about Torque/Weight ratio? there's a good reason why. Do you understand why most race motors are gas instead of diesel? Do you understand why 99% of performance cars are gas and not diesel? Do you realize that torque at the crank is not torque AT THE WHEELS? because the force is "multiplied" through the transmission? Google or Wiki transmissions, gears, and mechanical advantage; it'll help you out. Can you process the above sources that the S2000 has been tested at 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5.. whereas the Miata has never broken into the 5s.. EVER. Far cry from "3/10 of a second" Can you under the LOGIC that the quickest time is what a car is CAPABLE of? If a grandma short-shifts a Ferrari to a 10 second 60mph, it is STILL a 4 second car because that's what its capable of. Clearly, you have a lot to learn. One day when you pass elementary physics, get out of school, have a job, and be able to afford a real car, maybe the new turbocharged miata will come out. Get all of that done, come to the realization of your shortcomings now, before even bringing in that red herring of a future miata.

Sure, if some autmotive journalist don't mind frying the clutch of the test-car Honda loans him, I'm sure he could get the S2000 into the 5s, but the FACT remains that Honda quotes the time at 6.2 and all the posturing and whimpering on your part won't change that. As I never tire of pointing out, I own a car that will reliably return 0-60 times in the 5s... and I've owned an S2000. Because of this, I can say from personal experience that if you drive the car the way you would if you actually owned it, you couldn't get near 5.2 seconds for 0-60. Now go away little troll, I'm done with you. --SpinyNorman 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet you further ignore your glaring deficiency in high school science and subject matters at hand, deferring to personal anecdotes and vague overgeneralizations. Did you realize that Honda, like many other manufacturers, has never advertised performance specs for its car? Your link is to pistonheads, which is not affiliated in any way with Honda Motors of Japan or the US... and it posts data not relevant to the current production S2000, for that matter. Who fries whose clutches? Any car utilized to its maximum potential will stress its components maximally... whether it be a Miata, an S2000, or a Mustang. A Miata being launched for maximum acceleration will wear its clutch down as fast as any other car utilized for the same purpose. Which afterall doesnt change the fact that the S2000 is a 5.2 second car and a Miata is not (nor is it close). Somehow its too difficult for a thickheaded juvenile ignoramus like you to realize such an obvious and basic fact....a fact that has been pointed out long before against your hard-willed acknowledgedment. Since Wikipedia aims to be an enclopedia, for the sake of accuracy, the article should be more aptly retitled "Why SpinyNorman is sour about a car that his dadddy won't buy him"

(yawn) The fact remains that the press pack Honda released for the S2000 lists its acceleration time as 6.2 seconds. Abusive and unrepresentative exercises notwithstanding, that's an accurate representation of the capabilities of the car. --SpinyNorman 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An accurate representation of the car is international accolades, from print press and other media press ever since the cars inception, and countless comparisons in which it beats all cars in its class not only in performance (track times) but in overall analysis (feature, quality, price, etc). Honda, like many other manufacturers, do not ever publish, to boast or otherwise, tested performance figures... Exotic and performance car manufacturers whose image and sales are contingent on how well their automobiles perform dont even publish such figures... for obvious reasons (though quite apparent not obvious to you). The only thing that they do publish are raw specs about their product, with, were reminded, Mazda seems to have a habit of overstating (RX-8, Miata, etc). The established superiority of the S2000 notwithstanding the last thing obvious are your posts and edits as a representative of your ignorance of physics, S2000, and automobiles in general.

As a parting gift for you to one day be rid of your ignorance

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1949&page_number=14 - S2000 besting all cars in its class except one that literally cost twice as much

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/6846/the-blow-dryers.html - coming in #1 against all cars in its class (note its class do not include Miata which does not come close...)

... "and its ride quality was almost as agreeable as the Miata’s, without the Miata’s handling limitations. The Honda’s acceleration looked a little tepid compared with the much lighter Elise—60 in 5.5 seconds, the quarter in 14.0—but its lap times lagged the Lotus’s by only a second."

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/8202/extreme-sports-page5.html - beating the Miata, coming in 2nd only to a more expensive, bonafide sports car, beating other bonafide sports cars along the way

and the link to the numerous "10 Best" awards it wins would be overkill to add to this section. maybe theres something you know that the motoring press in general do not

Just what this board needs, more anonymous nonsense from Texas... --SpinyNorman 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Hi, sorry about the references, I've tried to sort them out, but there appears to be a software problem. Looking at the article using via the history, the most current version appears ok, but looking at the article normally and there's repetition of reference 5. Addhoc 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rebooted my computer, which appears to have cleared the problem. Addhoc 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm going to bring this revert war to arbitration at the suggestion of User:Jsw663. Interested parties may add to or remove themselves from the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. — AKADriver ☎ 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but don't you first have to go through other stages including mediation first? Addhoc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested mediation and was pointed to arbitration by a mediator. There was also a request for comment (see above). — AKADriver ☎ 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Addhoc 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think Jnbwade69's comments and SpinyNorman's response to it, as well as SpinyNorman's virtual paranoia in maintaining his version of the Honda S2000 page, as well as reviewing SpinyNorman's history (of having been blocked before through violation of the 3RR rule) has led me to do the very rare thing of bypassing what looks to be fruitless mediation (which has been tried before anyway - see this entire page) and let the arbiration committee impose further sanctions, should they think it warranted. The mediators can only mediate when both parties are willing to compromise. Jsw663 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Piston Heads Logo Reference

A reference currently being used is Piston Heads, this only links to a logo and is consequently unsuitable. Could I suggest that a suitable reference is found in the next 24 hours, or the citation and relevant sentence could be removed? Thanks, Addhoc 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is evidently a problem with wikipedia. When you paste the link into an open browser, it takes you to the correct page. But when you click on the link from wikipedia, you go to the logo page. I don't know what's wrong but it isn't the link. --SpinyNorman 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Piston Heads website, I found two articles:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=14101

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=7430

However, I could not verify that http://www.pistonheads.com/images/logo.gif was a power torque curve. If this links to an article then why does the address give the appearance of being a link to their logo? Addhoc 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to the logo is, indeed a link to the logo. However, that's not what's in the article. --SpinyNorman 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I've adjusted the link address to http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=5155 and this appears to work ok. Addhoc 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to link directly to the graphic but I guess there's a problem with that. Linking to the article is ok though. Thanks for sorting it. --SpinyNorman 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

9000 rpm redline

Is there a reference to indicate which motoring journalist voiced the criticism in the following sentence?

"Changes to the 2004 model brought a revised suspension and a lower redline (lower redline and 2.2L Engine initially on US model only). This triggered some criticism from those who saw the original 9000 rpm redline as a key selling point."

If a reference can't be found, I would suggest the sentence would have to be removed. Addhoc 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the sentence that doesn't have a reference tomorrow, unless anyone provides a citation. Addhoc 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm concerned the following section could be original research:

Another criticism of the S2000 is the way the car is geared. The short gearing allows the car to accelerate reasonably quickly, yet it forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise while travelling at highway speeds.

Vehicle	MPH/1000rpm in top gear	Engine revs at 75mph
Honda S2000	18	~4200
Mazda RX8	20	3700
Corvette Z06	45	~1700
Dodge Viper	50	~1500

If this is original research, then obviously, it would have to be removed.Addhoc 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it is not original research. If it was original, it wouldn't have references. --SpinyNorman 09:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying. Possibly my reading of WP:OR is slightly different "articles may not contain any new analysis", but regardless, in the context of the ArbCom case, I won't make any further edits. Addhoc 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding original research, i checked those citations (car and driver) and find no mention of the "RPM at 75mph in top gear". one may say that if the citation lists the gearing ratio and the tyre sizes, that the RPM at 75 mph in top gear can be calculated, but that would consistitute original research, right?. regardless of how that column turns out, it is insufficient to be showing this criticism of the s2000 as compared against the viper and the vette. both of those cars engines are of extremely large displacement whereas the s2000's is of below average displacement (all being considered on the basis of natural-aspiration and market-intent). to properly criticize the gearing in the car, there ought to be more cars listed in that table. car and driver does have the nice mph/1000rpm citations, so i will try to find more cars to put in there from car and driver /roadtest/ pages. Jrrs 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The relative displacement is irrelevant. The vehicles are related in being performance cars. You can't exclude those that make the S2000 look bad in this area. There are plenty of places where the S2000 makes THEM look bad. Though I agree there ought to be more cars in the list and have repeatedly invited people to add more - though I haven't had any takers yet (oops: spoke to soon - thanks for adding the cars). I've added the RX8 myself, but I'm reluctant to add more for fear that certain people here will start whining about the length of the section again. Still, I'll go ahead and add the BMW Z4. I doubt many people would object to that as a comparison. --SpinyNorman 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

relative displacement isn't irrelevant at all, i should've mentioned cylinder count originally as well. it seems to be the case that large displacement-high cylinder count engines are commonly going to have a top gear who is significantly higher ratio than the rest of them. i bring that up as it pertains to what cars actually get put in the table to keep it from looking like it has an agenda. it's not about excluding any car that has more favourable traits than an s2000, it's about the vette/viper in the table looking like they were placed there specifically because their juxtoposition against the s2000 makes it purposefully look as bad as possible. but that aside, where are the "RPM at 75 mph in top gear" numbers from? there aren't any citations for those - unless you're getting them out of the C&D articles, but if so i'm horrible at finding them in there. i spent a bit of time looking around for those figures before (as i do recall having seen them somewhere), but didn't come up with them. are they from C&D or autoweek, or?. Jrrs 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day, a performance car should be compared to other performance cars. The displacement and number of cylinders in the engine is only one of MANY criteria suitable for comparison. The problem with the S2000 isn't the number of cylinders, it is the available torque. The story I heard (though I have no reference for this) was that the car was originally designed with a different rear-end ratio in mind. However, when the prototypes were taken for a drive, the lack of torque in the engine made the performance unacceptable. However, rather than redesigning the engine, they simply shortened the rear-end ratio and did so without changing the ratios in the transmission. Later versions of the car changed the ratios of the top gears but not as much as some people would have liked. --SpinyNorman 00:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The numbers are wrong, I'm using http://www.turnzero.com/technical_resources.php?resource=gear_calculator and coming up with AP2 Honda S2000 turning 3973 rpms at 75 mph. The AP1 come in pretty close to 4000 as well. Engine RPMs at 75 mph aren't a very standard way to evaluate a car, but creative. Also the exact number can be calculated, why use the "~" to say your guessing, when you could list 3973, though ~4000 would have been much closer rounding. If your going to do this sort of chart, go ahead and used more exact numbers. You can do better than 100 rpm differences, 10 would be better. No '~' at all would have been best. A much better number would be cabin level noise in db. This shows the S2000 as quieter than cars with hardtops. A nice reference for these numbers is Road and Track 2006 Annual Road Test it compares the S2000 to 8 other sport cars, all of which cost more, and the S2000 places 5th. Part is online at: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1949&page_number=1 The Miata didn't make the article but it's numbers are here as well. Lets do engine RPM @60mph in 2005MY

• BMW Z4: 2100
• Chevy Corvette Coupe: 1500
• Dodge Viper: 1000
• Honda S2000: 3000
• Lotus Elise: 3000
• Mercedes SLK350:2300
• Nissan 350Z: 2150
• Porche Boxter: 2500
• Porche Carrera: 2300

The S is high, but comparable to the Elise. Now lets do dbA: 3 numbers, idle, top of first and 70mph:

• BMW Z4: 47,76,73
• Chevy Corvette Coupe: 53,83,76
• Dodge Viper: 64,87,82
• Honda S2000: 49,85,77
• Lotus Elise: 57,88,80
• Mercedes SLK350: 46,74,73
• Nissan 350Z: 47,82,75
• Porche Boxter: 56,79,78
• Porche Carrera: 53,82,75

The numbers show it average for a sports car, which we can all agree that it is. I'm certainly interested in including as much information as possible, lets not just pick and choose the numbers that back up our POV. As an example the torque number by itself is meaningless. The S2000 makes 162 lbs of torque, but it makes it at 6500 rpms! The formula for calculating HP favors torque at high rpms, the is the only way to really get power out of a naturally aspirated 4cyl. The lotus elise has a very measily torque number of 138 ft-lbs, but clocks 0-60 times of 4.6 seconds. Using single facts to make a point is a great argument technique, but this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. From personal experience I can say that the 2006 S2000 is balanced toward understear, not overstear. I haven't seen any snap-overstear at all.

Others, can these numbers go directly into the Wiki, or does road and track have to give permission? --__redruM

On the subject of rpms at speed, according to the official Honda press-pack [6], the S2000 delivers 18.3 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear. That equates to 3279 rpm at 60mph and 4098 at 75mph (typical freeway cruising speed). I will adjust the article accordingly. --SpinyNorman 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are those english miles or something? Road and Track says different, and I gave you 8 other example, for a better comparison. --__redruM

Actually, mate, only the gallons are different in the UK. The miles are the same. Road & Track can say what they like, but the info I have comes directly from Honda.

Also, I'm curious about your noise figures. Care to post a source? I ask because, according to my source, the Lotus Exige only rates a 74 dbA at 60mph [7]. I trust we'll all agree that the Exige maintains a firm, arms-length relationship with refinement. And the idea that a Boxster is louder than an Exige or an S2000 at 60mph doesn't pass the laugh test. And if it is true that an S2000 is louder than an Exige at cruising speed, well, that doesn't bode well for the Honda's claim to be a daily-driver, does it? I mean, don't get me wrong, the S2000 is nothing short of brilliant on B-roads... provided it isn't raining and you don't push it too hard through the corners. But on motorways, the constant drone is rapidly wearying. And if the top is down, you'd better forget about conversation or listening to the radio. --SpinyNorman 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all in the magazine article, I quoted. The stats are only in the softcopy "Road and Track 2006 Annual Road Test". My numbers were for the Elise not the Exige. The softcopy is pretty detailed and has stat pages for a wide range of cars. The same magazine gave me the 3000 at 60mph. Also the db number are at 70, not 60. The first is idle the second is the top of 1st and the last is 70mph. Both the Boxter and the S2000 are convertables, so their noise levels will be similar, you missed something on the Elise though, its the loudest of the bunch. Any convertable is loud with the top down at 70. You really don't get loud enging noise until 6000rpms where VTEC kicks in. The crusing rpm level isn't even halfway to the redline. --__redruM

I didn't miss the fact that the Elise is loud (though the Viper is louder). I've driven and Elise and though I didn't have a noise meter with me at the time, I would say it is definitely in the same category as the S2000 when it comes to noise at cruising. --SpinyNorman 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The numbers for the Elise are wrong. My gear calc has them roughly equal to the S2000. Make the numbers accurate, use my R&T numbers at 60mph, or remove the section. I did 4 hours on the highway today, and 3000 rpms at 60 isn't that loud. With the top down, wind noise is louder than engine noise until VTEC kicks in. With the top up, engine noise doesn't interfere with conversation at any point below about 6000 as well. RedruM 03:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done thousands of miles at speeds in excess of 70mph on motorways with the S2000 - I agree it isn't as loud as some cars but it is quite loud. As for the Elise numbers being "wrong", to which numbers do you refer? --SpinyNorman 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sales Numbers

There's a lot more sales information at the Honda news site then what is posted. I've collected the following and would like to add it to the sales section.

Model Year	Total US Sales for the S2000
1999	3400
2000	6797
2001	9682
2002	9684
2003	7888
2004	7320
2005	7780

2006 thru july:4288 (2005 at july: 4989)

All numbers are available at: http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1007?html=sales.html

-RedruM 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, go ahead and add it. --SpinyNorman 04:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just when I'm starting to think, hey maybe this Spiny guy isn't all bad, you use this in your arbitration. That is really contrived. You are making me feel icky. RedruM 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? Do you think I agreed with you because I was in arbitration? I agreed with you because you were right. Excuse me for using an example of me agreeing with someone because they're right as evidence that I'm not a contrarian. --SpinyNorman 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The timing was damning, and made it appear that you agreed so that you would have evidence for arbitration. Can you see how I would think this? RedruM 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it is worth, that's not why I agreed with you. As I said before, I agreed with you because I thought you were right. I suppose if we wanted to get really paranoid, I could assume that you planted this thing about the sales figures (instead of just adding the clearly documented and uncontroversial sales information to the article) in the talk page to bait me into disagreeing with you on the assumption that I would object to sales figures because they somehow reflected positively on the car. You could then go to the arbcom and say "See what a loonie this guy is? He even objects to reporting sales figures!". However, the truth is that I don't object to saying nice things about the car. I've said more than a few myself. I think the engine is an awesome engineering achievement. In a perfect world, I'd like to see them build a "GT" version of the car with a slightly longer wheelbase to allow 2+2 seating, a gearbox with all-new ratios and an "F30C" engine (basically an 3.0 liter, inline-six version of the F20C that retains the 120 bhp/litre and 9000rpm redline of its little brother). As good as the exhaust note of the F20C is at full-chat - can you imagine the snarl of a straight-six version? For sheer aural pleasure, it would blow anything from Maranello into the weeds. --SpinyNorman 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about positive or negative aspects about the car, Spiny. It's about whether the page informs in a NPOV / encyclopedic manner or not. Moreover, I do not 'call' you 'paranoid' without backing it up with evidence of your actions, but if you think this alone is more powerful than any evidence to refute my 'statement of evidence' on the Evidence page of the ArbCom case (rather than just by argument), then I guess the evidence I fished out quite literally speaks for itself. Jsw663 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's EXACTLY what this "dispute" is about... reporting both the positive and negative aspects of this car as described by automotive journalists despite the attempts of a handful of self-appointed censors to prevent this. As for your attempt to excuse your earlier rudeness in referring to me as paranoid... What "backing up" did you do exactly? In both examples, you were just blowing hot air. I mean, put it another way, if someone you, as a purely hypothetical example, an "ignorant asshole" and backed up their claim, would you accept that description? As for the so-called "evidence" on the arbcom page, if I were you I'd be embarrassed that the cabal couldn't actually support any of their claims. This is just petulant time-wasting on their part and I'm saddened for them that they don't have anything better to do that waste the arbcom's time with their fact-free rants. --SpinyNorman 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This ArbCom dispute is about whether your intolerance towards others' opinions and whether your "authoritative opinion" is acceptable. Other editors have already agreed on a shorter criticism section which is not just written by you, thus this dispute is not about whether the negative as well as the positive aspects of this car are being reported. Not for one moment was I making excuses about calling you paranoid either. Unlike you, I am not calling others ignorant and uneducated when they don't completely agree with your opinion. Nor do I call them hostile (as you alleged of RedruM), allege others have an agenda or work for Honda, or call anybody else's edits censorship, then just later in the same statement dare to claim that debate and controversy are good things when you so obviously don't apply the same principle for yourself. Is only your opinion on car-related articles relevant whereas others' are inferior or unknowledgable? I called you paranoid because the only other people who so perfectly revert any page / talk page within 24 hours are those who engage in 3RR violations, as evidenced on your own talk page an increasing number of times as this ArbCom case continues. A mediator's job is to ensure there is compromise, but the only one not compromising is you - and after perusing your user talk page, I noticed this behaviour is not unique to the Honda S2000 article either. Last but not least, my evidence page actually contained evidence of your own quotes (ie factual), which support my assertion. What 'evidence' have you used to support yours? Note I am encouraging you to defend yourself better here using solid evidence. If you think character assassination is the only way to vindicate yourself, then I'm sure the ArbCom will make a more appropriate and more importantly, enforceable decision. Jsw663 09:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the arbcom dispute is nothing but the actions a handful of petulant fanboys who resent my insistence that they not be allowed to censor legitimate criticism of the car from the automotive press. You can try to dress it up in some sort of noble construct, but in the end that's all it is. There is no compromise with censors. As for the so-called "evidence" on your arbcom page, it isn't anything of the sort. The only evidence on that page is that a handful of whiners can't handle the truth that the S2000 is a fine car in many ways but not without its faults. And for the record: I haven't called Redrum "hostile". I don't call people "ignorant" or "uneducated" (except for the anonymous troll from Texas, but even then, it is just my opinion). I don't claim that anyone here works for Honda. You can continue to try to twist my words, but in the end, that's all you're doing. --SpinyNorman 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you again: when others edit your criticism, it's censorship, but when you edit others', it's not? My evidence was merely requoting your very own statements. If anything, Addhoc has argued for your case more strongly than you have for yourself (by presenting actual counter-evidence rather than just unprovable statements). Moreover, you need to learn to control yourself on constant reverts. If you can't learn the 3RR rule properly, you will not be welcome on Wikipedia. Thankfully an admin had the common sense to extend your latest 3RR ban to a week! Jsw663 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

BBC source

Zunaid, although I am not a fan of Spiny's behavior, is it a wiki policy that we exclude criticism that has too 'high a level of detail'? The BBC is definitely a reliable source, and I don't quite see how comparison with so many other cars is necessarily excessive detail. However, what that paragraph definitely needs is a FULL CITATION / source / reference. Jsw663 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt the BBC is a reliable source, but Top Gear is does not represent the views of the BBC. It's a car entertainment program, and as such could be syndicated by just about any TV channel (in fact Jeremy Clarkson frequently critises the BBC in the program....often pointing out "the unique way in which the BBC is funded" as a euphemism for Top Gear not being allocated enough money by the corporation). "Level of detail" is not a policy, its a guideline (I can't remember which exactly, there are far too many guidelines as it is). IMHO an encylopedia should give an "arm's length" treatment of a subject in a cold and dispassionate (read "neutral") way. This article is slowly being turned into a car review, a point I made in the arbitration case. Read the criticism section and see if you get what I'm getting at. There is more mention made of OTHER cars than there is of the S2000 itself.

Citing the car's performance in one particular car program (among hundreds of car programs around the world), based on its lap time on the particular circuit used by that program, gives too much prominence to that one result in comparison to the general corpus of reviews out there. It is also selective use of material (as Spiny has been prone to do before - see the Pistonheads debate above). Jeremy Clarkson (who is as notable as Top Gear itself) is a HUGE fan of the car (and has given it is good review on Top Gear), which has also won the Top Gear viewer survey two years running (another factoid which I removed from the article way back when for giving too much prominence to a viewer survey on a car program in relation to motor industry awards). Zunaid 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)