Talk:Honda S2000
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archive and Review section
I've archived the criticism section debates, in part to refactor and "reset" the discussion such that we can talk about improving the article rather than the car itself. The talk page had reached 100kB, triple the suggested size limit.
I've also created a "review" section that encompasses positive and negative reviews and posted it to a user subpage that shows what the article would look like here: User:AKADriver/Honda_S2000. Comments are appreciated.
— AKADriver ☎ 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've merged in my version. I paved over some of the edits made since I branched off since they contained some unverifiable statements ("unofficial polls" and the like) and a couple errors (factual and typo). I tried to preserve most of the points of the longer criticism but condensed them to let the sources linked do the hard work of verifying them. — AKADriver ☎ 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism, 19 September 2006
I cannot believe that SpinyNorman's behaviour is being tolerated.
The S2000 is not a widely criticised car. It is in fact widely praised with some criticism & reservations (justified and otherwise). Reading the wiki article as stood made the car out to be a technical and popular failure. The awards and reviews section is extremely short as compared to the outlandish criticisms part. This is material for a Ihate2000.com page not an encyclopedic entry.
There is no need for a technical comparison of revs or speed ratios. This is technical information that is not necessary for a wiki article (I haven't seen such information on a hundred or so different car related pages).
Topgear.co.uk and Jeremy Clarkson (as shown in episodes), love this car so the choice of quotes is tendentious.
Keep your hatred of this car off wiki.
--Dustek 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- By and large, it's not being tolerated. It's been taken up by the arbcom. I think we've all simply been refraining from re-engaging in a revert war until all is said and done. Though currently I believe he's been blocked for a week for breaking the rules on some other article. There's a good shortened version of the section in the history, I'll see if I can bring it back and clean it up with some of the references added since it was last reverted to the long version. — AKADriver ☎ 13:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that it should be further mentioned that the S2000 has won many accolades from Automotive Publications around the world. I didn't see any mention of the fact that the S2000 has been on C&D's 10 Best list for 3 years, and was Automobile Mag's Roadster of the Year. The S2000 also won a comparison in C&D ("The Blow Dryers") where it beat out the Boxster, 350Z, 1.8TT, and Z4 3.0 - that's some stiff competition. It placed 5th out of 9, in and all-out sports car comparo done in R&T about a year ago, beating out the SLK350, Z4 3.0, 350Z, and Viper. The cars ahead of it were the Elise, Boxster, 911 Carrera S, and C6 Corvette - all of which cost plenty more.
-
- I also think that the part about "sudden" oversteer should be amended. It is "sudden" in the wrong hands. Too many amateurs, that have grown up on FWD vehicles, get into an S2000, and think they can handle it. Rarely do you see some of the older driving population wrecking this thing in day-to-day driving, because they are much more accustomed to the dynamics of a rear wheel drive vehicle. If anything, pre 04 vehicles were subject to bumpsteer due to some of the anti-squat geometry in the suspension that was initially built into the vehicle. The 04 and up vehicles, are more planted over bumps. As for "sudden" oversteer - the problem is the nut behind the wheel!
-
- Low-end torque might be lacking compared to a 350Z, but then again this vehicle weighs a good 700lb less than a Z and thus doesn't need as much. For a 2.0L engine, the torque output was phenomenal and that was part of the addiction of the car - keeping the revs on boil when you really wanted to go. I know its not for everyone, but I'd say this was more of a trait than a criticism of the car.
-
- Last but not least, I don't believe that the gearing on this vehicle, even Pre 04, was an issue. You have many 00 - 03 owners changing the differential on the car from 4.10 to 4.57 and even 4.77's and they still don't find it to be a problem. In fact, many S2000 owners have found that the engine might be more efficient at a slightly higher crusing rpm, just before VTEC - weird, but true.:
--vishnus11 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Per WP:EL#What should be linked to: 5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks. (my emphasis). IMHO linking owners' clubs does not contribute "meaningful" or "relevant" info to the article. This is not a limited edition car and any Joe Public can buy one. A list of owners is therefore entirely unencyclopedic data (as opposed to knowledge) and should be removed. (Might I just say it's a refreshing change to read a well-balanced NPOV article on this car after such a long time!) Zunaid 12:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Owners' clubs have large quantities of information about the car that can't be fit into the article. For example:
- Speaking of S2Ki. I have an interesting picture: relative activity levels in various North American regional sections of S2Ki.com forums ( ratios of numbers of posts to state populations ). Technically it's not WP:OR because it's just taking numbers from public sources and doing arithmetic calculations. It also gives a good perspective on where S2000 owners actually live. Lacking any official data on regional sales, this may be as close to real geographic distribution of S2000 as we're ever going to get. Is it worth adding to the article? --Itinerant1 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No, for two reasons: 1. Membership of owner's clubs is not compulsory, thus any data collected on the basis of relative activity levels is unlikely to be considered reliable. 2. This is info for a specific country and IMHO is too high a "level of detail" for an encyclopedia article. Your average reader coming to this article won't care about the geographical distribution of sales in the US, in fact your average reader is probably not even American. I can't access the specific link you point to (it just loads a blank page), but I noticed the URL contains the dreaded word "blog". These are specifically mentioned in WP:EL as things generally not to be linked, as the information is not fact-checked in any way whatsoever. It would be preferable to get "under the hood" info from a link to a magazine review or well-respected car tuning company's website. Pending that however, the link could stay as it may provide extra info for the interested reader. Zunaid 07:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reduced RPM claim
I'm rather doubtful about the claim that the redline was reduced to 8200 rpm for the 2.0 litre engine, as stated in the "models" section. I know the F22C1 had the reduced revs from the increased stroke, but I can't figure out why Honda would reduce it for the F20C as well. Further more, I don't know if the 8200 rpm claim is referring to the redline as marked on the tachometer or if it refers to the cut-out. Since other parts of the article mention the F22C1 as having a "redline" of 8200 rpm, I'm assuming the latter. Checking with the UK and Australian Honda websites, they both still list peak power as arriving at 8300 rpm, which makes a 8200 rpm cut-out a bit impossible. The Australian S2000 brochure on the site also still mentions a 9000 rev limit. VectorD 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
