Talk:Honda S2000/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

I think it is pretty funny that some people can't tolerate criticism of something as trivial as a car. Everyone here who censored Spiny's attempts to introduce some balace into this article should hang their heads in shame. Wikipedia would be better without people like you. --JonGwynne 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon, again, please don't talk about your sockpuppet SpinyNorman in the third person, it gives a false impression. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

S2Ki: Under the Hood

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)

Taking these comments into consideration, I have re-introduced the external links sections with only an official link and a dmoz template link. Links like fan sites, blogs, or anything else that doesn't fall under WP:EL should be submitted to dmoz for user evaluation. Roguegeek (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the following site should be linked on the main page of this article: http://www.s2ki.com It contains information and members from all over the world and subjectively falls under the "...or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)" part of the WP:EL - leaving it out seems to have no more solid arguments than leaving it in, and if the overall goal of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge, I don't see why we would not include this resource. It is also has a highly rated forum site ( http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=all - currently 77th overall) and would lead interested people to an active discussion of the S2000 - is that not a good thing? Sayantsi 12:45, 23 March 2007

It looks ok, but it should be submitted through the Open Directory Project link listed in the external links section. Roguegeek (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a link to http://www.s2ki.com should be in this article. It is the best source of info for anyone needing to know something about the S2K. Edgeware 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Include it though the Open Directory Project. Forums are not valid external links. Roguegeek (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Since there's been no claims to the contrary, I've decided to remove the claim and make the distinction between the 2.0 L and 2.2 L engine rev limits clearer. VectorD 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vector is correct the F20C engine hasn't had it's rev limiter reduced. It cut's out just before 9Krpm. Something else, don't know if it's the correct section(I'm new), the F20C(in Europe at least) only produces 240PS, or 237BHP, making it 118.5 bhp/litre, not 120bhp/litre. Just a small thing I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.35 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

120hp/L claim removed as it was wrong for a couple of reasons. VectorD 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism section restored

How the section sounds is not a valid reason to remove it. The section is well cited. If you think this is a cut and paste job then I invite you to produce the URL of the website it is cut from and at that point it should be removed as a copyright violation; but right now this is a verified and sourced section of the article and should stay unless it can be demonstrated that it is a copyvio, the sources are not reliable, or that it is needlessly POV.--Isotope23 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out the criticism section after going through the references provided. (Comment: like User:AKADriver I've been through the nauseating history of this section, so please don't take my actions as that of an uninformed editor.) Basically, the reviews provided don't actually criticise the car, they merely refer to what "some enthusiasts" have complained about. This is vague, hearsay and mere "passing on" of stories. Unless the review itself specifically mentions something about the car as a bad trait (as opposed to a vague "some people say..." assertion), it does not warrant inclusion in the article. Criticism and reviews should come from reliable sources, not hearsay. Zunaid©^{Review me!} 08:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Like I said above, if someone can demonstrate this is a copyvio, the sources are not reliable, or that it is needlessly POV that is a valid reason to remove and I think you've made your argument that the reliability is somewhat questionable.--Isotope23 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Huh? Where is the POV dispute? Having that tag on the current version of the article makes about zero sense... Beyond that, there still has been no valid justification for the removal of the criticism section given.--Isotope23 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the inappropriate tag and restored the deleted section. To Hondasaregood: Those criticisms were well-sourced and may not be deleted just because you disagree with them. The solution to POV bias is to add your own sourced, positive POV re performance and handling. -DoctorW 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also check the talk page archive for more nauseating discussion on this topic. As the editor who framed the section in its current form, I think it's a pretty good compromise. The "love to hate" crowd can and will retaliate with reams of well-sourced criticism to push their POV - don't tempt them. — AKADriver ☎ 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Successor

I'm not sure why there's a successor section as there is no real evidence of any work at Honda to create one. The S2000 production continues with no new design studies or discussion on a future roadster platform similar to the S2000 other than media-generated hype and conjecture. --Sayantsi (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the two successors listed are adequately sourced (well, sort of), but does anybody really believe that Honda will be going downsize and downscale with the next generation to compete with the Miata? Just because some magazine says it has reason to believe it, doesn't make it credible enough to put it in an encyclopedia -- particularly when it's otherwise so hard to believe. atakdoug 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

It's been a while since this article has received a major overhaul. I don't think it really needs it, but the article could definitely be better. I'm going to start restructuring the article with AP1 and AP2 being their own sections since the vehicles do have some very notable differences. Things like trims/options and powertrains can be have their own section within AP1/2 section is also what I'm thinking. There's also a major lack of reliable sources which I've also been search for and finding. I will be adding these in as well to bring far more verifiability to the article as a whole. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to do this on a draft page maybe? I like the current layout which I think has a natural flow to it. I'm not 100% sure of the idea so I'll have to see the two copies side by side to compare. Maybe we should get a peer review of some sorts first, just to judge how far off this is from being a Featured Article. Zunaid©® 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Would be great if someone who knows a lot about the car to mention the changes in the body and lights between the AP1 and AP" which currently aren't mentioned. Great job on the page though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.80.163 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Transmission?

Who makes it? Aisin or somebody else? What models are used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.183.241 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifications table

The specs table has separate columns for AP1 and AP2 (although those are not the actual headings), however the ONLY difference in spec between these two is the weight (a difference of only 3 kgs, which is probably within tolerances anyway). Is it absolutely necessary to keep both? If not, could someone more familiar with tables remove the one column? Zunaid 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I don't think the units need to be wikilinked in the table. They are (or should be) linked in the text. Wikilinks in the table are distracting and look untidy. Zunaid 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To say the only difference in spec between the AP1 and AP2 is just weight is flat out wrong. The AP2 was being manufactured with both the F20C and the F22C engines for some time before all regions just got the F22C. So the four distinct models with significant spec changes I can see over lifespan of the S2000 are the AP1, AP2 with F20C, AP2 with F22C, and AP2 CR. The spec table account for all four. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't REALLY. The ONLY difference documented IN THE TABLE is the weight. In fact the column headings are not even called AP1, AP2 etc. Also, the F22C1 was NEVER rolled out to all markets, thus the table is misleading. I can right now buy a brand new S2000 with the F20C here (South Africa). I'm going to make some minor changes to the table (links and typos), have a look see and let me know if it is better. Zunaid 08:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The post below was made to my talk page in response to [this revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honda_S2000&diff=276366274&oldid=276320544] of changes made to the specs table:

The information you have in the article is good, but the table is slightly innacurate. I made the appropriate changes. I own and race an AP1 S2000 and am quite knowledgeable with respect to changes to the car year-by-year with the AP1 and AP2. The AP1 never offered the F22 (2.2 Liter) Engine. It was solely the F20 (2.0 Liter Engine) from 2000-2003. The AP2 (04+ and CR) have the F22 engine only. There are also many small difference within each model year that I can go in to should you find it interesting, i.e. suspension spring rates, sway bar thickness, wheel size, ECU revisions etc. The AP2 also has significantly different gear ratios (shorter) than AP1.

Thanks for your hard work in getting a great article together - I just want to help you make it perfect. :)

In response to the above post which was made on my talk page, the S2000 AP2 F20C is still sold in all markets outside the U.S. and Japan. The assertion that the AP2 is sold in 2.2 L format only is wrong. I know because I drive one! The removal of the AP2 F20C column is thus incorrect. I agree the AP1 was never offered in 2.2 L, however that is not the issue under discussion and is not what the removed column was claiming. Zunaid 07:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan on Japanese F20C S2000

As per Zunaid's request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, I conducted a quick internet search for references on the specifications of Japanese version of the 2.0 L Honda S2000 and found:

• Honda's annual report for the fiscal 1999[1], which states at the front inside cover (and the same information is also mentioned in severl other pages after that) that "a naturally aspirated 2-liter 4-cylinder engine ... boasts 250 PS and 9,000 rpm (Japan specifications)."
• Press release (in Japanese) dated 15 April 1999 on the launch of S2000[2], which states:

新開発F20C 2リッター4気筒自然吸気DOHC VTECエンジンは、リッターあたり125馬力、最高出力250PS/8,300rpm、最大回転数9,000rpm、最大トルク22.2kgm/7,500rpmを発生。2リッター4気筒自然吸気では世界トップレベルの高性能を実現している。

(my English translation) Newly developed F20C, 2-litter, 4-cylinder, naturally aspirated, DOHC VTEC engine produces 125 PS per litter, maximun power of 250PS/8,300rpm, maximum engine speed of 9,000rpm, and maximum torque of 22.2kg/7,500rpm -- top level performance in the world for a 2-litter 4-cylinder natuarally aspirated engine.

I was not able to find anything mentioning 247hp at 8,600rpm or a difference in compression ratio.--Dwy (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dwy! That's been in the article with a {fact} tag for way too long! I will change the article accordingly. Zunaid 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

I've re-inserted the removed secondary sources. Looking through the edit sumarries, it looks as if it was removed due to redundancy. Although I can understand that point, these references should not have been removed. As per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia is built upon secondary sources and are always recommended over primary sources. I've also changed all the ref dates back to ISO format, a universal and standardized format and the one used in all examples on all cite template documentation pages.

If there's a reason for these changes, let's discuss. I'm open to the changes if they make sense, but discussion is needed first. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this section. Regarding the date format, I'm fine with ISO so let's leave it there. As far as the references are concerned I always support using secondary sources as much as possible, however in these particular cases the SS's are not producing any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (to quote WP:PSTS) but are merely parroting what Honda has released to the press. In this sense I contend that the SS's are not actually "secondary" but can actually be considered as second-hand "primary" sources. On the flipside we as editors are using the PS's "only to make descriptive claims". Given all this, I feel it is better to use the original source. Why reference an auto mag to report what Honda has said when we've got Honda's words in writing? It would be a different case if we were actually using some synthesis or analysis made by the magazines in the article, but all the instances under discussion are simply repetition of mundane facts. We are already citing Honda directly to reference statement X, then additionally citing an auto mag to reference the fact that "Honda said X". Zunaid 15:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're probably right about the secondary sources. I still don't see a reason (not - added by Zunaid) to have both if both can be provided. I've always been of the mindset to throw in as many quality sources as you can find, but I definitely see your view. I'm ok with replacing them if you want to. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are quality sources but some of them are only useful for referencing a single fact/statement in the article and don't really expand beyond the statement they are referencing. Thus including multiple sources for these cases is not useful. I'll get around to it next time there's something to fix/expand, there's really no rush to do it right now :) Zunaid 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Weight and dimensions

Okay, we have a (slight) problem. I've found that different Honda official sites are quoting different weights and dimensions for the same model of vehicle. There are definitely at least 2 different sets of info for the U.S. spec AP2 F22C1. The table is only set up for models (i.e. multiple years), whereas the official weight may vary every year. It's obvious that there will be a range of weights encompassing the same model. What to do? I can think of 2 solutions:

1. We publish the weight/dimensions that we can obtain from official owner's manuals, asterisk them and leave a note under the table to the effect of "from 2005 owner's manual, varies according to model year and/or different Honda sources"
2. We publish the range of weights and dimensions (just lowest and highest) from the different Honda sources and do the same asterisk thing with "approximate values, varies according to model year and/or different Honda sources" or something to that effect.

My only problem with option 2 is that it is messy (2 weights X 2 sets of units per model) and we would be committing original research in publishing a "lowest to highest" range without proof that they are the lowest or highest values. Zunaid 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AP1 redline

The F20C engine in the AP1 chassis for the USA has a redline of 9000rpm and fuel cutoff of 9200rpm. This is verifiable from many sources, including looking at the tachometer itself. Honda also claimed, in some places, that the F20C engine is the highest revving production engine ever in the world. This would make sense given the Acura Integra Type R had a redline of 8900rpm.

Please excuse me from any etiquette mistakes I've made as this is my first post.

Davidjosephc (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll enjoy editing here :) And no, no etiquette mistakes, you're off to a good start! This official Honda site is the reference which supports the figures quoted in the article. Several editors have changed the figures to 9000/9200 without providing references, which led to its current semi-protection. If there is an official Honda source which quotes the contradicting figures then we can put this fact (the contradiction of sources) into the article. p.s. I moved your comment to a new section; the usual way to start a new topic is to use the "new section" tab at the top of this page. I will also leave a welcome message on your page should you need any further help. Zunaid 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Honda Service Manual for the S2000 does not list the redline or fuel cutoff for the AP1 or AP2 engines. Or at least I can't find it. One way though to verify at least the redline for the AP1 engine is the redline on the tach itself. It is at 9000 rpm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjosephc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Basically speaking, all facts stated in an article need to be supported by reliable references. To explain why this is the case let's use the current example. The numbers and red markings on the tach are printed against the perspex which covers the instrument cluster. There is no reason to expect them to be lined up with 200rpm precision. What if your S2000's perspex cover lines up at 9,000 and mine's lines up at 8,800? Since there is no means for either of us to prove who is correct, Wikipedia takes the position that no original research is allowed, and only previously published results (which are published by sources that are known to be reliable) may be included in an article. In this case Honda themselves can be considered a pretty reliable source ;) Regards. Zunaid 10:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)