So where is Honda's "sporty"car?
#61
03-21-2010, 11:43 PM
The S2000 is probably the best affordable Hondas to come around in some time (what other car that's affordable and not italian has a 9000 RPM redline?). Sadly the general public doesn't like cars that dont come with automatics. The S2000 was a Honda engineer's orgasmic fantasy come true and that's what made it appealing to enthusiasts. I'd rather it stay dead than come back alive in the form of a soft roader hard top with a slush box that's perfect for the Beverley Hills milf wannabe, that's what the Camry Solara is for.
classic~! milf wannabe....thats a new one on me.
#63
03-22-2010, 01:03 AM
The Honda Fit is not a sports car. It might be sporty in ITS class. But its obviously not what the topic starter meant when he was talking about the s2000. And calling it sporty for its class is highly debatable too since in this class you have a lot of other cars like the mazda3, honda civic, ford fiesta, mazda2, mini, suzuki swift, toyota aygo, toyota iq. Not sure if they are all available in the states. I probably missed out on a lot of other European cars too.
I don't know why people are just trying to make the FIT look better then it is. It is not the ultimate car. In fact the car wasn't even satisfying to begin with for me. I just can't get any better because I don't have money.
I also don't know why its either toyota and honda or an american car. Why can't european cars be considered? I know that VW scirocco is a nice hot-hatch. I am pretty sure BMW, Mercedes and Audi have something in their line-up as well.
I don't know why people are just trying to make the FIT look better then it is. It is not the ultimate car. In fact the car wasn't even satisfying to begin with for me. I just can't get any better because I don't have money.
I also don't know why its either toyota and honda or an american car. Why can't european cars be considered? I know that VW scirocco is a nice hot-hatch. I am pretty sure BMW, Mercedes and Audi have something in their line-up as well.
#64
03-22-2010, 01:04 AM
mtunofun..You are probably right, but I just wish they had upgraded the styling. If I am going to spend upwards of $30,000 for a new car, I want it to LOOK like a new car. If they had upgraded it, I might have bought a S2K instead of my Solstice. Most people are just too lazy to stir the gears by hand, but it should still be offered to those who want some fun.
Wilcoholic..The European ones could certainly be considered, but I was in particular talking about the trend in Japanese builders to ditch sporty stuff. I like the Japanese stuff better because of more consistent quality, and the fun I used to have with my formerly fun to drive Toyotas and Hondas.
Wilcoholic..The European ones could certainly be considered, but I was in particular talking about the trend in Japanese builders to ditch sporty stuff. I like the Japanese stuff better because of more consistent quality, and the fun I used to have with my formerly fun to drive Toyotas and Hondas.
Last edited by citabria7; 03-22-2010 at 01:09 AM.
#66
03-22-2010, 02:05 AM
The only reason I even wanted a Fit was because it was similar in size and performance to the VW Rabitts of the 80s and there was sure to be a strong after market interest in it..... A sports car is too costly to insure and attracts cops like an AK-47..... I am not into eye candy that calls undue attention and only spend money on performance enhancement items.... The Fit is the only Japanese car that has ever appealed to me since owning a few Japanese motorcycles and an 82 Accord with automatic transmission... I like European cars but new ones are out of my price range and Hondas I have owned though more appliance like than performance oriented have been very dependable and trouble free... I am the only person to have turned a wrench on mine and plan to drive it until I can't drive any longer..... Every year I try to do something to improve performance and hope to add another 5 PSI boost soon.... It may not be a sports car but I have owned sports cars and they are over rated. This little car is giving me a lot of pleasure without any of the hassles and expense and offers a lot of versatility..... I might need to upgrade the drivers seat sooner or later but comfort to me is only found in Cadillacs and Volvos or Corbin seats on motorcycles.
#67
03-22-2010, 10:04 AM
Texas Coyote...I like the Fit too. It is fun, but not like a true sports or performance car. My Solstice only cost me $80 a month for GOOD coverage. You might look around for a cheaper, yet good insurance company. I, do like eye candy. It's fun.
#68
03-22-2010, 01:42 PM
I am covering a 2009 Forester and my Fit with full coverage,and a 95 GMC pickup with liability for about $1000.00 a year..... I really have to make my money go a long way having not being able to work for almost 20 years and living on V.A. disability income.... The good thing about being disabled and not having money is that you appreciate what you have and the days that you aren't in too much pain to work on and enjoy those things..... My Fit and my insane Border Collie that I am slowly training are good physical and mental therapy and there is enough money that I am able to have a few pleasures but without financial discipline my life would be very stressful.
#69
03-22-2010, 03:19 PM
Did you read my sig? My father bought a Fit as a runabout, and generally boards are the best place to learn about the car. It's how I programmed his car to unlock all the doors when he tosses it in park and how I discovered that it's missing body plugs. However, I'm also OBJECTIVE about the way it performs.
I actually like the car. It carries a lot of stuff and isn't horrendous to drive. It's certainly not bad to squirt around in. However, on the scale of ALL cars, it hovers firmly near the top of the bell curve, to the left. All the way to the left you have things like the second generation RX and the Cadillac DTS. All the way to the right, the Caparo T1.
An 09 Camry SE V6 will run mid 14s in the quarter and hit .82 on the skidpad.
Last edited by ls2junkie; 03-22-2010 at 03:29 PM.
#70
03-22-2010, 03:32 PM
We have made our peace, so it is dangerous for me to try to make this point, but please take it in the friendliest way.
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
#71
03-22-2010, 03:42 PM
We have made our peace, so it is dangerous for me to try to make this point, but please take it in the friendliest way.
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
Clearly. I used the Camry as an example because everyone always points to the Camry as the epitome of bland driving. It was just to prove a point that it's hard to call something a sporty car with no context. At the beginning of the thread, people were just blindly referring to the Fit as sporty. Without a frame of reference, I was forced to compare it to the scope of all cars.
Had they simply added the qualifier of "in it's class" (to which I wholly agree) I would not have even bothered responding.
Blindly saying "The Honda Fit is a sporty car," is like me saying "The GT-R is a cheap car." True when comparing it to the 599, the 997 GT2, the DBS, and what have you. But against all cars? 80k ain't cheap. A few people made that assertion at the beginning of the thread, hence my response.
The Fit is plenty sporty for the "we needed a car that will fit down side roads in Tokyo and Milan that were designed for the width of a horse at max and still haul shit" class. I LIKE the car. I just think it's ridiculous to call it sporty without qualifying that with "in it's class" or "for under 20k new."
Last edited by ls2junkie; 03-22-2010 at 03:44 PM.
#72
03-22-2010, 03:56 PM
Did you read my sig? My father bought a Fit as a runabout, and generally boards are the best place to learn about the car. It's how I programmed his car to unlock all the doors when he tosses it in park and how I discovered that it's missing body plugs. However, I'm also OBJECTIVE about the way it performs.
I actually like the car. It carries a lot of stuff and isn't horrendous to drive. It's certainly not bad to squirt around in. However, on the scale of ALL cars, it hovers firmly near the top of the bell curve, to the left. All the way to the left you have things like the second generation RX and the Cadillac DTS. All the way to the right, the Caparo T1.
An 09 Camry SE V6 will run mid 14s in the quarter and hit .82 on the skidpad.
I actually like the car. It carries a lot of stuff and isn't horrendous to drive. It's certainly not bad to squirt around in. However, on the scale of ALL cars, it hovers firmly near the top of the bell curve, to the left. All the way to the left you have things like the second generation RX and the Cadillac DTS. All the way to the right, the Caparo T1.
An 09 Camry SE V6 will run mid 14s in the quarter and hit .82 on the skidpad.
We have made our peace, so it is dangerous for me to try to make this point, but please take it in the friendliest way.
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to calling a car "sporty". The "-y" is a qualifier. Calling the Fit a "sports car" would be asinine, but it's apparent everyone here has a different idea of "sporty".
That said, why would you compare the Fit to a car that's almost 25% more expensive (Camry)???? That's not in the same "class" anymore. And I'd say, again, for it's class the Fit is "sporty" "enough".
Ok, here seems to be the problem as I see it.
ls2junkie, for some reason you seem to have it in your head we here(secondpassed, myself, and pretty much almost every forum member here) see the Fit as the ultimate car. We don't, if you can't seem to figure out from our MANY qualifiers, we see it as the ulimate car for OUR needs. No one here is comparing the car to EVERY other car out there, as you seem to be for some odd reason.
The OP asked "where are the sporty cars?", then goes on the mention his post about the S2000 which qualifies more as a sports car, than a sporty car. Then many us pointed out, in our opinion, Honda makes many sporty cars as we see it. Of course everyone is free to disagree, but obviously, the majority of this forum view our Fits as sporty, as sporty they can be for a small runabout car.
You keep bringing up other cars that have nothing to do with the Fit as your "gotcha" with us, which make no freaking sense. Of course other cars will be faster, handle better and be more responsive, and that's great, but to us they don't offer a mix of features that we need, and are willing to compromise on some others for the overall benefit we feel the Fit gives us. So you're argument about a Camry, a Cadillac, mustangs, etc, are completely pointless. Yeah, the Fit is none of these cars, but neither are any of these cars the Fit.
P.S Your post beat mine and I just read it. I see we generally agree.
Last edited by moniz; 03-22-2010 at 03:59 PM.
#73
03-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Sounds reasonable to me. :::: out before flare up :::...
Clearly. I used the Camry as an example because everyone always points to the Camry as the epitome of bland driving. It was just to prove a point that it's hard to call something a sporty car with no context. At the beginning of the thread, people were just blindly referring to the Fit as sporty. Without a frame of reference, I was forced to compare it to the scope of all cars.
Had they simply added the qualifier of "in it's class" (to which I wholly agree) I would not have even bothered responding.
Blindly saying "The Honda Fit is a sporty car," is like me saying "The GT-R is a cheap car." True when comparing it to the 599, the 997 GT2, the DBS, and what have you. But against all cars? 80k ain't cheap. A few people made that assertion at the beginning of the thread, hence my response.
The Fit is plenty sporty for the "we needed a car that will fit down side roads in Tokyo and Milan that were designed for the width of a horse at max and still haul shit" class. I LIKE the car. I just think it's ridiculous to call it sporty without qualifying that with "in it's class" or "for under 20k new."
Had they simply added the qualifier of "in it's class" (to which I wholly agree) I would not have even bothered responding.
Blindly saying "The Honda Fit is a sporty car," is like me saying "The GT-R is a cheap car." True when comparing it to the 599, the 997 GT2, the DBS, and what have you. But against all cars? 80k ain't cheap. A few people made that assertion at the beginning of the thread, hence my response.
The Fit is plenty sporty for the "we needed a car that will fit down side roads in Tokyo and Milan that were designed for the width of a horse at max and still haul shit" class. I LIKE the car. I just think it's ridiculous to call it sporty without qualifying that with "in it's class" or "for under 20k new."
#75
03-25-2010, 09:49 AM
Toyota ditched it's Celica and MR2, and Honda killed the S2000. It seems that neither has any real sporty car in its line-up or none that I have heard of in the future. The CR-Z is neat looking, but performance-wise, appears to be a dog. Anybody heard of anything else coming? I would hate to have to go back to a Mustang or Camaro for something really fun.The wing adds 500hp.
#77
03-25-2010, 10:29 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if it's been mentioned
Anyone familiar with the 2010 accord coupe v6? 13.9.. not too shabby. . If aftermarket support grows, I might have to consider it in a couple years.
Anyone familiar with the 2010 accord coupe v6? 13.9.. not too shabby. . If aftermarket support grows, I might have to consider it in a couple years.
#79
03-25-2010, 11:57 AM
There is a big difference between a sports car and straight line speed.
I personally don't consider the accord a sports car. I had a Acura CL-S and yes that thing was fast..but by no means a sports car. It was a big boat with subpar brakes. Yes it could keep up with S2k's on the freeway but on the track it handled like crap. Not to mention fwd and tq does not mix (tq steer out the ars). When it comes to handling my Fit is more of a sports car if you consider a sports car to have good handling
That's just my opinion though.
I personally don't consider the accord a sports car. I had a Acura CL-S and yes that thing was fast..but by no means a sports car. It was a big boat with subpar brakes. Yes it could keep up with S2k's on the freeway but on the track it handled like crap. Not to mention fwd and tq does not mix (tq steer out the ars). When it comes to handling my Fit is more of a sports car if you consider a sports car to have good handling
That's just my opinion though.
#80
03-25-2010, 12:05 PM
Sad state of affairs, but he's right. Honda hasn't made a 'sports' car in quite some time, by my definition. IMHO if you want performance from Honda, it needs to have two wheels and have an “RR” or “RC” in the name.