While I wouldn't own one, its too bad to see this car go. It is/was the only sports / interesting car in Honda's lineup.

Agreed. I liked this car. One of the very very very few cars from Honda (and Japan in general) that looked fun and creative. Except.... that rear tail fin. Goes well with a fart pipe thou.

Maybe they will reintroduce it later. As long as they don't totally ruin the next version, like Mazda did with the RX-8. (mine sucked three engines in 30k miles)

Not a surprise.....it's an expensive, impractical sports car with lackluster performance since the engine doesn't make any torque. I'm surprised it held on as long as it did.

Only 110,000 units in 10 years of global sales ? Ouch.

While it was a solid vehicle, perhaps Honda failing to refresh, re-power, or update the vehicle every 2 or 3 years helped those lackluster sales.

Oh well. Slap some angular plastic on it and make it's last model year an eclectic eyesore.

Nooooo!!

Just kidding lol. Ten years and no major redesign = dead.

On another note, I did a solo test drive in a mint (10k miles) 2.0L 9,000rpm redline model a few years ago...it was a blast to ring out, very similar to a supersport 600cc motorcycle.

RIP S2000

@sparky
What are you doing to your RX-8 to need three engines in 30k? I know that they had some issues when they first came out but a NA rotary should only need air/gas/oil/plugs for at least 140k. I can only assume the dealership didn't know what they were doing. I run between 465 or 365 wheel hp dogging the piss out of it with 25k on my rebuild. Aside from porting and RX-8 apex seals the motor is internally factory stock. As long as I don't get any bad gas I expect the motor to last to at least to 60k and that's at more than double the factory HP.

I am sad to see the S2000 go and even more sad that (as someone has already said) Honda is losing its only really interesting semi-sports car.

However, I applaud Honda for making the financially smart decision. It was probably never a money maker beyond the first couple of year (if even that). Honda stays on top by catering to what people want - generally this is a good, reliable, economic small car, sedan, or minivan. (I love my Odyssey - so practical!).

Good job Honda!

Pretty sad to see this go. It never really held on like a true sports car though. I remember reading a Motor Trend tuner comparo between this car, a few Evo, STI's, and others where this car placed top. That was to be expected since the car was turbocharged and almost everything else was redone. However, the tuned S2000 lost out to a mostly stock C5 Z06.

Either way, they should re-use this chassis for an affordable (albeit slower) hybrid coupe or something. Or just toss in a K20, redesign it, and lower the price. This is a very competent FR chassis, no need to retire it so soon.

The engine was pretty killer too, 120hp/liter is still hard to match.

Here we go again, hp/L.

F22C1
2.2L Inline 4
Hp: 237
Torque: 162 ft-lb
Engine weight: 326 lbs
Crate Motor Cost: $4500
Hp/lb: .73
Hp/$: .05

LS3
6.2L v8
Hp: 430
Torque: 424 ft-lb
Engine weight: 415 lbs
Crate Motor Cost: $6200
Hp/lb: 1.04
Hp/$: .07

Hp/L means nothing for the millionith time. LS3 will also go farther with mods then an F22C1 will, any day of the week, mod for mod.

Oh, for get to mention. The LS3 gets better gas mileage then the F22C1 in a car that weighs about 400 lbs more then the S2000. Can only imagine what those Mallet Solstice's can do gas mileage wise.

@avatar

LOL

Damn, a Honda S2000 lost to a Z06... who would of thought?

Jeez, just because your vehicle can't beat a supercar doesn't mean it isn't a sports car. The engine probably doesn't have as much speed, but they sure do handle magnificently and are very fun and easy to drive. It is very much a point-and-shoot car, which is why it's so fun.

But yeah, HP/L is a silly argument. I could go ahead and say my tuned 1.6L turbocharged MINI Cooper S makes 162hp/L at the crank, but that doesn't mean it is going to beat a Corvette Z06 in a straight line, heck no.

Anyway, I'm surprised they just don't refresh the model. Perhaps they are tired of all the kids turning it to rice garbage... there are three S2000s in my neighbourhood, and they are owned by rich kids who slap huge wings and fart pipes on them. One of them even has a terrible rattle-can matte black paint job on it. Horrendous...

@RX-7 Guy

Google 2004 RX-8 rotary failures and you will see a nightmare of issues. The Mazda dealer confirmed this design as an overall lemon.

The car was never modified or raced. It was an automatic. Because of the automatic, Mazda reduced the power output of the engine because it would damage the transmission. Mazda then gave money back to owners of this car because of false advertising (180hp, not 200+). The previous owner returned the car for a refund, but the dealer did not inform me of this. Since I was the second owner, I was stuck.

Next, the car's 0-60 performance was around 11 seconds. In fact, it never performed anything less than 10 seconds from 0-60. Having an extra passenger would make it close to 13 seconds, and a hot summer day (above 80 degree) you would hit 15 seconds. This car also suffered under cold air temperatures less than 50. My jeep wrangler with 32" tires and lift kit can do 0-60 in 16 seconds with two passengers in any temperature, very slow I know, but almost as fast as the RX-8 with automatic!

Never start this car and turn off the engine without letting the car completely warm up. It is a documented fact that you have to wait up to 2 days before you can start it again. There are instructional videos (from Mazda) how to force start this car but it may take up to 5 minutes of constant cranking and major battery drain. Look at this car in any used dealer's lot; it is always parked towards the front so you drive off the lot immediately. THis is true today on the 2008 models.

The main issues of the RX-8 are:

1. The main seal used in the rotary disintegrated after 10k miles, the pieces ruined the chamber and clogged the exhaust/converter. This was an issue caused by Mazda reducing the oil injection to reduce emissions. New engine. If you listen to an RX-8 and you hear a slight rattle in the engine, the seal is starting to break up - get rid of it immediately! Plus, you continuously have to add oil to the engine due to it's oil injection on every fill up. But the oil dipstick is burried next to the engine under the plastic engine cover. What a mess and you can burn your hands quite easilly.

2. After replacing the engine and increasing the oil injection, the seal blew a second time. This time, the excuse was that the material was not strong enough to handle the force. The seal was replaced with a new composite material. New engine again. 5K miles! All newer (post 2006) RX-8 uses this seal I am told.

3. Three reprogramming trips to the dealer because of horrible performance and now a new engine rattle, all factories recall BTW, the dealer ended up replacing the entire electrical harness of the car. Completely removing most of the interior and under the hood, took 2 weeks. The electrical system is problematic. The air-bag's quit working and error codes on the computer were random.

4. Now, after 8 total months of ownership, and 3 months in the shop, the engine rattle started to return. The dealer wanted to replace the motor the third time but I traded it in, lost $9k in trade in value because of its reputation and service records. They could not replace the engine with a 2008 engine since Mazda changed the design enough to prevent it.

I traded it for a 2006 Mustang GT premium convertible. Wonderful car, fast, powerful and fun. The V8 has plenty of torque, I am meeting all performance and love the car. Never will I buy a Mazda again, and I would not recommend anyone to buy an RX-8.

BTW, in spite of the horrible service record and documented failures and performance issues, consumer reports rates it better than average. lol. Better than the Mustang, what a joke.

When I was having the engine replaced, another RX-8 was in the used car lot at the dealer. The repair tech told me it was on its second engine, about 25k miles, and the owner gave up on it too.

And the worst part, I loved the RX-8's interior (had the top of the line model) and looks. And in all this mess, the dealer was kind and understanding. At least my experience with Mazda service was excellent.

I never figured out why they never made a S3000. Just drop the V6 into it. Sure it would add 150 pounds or so but it would make 50% more power. Presto, no longer a secretary's car like the Miata.

150 extra pounds in the front would mess up the car's handling dynamics. 150lbs is a lot for a tiny car. This is no 4000lb muscle car.

The Honda is not praised for it's speed, but for it's handling. Some people like taking corners better than hauling ass on the highway.

I love mine. Got it in 2001 and never wanted to trade. It's not the (meaningless) top speed, but the handling that makes this car special. At the same time it's very affordable too. Nothing wrong with that!!!

However, the refinements were sparse and Honda apparently decided to ride it for as long as sells instead of keeping it fresh and interesting. I guess in that light, 10 years are a good time to call it quits.

sparky:

Let me add to the irony:

In 2004 the RX-8 rotary engine won engine of the year....

I know the RX7's have apex seal and other issues... but I still think it's the nicest looking car Mazda ever made and still looks damn good when you see them today after how many years. (and the fugly rx8 definitely does NOT).

I also hear that upgrading one to run an LSx is straightforward. Those cars would be plain evil with that much power on tap.

The S2000 might have been a bit low on power, but they were a fine handling car, and their loss reduces the sports car ranks... never a good thing.

@ GRPeng,

I'm with you, I don't understand why Honda hasn't made a new model using a modified S2000 chassis (closed roof of course) with the TL's V-6 to create a 350/370z competitor.

Why the TL's V6?

Why not the K23 turbo out of the RDX? Better low end torque and hp... And a turbo 4 would sit squarely against the STI and Evo... (sans SH-AWD of course cause that would add to much weight.)

Still own my 2001. Daily commuter, 45K miles. Owned 2002 WRX, and 2005 STi. The STi was a real beast! True the S2k does not have the torque, but much funner to drive. I laugh at the number of guys thinking their 6 and 8 cylinder cars are a match. Even those that tried adding super-chargers to the S2000 found they could do little to improve the performance, shaving a tenth of a second off a 1/4 track. Glad to know I have a collectors now.

@ Cortez:

Wait... you say big V6 and V8s are terrible, then you laugh at your own cars inability to create performance?

Surely you meant Mustang GT instead of S2000.... if you add a supercharger to a N/A vehicle and only gain a tenth off the 1/4mile, you probably installed it wrong... that would be terrible.

Who cares how good it handles, it has ZERO torque, so it's even slow at the track, unless the track is so twisty you never need to accelerate. Good handling alone does not make it a fast car.

Fast cars are about balance, and the S2000 was severely lacking in the power department, plain and simple.

@JB:

who wants torque when you have high RPM? power is what matters here. unless you want to use a roadster as a cargo car.

only premium engines are comercially available to produce high output at high RPM (with high maintenance costs), but honda always does it well working with excellent engine designs. that's what the HP/lt tells you, the engineering quality.

Wow, hp/l is engineering quality now? LMAO

Okay, how about top fuel dragsters then? They put out around 6000 hp from 8.2L. That's 732 hp/l. Then there are F1 cars. The old 3L v10s were doing as high as 980 hp, or 327 hp/l. Oh, that's right, drag engines only last 3 passes if that, and F1 cars use to only have to last a race, now they are allowed 8 engines over 17 races.

GM, likewise, can make high hp/l engines. The new Midget engine, for example, does over 350 hp with 2.7L. Did I mention it is OHV too?

F1 cars? dragsters? racing engines? i guess some people don't understand difference between comercial cars and prototypes, race cars and will-never-be-produced cars. honda makes durable engines, even the F1 ones! that's engineering quality.

And I suppose GM small blocks aren't durable? LMAO. So we go from hp/l for engineering quality to durability? Really?

How about this for engineering quality, hp/lb. Oh, that's right, GM pretty much beats everyone there, so we can use that as a source for engineering quality.

hp/lb? mmmmh... i know some lightweight materials that can be used in engine blocks, pistons, etc, but that number for the engine doesn't tell much when you are working with flow, thermodynamics, mechanical vibrations... stuff many people will never notice, because they only see what the specs sheet tells.

i'd like to see an american company pull 240hp out of a soda bottle sized engine. this car rocks. drive it and see. to get the perfect blend of handling/performance this car has to offer out of an american car, you'd have to throw down 50k for a corvette. straight line jockeys. how sad.

i'd like to see an american company pull 240hp out of a soda bottle sized engine. this car rocks. drive it and see. to get the perfect blend of handling/performance this car has to offer out of an american car, you'd have to throw down 50k for a corvette. straight line jockeys. how sad.

@America: true most American car companies don't make 120hp/l na engines (the original 2.0 mill) or even the 110 hp/l engines of the newer 2.2, but it's not because they can't.

Most car companies do not make an engine, and design the car around it. They pick performance targets, and figure out what they need to do to accomplish those goals. Since most of GM's product line are not 90+ hp/l engines, it would be foolish to design an entirely new engine from scratch that didn't use any parts (or similar parts) from anything else in the GM stable, as designing 1 engine for 1 performance car is pretty much a money loosing proposition (which is exactly why Honda discontinued the S2000), unless you are building a halo car which let's be honest here, the S2000 was not.

I liked the S2000, even with it's flimsy as all hell transmission. I didn't care for the lackluster acceleration below 5-6000 RPM. Still a really fun car to drive, but I would call it a sporty car, more than a sports car.

Sporty cars are when they add some stylish sheet-metal to an otherwise conventional set-up. The S2000 is rear-drive, front-mid engine, stiffened chasis, 6-speed manual-only, weight-reduced purpose-built design. It is a sports car. It just happens to be one that you can lower the top down and enjoy a comfortable cruise down the highway. Also one that your local mechanic can work on without breaking the bank. It will be missed.