i wish honda would pay attention to this:

http://www.kingmotorsports.com/blog/post/David-vs-Goliath.aspx

why is 20-yo crap still winning? under what myopic rock have management
been sleeping this last couple of decades? did nobody at honda ever
hear the old maxim: "win on sunday, sell on monday"?

it's not like it's hard to put the old wishbone suspension back on a car
and put a k24 motor in it. or even make it k24 with 4wd from stock
honda components, add a turbo option, give it a $30k price tag like the
subie or evo, and CRUSH the competition for the next 20 years. come on
honda - /think/!!!

 

it IS hard to believe that Honda is in Formula One racing,but now doesn't
make any Hondas that would be suitable for budget racing.

the Prelude was the last car Honda made that I would buy.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

Honda has not been in or had engines in F1 for years.

 

i know, it's painful. back in ~2001/2002, i read an article in the
financial press of all places, pointing out that with the new macpherson
civic's/integra's poorer handling, honda had just "handed the enthusiast
market to subaru on a plate". subies don't handle that well on road
either, but they have power. honda didn't have power, but more than
made up for it in road handling, just as they say in the link.

they're nice, but i can't fit in one. i can't fit in the s2000 either -
not made for tall people. that's another personal reason why i think
the civics were so awesome.

 

There are no Honda engines in F1, but the IRL uses ONLY Honda
engines.

And what's wrong with the s2000? Those are great cars.

 

Only until the end of next season. Both Chevy and Lotus have announced
engines.

--

- dillon I am not invalid

Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)
March 1998 - June 2010
What a dog. What a dog!

 

I wonder if it's because of the arrival of an F1 track here in Austin?

JT

 

I wish. More likely it's because Chevy is finally (let's avoid the
political bookkeeping issues) become profitable. And Lotus? No
telling.

I picked up this weeks AusChron at Chuy's today. Haven't read the
headline article yet.

--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

 

That "political bookeeping makes /all/ the difference.

If you don't count that the government poured $50-billion into GM, only
$26.9 billion of which they've got back in the IPO and from GM itself, and
if you don't count that they've been granted the unprecedented permission
to carry over $45-billion of tax losses from the old GM, then yes, GM is
almost getting profitable.

But if you /do/ count all those special favors (that no other bankrupt
gets!), GM is still a money-losing pit of bad management.

It's notable that the new GM's prospectus gives the warning that since the
selling stockholder is a federal agency, buyers won't be able to sue for
omissions and misstatements in the prospectus. Just let a private company
try that and see how far they get!

 

You're a real astute observer. I can't begin to note all of the bad
deals the guv'ment has made and it ain't over yet.

If I did that, I'd be rattlin' the cage!

JT

(What ever happened to simplification?)

 

Same goes for the pat-downs of TSA agents at airports. :-(