Any thoughts on a Saturn Sky or Pontiac Solstice? Uses the ecoboost 2.4 NA 177hp or 2.0 dual scroll turbo 260hp or 290hp (optional OEM tune), with LSD standard and Aisin 5 speed manual in a roadster weighing ~2850lbs. Lots more selection around here and seeing similar or just slightly higher prices than the MR-2 Spyder. Mileage is a little worse than the Spyder at 20/28 for 260hp version and 22/30 for 177hp version.

edit: Nevermind. Seems to have big time reliability issues, though many of the links said it was across all Pontiac cars from that time, but my 2006 Grand Prix hasn't had a hint of mechanical trouble.

These were cars that were rushed to market, and in the typical GM way dealers gouged the hell out of customers for the first 6 months to a year or so, then people figured out they were pieces of shit, the top had a similar level of engineering (and effectiveness against water) as a '70s British Layland car, and demand cratered and the cars went away. Classic GM. It was funny to read reports at the time though, Mazda was in full on panic mode. They thought the Miata was finished in the US market. Obviously it didn't work out that way. The Pontiac/Saturn twins drove like trucks, and you had to get out of the car to put the top up or down. That was the end of them.

Just finished test driving an Accord Sport so I could decide to go ahead with the small sporty car and keep my big car or go for a combination car with the Accord.

The Accord is really impressive. I had no issue at all with anything but the CVT which hesitated, but I would get a manual. The motor pulled strong and the suspension was tighter than mine for sure and handled bumps and pot holes like a champ. It was quieter against the wind than mine. The steering was light and responsive, a welcome change to my Grand Prix which has very heavy stiff steering.

Overall though I expected to feel the weight difference more and the size difference more. It really didn't feel different enough. Acceleration with the CVT seemed about the same as mine but mine is actually smoother, something I didn't expect from a CVT. I really liked the backup camera but also found myself tunnel visioning it.

So while I would recommend the Accord Sport highly to anyone needing a car like it, I can't justify the expense when it doesn't really feel any different and my car has only 40k and has no mechanical problems.

I'm thinking I will again focus on the small car, probably a second car and do something like the MR-2 Spyder.

Costs.  Honda and the other Japanese had to adjust to the global recession, declining dollar/yen ratio and tariffs the US put on Japanese imports forced them to cut costs and start opening up plants in the US.  Honda is a small company w/ less resources than the big boys and they shifted a lot to developing robotics and aviation so cars suffer. 

I'm still confused as to why companies ride a formula to success, but then at the peak of that success they change the formula. Is it hubris, perhaps? Cost-cutting? Not understanding the needs of the market? Said needs are at least partially driven by the marketing in the market, and you can go a long way towards convincing people that they want something, as long as the product in question has some substance to back it up. But riding the wave of brand reputation and prestige and then undermining said reputation doesn't seem like a good long-term strategy.

Costs, or a misguided attempt to appeal to the usual focus group qualities (more legroom, more trunk space, etc). Reminds me of when Nissan went with a torsion beam in the Maxima's rear suspension. Supposedly it was to increase space in the back seat, but of course it didn't hurt that it was also cheaper. That was also pretty much the end of the "4 door sports car" Maxima.