So Car and Driver did a coupe comparison this month. Included were the Audi TT, the new Mustang Mach 1, the 350Z, and, what? Yes, the S2000.

Interesting choice of cars to be certain. The S2000 came in 3rd behind the Mustang and the winner, the Z. O.k., I can accept such results, even if I don't agree with them, but here's the kicker.

They decided to test the S2000 with the hardtop installed. This did several things. First, it added weight, in all the wrong places. Second, it made the car even noisier, amplifying the noise at full throttle (to 98 dB). Third, it added to the price. The S2000 went from being second cheapest (behind the Stang, to second most expensive (only $500 cheaper than the Audi). Now, I ask, why test a convertible with a hard top installed? Was it just so it would be "comparable"? Normally, coupe versions of cars weigh less than convertibles, so lets take a convertible and then add a hard top so we can include it in a comparison with other hard tops....Right. Doesn't make much sense, but then, omitting the S2000 from the last roadster test C&D did because it was too inexpensive (which ended up being all German - Fanzy Panzers) didn't make much sense either.

Even worse, they did their performance testing on a car that wasn't even broken in. Hell, it wasn't even past the factory recommended break in period. They did note that the car only had 369 miles on it when they did their high rpm clutch drop, but didn't bother to note that their 6.3 0-60 and 14.9@95 quarter were much slower than the last (broken in) car they tested (5.8/14.4@98). Then they have the audacity to note that high rpm clutch drops are best reserved for people who can do clutch changes on their lunch break (but apparently hammering a car that isn't broken in is normal?). To be fair, it appears the Audi was also tested before being broken in - only 141 miles on its odometer (Z looked to have over 1000 miles at the start of the test, the Stang over 3000 miles).

The S2K ended up being second in lap times behind the Z (about 1/2 second) on a course with a fair bit of straightaway for its size (Beaver Run in PA). I suspect that with a broken in example the times would have been closer, maybe even reversed. However, the C&D boys were "surprised" that the Z was quicker at the track. Wonder how that one slipped by them?

However, this isn't about whether or not the S2000 won the comparison. Time marches on, and for most, the Z is the better car IMO. I suspect that even the best performing S2K ever would not show the all around demeanor that the Z was praised for and I don't have any problem with that. The S2K is not for everyone. But C&D did a poor job of reporting in this one. I had a letter all prepared, then I decided there was no point. However, if any of you write, be sure to make it eloquent. You're representing other S2K owners too.

UL

 

i'd say go ahead and write the letter. you're one of the most knowledgeable members on the board.

 

So they put a hardtop on at MSRP which made the price like 35k?

Well when the Z Convert comes out, they should put a hard top on and compair it to the sport coupes. I'm very sure that the convertable top model will be way slower (heavier, won't be a track model).

I can't understand why they would drive non-broken in cars in a test, doesn't the S gain a decent amount of power after break-in? You figure one of the editors would have taken a nice long ride over the weekend before testing.

Do you have the mag already? I'll have to run to B&N to pick one up.

How much does the hard top weigh? (I think 44 lbs?)
Was it a Track Z, what was the MSRP?

I think it's kind of cool that the nonbroken-in, hard topped S, which couldn't be launched well was within 1/2 a second of a broken-in Z on a track that had a long strait (insert more "ricer" excuses here)

Heck wouldn't the tires be slick with only 350 miles? Doesn't it take like 1000 for them to get their grip? How the TT do? Does it stack up to the other TT tests?

I wonder if it's Honda's fault for not giving them a better prepped car?

Perhaps they can do a test of topless cars next, they can do
A S2k, tt roadster, and a 350 Z with the roof sawed off

Or better yet do a sedan compairison. With the Z cut 2 extra doors and 2 40lbs seats in the rear. Against an S4 and a Evo 8.

I know people like to compare the Z and the S2k, they need to realized that a convertable generally costs 3-5k more than a equaly equiped coupe / sedan.
Take the S - 3k-5k (soft top) and knock 50-100lbs (at least) off of the curb weight.
Or the inverse
Take the Z add 3-5k for a soft top, add a good 50-100lbs and worse frame strength.

All I know is this is the first car I can really enjoy just going the speed limit.
(of course I love the 9k madness too)

Well I'm tired, nite all
-Ed

 

I think car and driver is one of the worst maginzine available for automobiles. I get so sick of reading about "Corvette vs. Mustangs vs. Viper SHOOTOUT" and then having to read what each half wit thinks about each car.
I'm tired of their bias reports. They could be the most knowledgable mechanical people ever assembled, but they still dont understand what cars are about to the enthusist (the DRIVER part of their magazine)
Personally i havent read a "car and driver" for years, so this all may have changed, but i highly doubt it. I stoped being brainwashed by them the moment i got my drivers liscense.
Just my opinion

 

I was all ready to read another whiney "my car didn't finish first in mag test, this magazine sux". Instead, a well written, insightful analysis, and I think, correct conclusion on a very poorly done report. Hey, these mags are about entertainment and subjective opinion. But at least they should be able to establish a reasonable testing procedure. Here they didn't. Please do send the letter exactly as written!!

 

The American car mags are light years behind that of the UK. I have not read the article in question yet, but I surmise that UL's description is accurate. In which case, get your pens out boys and lets send some letters to the clueless people at C&D.

 

Nah, the TT got jobbed too. 0-60 in 7.3 seconds which is about 1 second off a good time for that car.

The S2K weight was listed as 2896. I believe the last S2K C&D tested was listed at 2810 lbs.

The Z was a touring model. They noted that the brakes couldn't handle track use for long (fading to the point that ABS couldn't even be engaged), but for a one lap sprint, that shouldn't matter much and you can always order the track model with the Brembos.

UL

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nine grand
[B]The American car mags are light years behind that of the UK.

 

This is a big problem I've seen with C&D, they can point out that a car is new or has only 300 miles on the odo, but what's so hard about driving the car around for about 12 or 18 hours to put 1000+ miles on the clock?

I'm sure they have interns that would be more than happy to make a road trip or something.

Either honda should have broken the car in or C&D should have, same for the audi.

That being said, I'm sure C&D will contend that the results would have been the same even if the S was just as quick in all aspects as the Z. I sometimes think the results are already known before the actual test is perfomed.

The Z has more features and costs less and is faster (at least in this test). The S2000 with a HT is the most idiotic test car. The HT is $3K extra and is clearly an option. The S has a standard soft top that cost nothing.

Like the initial post said, I don't mind losing, but it would be nicer if it were more of a fair fight.

 

What were the times for the Z?