DavidM

They've got the '02 model S2000 compared to the MX5-SP and 200SX in the latest Motor magazine. Though, don't bother getting it unless you can handle some negative words towards the S2000. To start of the S2000 get's whooped in the acceleration tests (S2000 vs MX5-SP vs 200SX):
- 0-20kph = 0.92 vs 0.99 vs 0.96
- 0-40kph = 2.37 vs 2.02 vs 2.03
- 0-60kph = 3.7 vs 3.23 vs 3.18
- 0-80kph = 5.33 vs 4.43 vs 4.76
- 0-100kph = 7.07 vs 6.29 vs 6.73
- 0-120kph = 9.5 vs 8.29 vs 9.00
- 0-130kph = 10.76 vs 9.69 vs 10.34
- 400m = 15.11@156.9 vs 14.40@162.6 vs 14.78@157.9

As you can see both other cars seem to be comfortably quicker here .... though look at the dismal 0-60kph time for the S2000. In all the overseas tests the normal 0-60kph time for the S2000 is somewhere between 3.0 and 3.2secs. Best time I've got here is actually 2.8 so Motor obviously cannot launch the S2000 and because of that they're loosing 0.5 - 0.9 secs just from the launch.They seem to indicate this in the text - "...all the shortfall in time is lost at the start of the race" and "...it will not get off the line in VTEC mode". Not sure why they just don't dump the clutch from 7500rpm - this will keep them in VTEC. From memory you can get low 7s for the 0-100kph with a 'clutch slip' of the line.

I just looked at the Motor's S2000 acceleration figures and when I took off 0.7sec from all the increments (60kph and above) then it seems to match the overseas tests ... look at these two from "Autorevue" (both S2000 from two different occasions):
- 0-40kph = 2.1 vs 2.0
- 0-60kph = 3.4 vs 2.8
- 0-80kph = 5.1 vs 4.2
- 0-100kph = 6.9 vs 5.8
- 0-120kph = 9.5 vs 8.3

The slower ones seems to match the Motor's numbers while the ones on the left match the MX5-SP.

Anyway, enough about the acceleration, they absolutelly loved the 200SX while the MX5-SP suffered from not so good turbo-lag. In the S2000 they hated the dash, praised the gearbox and even the handling though they did say that it was not as good on-the-limit as the 200SX, but neither was the MX5-SP.

Also, they mentioned that the '02 S2000 gets suspension tweeks in the form of revised springs, dampers and anti-roll bar rates. Still, I do wish they figured out that you need to lauch it from 7500rpm or so to get a good acceleration. btw, here's some 0-60kph figures that I just noted from Motor just to put it in perspective:
- Renault Clio Sport = 3.3
- Integra Type-R '02 = 3.5
- Hyundai Tiburon = 3.9
- Commodore SS = 3.2
- HSV Clubsport = 3.0
- XR8 = 2.9
- 911 = 2.0
- M3 = 2.5
- Magna VR-X = 3.4
- MX5 = 3.9

So as you can see, there's not much slower then the S2000 unless you start looking at Barinas.

ps. Motor has another cool article where they compare a C5 Vette (with LS6 engine - 405hp) against a HSV GTS and a CSV Monaro (all with the same 5.7L V8). Interesting read and good to put the C5 in perspective ... just for interest here are the accleration times for it:
- 0-60kph = 3.15
- 0-100kph = 5.99
- 0-130kph = 8.85
- 400m = 13.95@168.7

As you can see, quicker then the MX5-SP in the same issue.

Bernie

What would you expect from Motor?
I don't bother reading anything from that magazine concerning the S2000 any more. No point as they don't seem to have any idea how to drive it.

I'll just make sure that I don't try to run against anything more powerful than a Barina in future.

bloodwynch

Yeah Motor magazine is lame. Their asses are owned by the manufacturers. An s2000 doing 15's? Hell even my Type-r can match that. In Japan s2000's do 13.8 in the quarter.

And what's wrong with the s2000 dash? It's ergonomics are excellent. Digital display takes getting used but is very cleanly executed. They are just nitpickers. Damn haterz!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernie
[B]What would you expect from Motor?

ByteIt

Funny lot, the bunch at Motor. It seems that in this comparo that you have quoted, they imply that the S2000 "loses" predominantly due to its "high" price. "Why pay $75k when you can go faster for $41k". This is what they say.

Then a couple of years ago, there was a comparo between the Boxster Vs TT Roadtser Vs S2000, where the Boxster came out tops, which is fine, but they make hardly any quibble about the price difference there, save just a small mention.

So it seems when compared with other Japanese sports cars the Honda is too dear and when compared to the teutonic ones, price is not that much of an issue.

When you read the UK or US write-ups, there is always a comment about the price disparity.

Seems that Honda may have created its own niche or genre, somewhere in between the "affordable" sports cars and the more expensive "luxury" models. Take note of the same Motor article referring to the S2000 as "ze Cherman car from ze East". Shows the mentality there, doesn't it?

nice to have confirmation about the rear end improvements though!

journalistic discretion

RedRover

Is this true? Has anyone seen any official confirmation from Honda? If so, what exactly did they do to the springs & anti-roll bars?

ByteIt

[QUOTE]Originally posted by danprice
[B]

Is this true?

tze

Page 71, dash shot, s2000 mileage 1848km.

What the hell do they expect, that combined with their poor ability to launch that car.

Motor should start publishing mileage of each car they test. Should test with only 1 onboard on all cars, and with half tank petrol.

Importantly, Honda Australia should get their act together and break in the cars that they provide, ie. at least 5000-10000km. They cannot expect their engines which work on prinicples of tight tolerances and low friction to perform well at low mileage.

suit36

We all know how damn good the S2k is....that's what counts

bloodwynch

Only thing that shits me is the price tag. People are buying new s2k's for 30000 US bucks. Yet they are 75000 here... what's the story besides luxury tax?

suit36

Don't know exactly but luxury tax, duties, etc all adds up

S2000 in UK is 28,000 GBP (approx AUD 75k)
Elise in UK is 24,000 GBP (approx AUD 65k) but costs AUD 95k in Aust!