Just something I wanted to quote from Car and Driver

Our own 0-to-60 time 0f 6.3 seconds was set with a hole shot just south of the redline on a car with only 369 iles on teh odo, but that's behavior reserved for people who can do clutch changes their lunch hour.

Reggular Joes can expect 60 mph to arrive closer of the s2000;s 5-to-60 mph time , the second slowest rolling start ahead of Audi

Now thats abunch of crap

ALso look at thier 0-60 times for the s2k

6.3

Really

1/4 mile time

14.9

Heres my problem

Car and Driver's Drivers cant drive for shit

I have noticed this for numerous cars and their
also very biased to New Cars
They will rate a new model car better than an older
model car.

Motor Trends Times

0-60 5.2

1/4 Mile 13.8


You'll notice if you look in the back of motortrend
they always beat car and drivers times

Just something to think about

We should get a petition to race Car and Drivers infamous
drivers and do an article on that>

I luv my s since the first day I bought and will never get
rid of it. Its a part of me now

Tell me what u guys think

later

2000 Silverstone S2k
Carbonfiber Hood
AEM CAI
Custom Exhaust
Royal Purple Oil
Redline MTF and Redline Gear Oil
with Lucas Oil Additive

 

Well Joe and Wickerbill, here's what I think.

C&D kinda blew the chance to do the test some of us have been waiting for. I want to know how my car compares to the new Z. Why shouldn't I? You always want to get intelligence on the opposition before you go out to do battle right? I don't hate the Z, I respect it. I'd like to see the two cars tested in a format that makes some sense. This test was basically worthless to me.

C&D admits they asked for all the problems they got with the "hardtop" S. My question: So why do the test that way? No one was holding a gun to their head. So maybe I will write a letter, just to tell them they are under no obligation to do stupid things, and if they do them anyway, they are under no obligation to publish them.

Break in the Honda, or ask for one with more miles, or wait until you can get one with more miles before you do the test. I don't see why it is Honda's fault, especially where a car with a hardtop was requested. This had to narrow the available cars Honda had to offer C&D.

A hardtop? That top isn't going to add any benefits. It won't make the car more rigid. The aero benefits are nil. The top speed reported is no better than any I have seen in any other magazine, including prior issues of C&D. It adds 45 pounds where nobody needs it, above the topmost surface of the car where it can adversely affect handling and raise the center of gravity. I know, not by much, but the S didn't lose by much at the track, did it?

As for acceleration times, here C&D has more problems. When C&D tested the car in Oct., 1999 they got a 0 to 60 of 5.8 and a 1/4 mile of 14.4. The 70 to 0 distance was 157 feet and roadholding was .9 gs.

Compare these numbers to the Z. Just about equal right? Yet now, with the hardtop and some other cars around the S is a half second slower in both acceleration runs, takes longer to stop and generates lower cornering force.

Now, I'm not jumping on the "it's a fix" bandwagon, but those numbers are very different. Could it all be due to break-in? Maybe. I notice that C&D didn't put the results of their 10-99 S2000 test in the back of the current issue. I had to go to a back issue to find it.

This is the second thread I have seen on this comparo. As I said in the last one, someone will come along and do a fair test (or at least one that makes sense) and then we'll see.

In the meantime, don't let it bother you and Happy Motoring!

Bill

 

The problem with asking C&D to break the car in, how many miles should they have put on it? 2,000 and people would have said that the engines aren't really done breaking in until 5,000. Also, with how many cars they test every year do you expect them to keep some sort of database logging every idiosyncrasy of each car? Like the S2000 should have X amount of miles, the test needs to be done in warmer weather since the S02's don't work well in the cold, etc? Honda dropped the ball plain and simple. With the ridiculous price they ask for the hardtop I find it hard to believe they had trouble getting one for whatever car they decided to provide C&D with since they probably have tons sitting in dealers unsold.

 

In the next SUV comparison, are they going to throw in a Ford F350 Pickup with a canopy and complain that the third row seating sucks????????

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wickerbill
[B]The problem with asking C&D to break the car in, how many miles should they have put on it?

 

There are 2 things that bothered me about that article. One is there 0-60 times. That is flat out stupid. 6.3? I got that on my very first Gtech run. That is lame. Then, the features and amenities. WTF?? 3 out of 10? What the hell is that? Our car has Cruise Control, Variable speed on the wipers, AC, a cool little addition to the Defrost that when you turn it to the windsheild, it auto turns on AC, it has power windows, power top, auto down on the drivers side, it has power mirrors, recaro seats, radio controls on the left of the cockpit, KMPH/MPH switch on the fly, Interior Light dimming and brightening, Mute controls and a trip sensor that can do more than 1000 miles.. The only thing that I can see missing is the tilt wheel. How can a mustang get a better rating for this than the S (the stang got a 5 by the way)? I like the mustangs but they are still ghetto IMHO! The performance is good but.. You know. I am not saying that the S is a better car than the 350Z but come on.. the S should rank a little higher than what was said..

 

The s2000 they use only had about 360 miles on it. I guess they should have know the results.

here is C&D's review from 1999.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddrive...?keywords=s2000

quote:
As with most high-strung motors, the S2000's engine lacks low-end grunt, so it must be revved madly at launch during acceleration testing. But even with nearly 8000 revs on the tach, our very green (345 miles) test car was unable to break a wheel loose on our grippy test surface, which partly explains our rather lackluster performance: 0 to 60 took us fully 6.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile fell in 15.1 seconds at a more impressive 96 mph. Those numbers are on par with the similarly priced BMW Z3. Wind it out further, however, and the S2000 walks away from the Bimmer, hitting 120 mph some seven seconds quicker. We're sure that a properly broken-in example launched on a drag strip will run 0 to 60 in the mid-five-second range, and we'll test another one soon

 

If you're Honda and a car magazine calls you up and asks for an S2000 to test. Why would you leave it in the hands of that magazine to properly break your car in before they test knowing an unbroken in engine will hurt any performance test they do? Honda had the ability to take that variable out by providing a broken in car and they blew it and didn't. It's ridiculous that Honda couldn't have somebody drive it around and break it in before giving it to C&D. Maybe C&D should have tried to break it in some before the performance tests, but there's no excuse for Honda providing a car with only 300 miles on it. If anything they should have learned from the test that yellow2001 references.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MustangsEatRice


You forgot to mention the Mustang in second place.
I thought it was totally accurate [/QUOTE

You can keep your 4.6 liter ( or 5. slow for that matter) Rustang! The fact is this is a 2.0 liter FOUR CYLINDER that still keeps up if not beats your piece of SHIT on the straights and spanks you through the twisties! Not to mention that after 80,000 miles when its time for your horse to sent to the glue factory in the sky, The little S that could will just be getting broken in.

 

FYI: Yes, it's louder, but not a problem for me, and I took my car with hardtop on two longer freeway trips (5-6 hours to the Finger Lakes). Though the drone was more noticeable with the top on, it wasn't grating at all, and, besides, the wind blowing around your ears was gone. Take away one source of noise (wind/road noise, which is there somewhat even with the soft top up), and add another (engine and tranny noise, which is not so bad - listening to a 'books on tape' CD was entirely possible.

JonasM