S2000 Driver

Your Turn
ROAD & TRACK
April 2001, P. 23.

"Kudos to Steve Millen and the Road & Track crew for a wonderful comparison (with a refreshingly atypical take) of the finest offerings from the top sports-car manufacturers. An otherwise great article was marred by a couple of errors regarding the Honda siblings. The Honda S2000's 0-60 time was quoted as 4.9 seconds, same as the Acura NSX's. R&T has tested the S2000 on two previous occasions and the best 0-60 time was 5.5 sec. This is also the time listed in your Road Test Summary and is in tune with data from your rival magazines. Can you please explain?"

--Raj Ramamurti, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Somehow we put the NSX's 0-60 time in for the S2000 as well. Those of you really paying attention will have noticed that we also gave the S2000 its sister's braking distance from 60 mph, 134 ft., when it should have read 123. And in the text for the Acura it was stated that the NSX had a 3.0-liter V-6, when in fact it was a 3.2.

--Ed.

Scot

What is in the newest issue? WRX??? (how about some stats to hold me over until my issue shows up?)

I think some of us knew that 4.9 was a typo.

Scot

Silver S2K

The ones of us who are not in complete Honda worshiping denial Scot P.S. I still think it can keep up w/a new M3 LOL.

F20C

Too bad, to be expected though. At least we had some bragging right though for a while. "Yeah look at this R & T issue guys, they got my S2000 to do 0-60 in 4.9 seconds!!!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

CG

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scot
[B]What is in the newest issue?

s2ktaxi

At least, the correction shows that the S2000 stops shorter than the NSX! Though, unless they did it on the same track, there is probably margin of error in there somewhere.

Sime

[QUOTE]

April Car & Driver

0-30 mph 2.0
0-40 mph 3.2
0-50 mph 4.5
0-60 mph 5.8
0-70 mph 8.6

Standing

CG

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sime

Quote:

Where did these numbers come from CG? They need a good kick in the arse to get their testing method done correctly!

I thought the slow

Sime

Because one of "us" would probably break the poor Subi's diff!!!!!!

ultimate lurker

The WRX results can be explained in one word - traction. With that AWD traction and a high rpm launch, the WRX likely leaps off the line. From 0-30 it will probably put lengths on almost any 2wd car. But from there the power to weight ratio takes over and it's a somewhat more mundane car.

Against an S2000, for example, the new WRX would likely be ahead for the first 100-200 ft, after which time the S2000 would start making up ground rapidly, being a car length or two ahead at the 1/8th mile and then piling on ground rapidly to finish 6-7 lengths ahead by the end of the 1/4 and pulling away at a brisk pace.

Tips? If you're going to race AWD cars like the WRX, make sure you're running at least an 1/8th mile or more, or preferably run them on the roll. Oh, and hope they haven't turned up the boost.

UL

p.s. - Sport Compact Car recorded a 14.6@90.x mph for the WRX, so the R&T time seems legit.