CTR V S2k
06-16-2005, 10:37 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Worcs
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Facts ....... 
Civic Type-R S 2000
Manufacturer Honda Honda
Testing Date 11/2001 1/2000
Engine 1998 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V 1997 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V
Power 200 PS (147 KW) @ 7400/min 240 PS (176 KW) @ 8300/min
Torque 196 Nm @ 5900/min 208 Nm @ 7500/min
Transmission 0 (6) 0 (6)
Weight 1246 Kg 1275 Kg
Weight / BhP 6,23 Kg / PS 5,3 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 7 s 6,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 28,4 s 24,5 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 33,8 s 29,8 s
Top Speed 235 Km/h 241 Km/h
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 7 s 7,2 s
100 - 0 Km/h hot 37,4 m , 10,3 m/s 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s
Transverse Acceleration 1,1 g 1,1 g
Slalom Course 36 / 110m 124 / 126 Km/h 118 / 128 Km/h
Round Time Nuerburgring 8.47 min 8.39 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.20,9 min 1.18,9 min
Info from www.track-challenge.com
Civic Type-R S 2000
Manufacturer Honda Honda
Testing Date 11/2001 1/2000
Engine 1998 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V 1997 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V
Power 200 PS (147 KW) @ 7400/min 240 PS (176 KW) @ 8300/min
Torque 196 Nm @ 5900/min 208 Nm @ 7500/min
Transmission 0 (6) 0 (6)
Weight 1246 Kg 1275 Kg
Weight / BhP 6,23 Kg / PS 5,3 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 7 s 6,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 28,4 s 24,5 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 33,8 s 29,8 s
Top Speed 235 Km/h 241 Km/h
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 7 s 7,2 s
100 - 0 Km/h hot 37,4 m , 10,3 m/s 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s
Transverse Acceleration 1,1 g 1,1 g
Slalom Course 36 / 110m 124 / 126 Km/h 118 / 128 Km/h
Round Time Nuerburgring 8.47 min 8.39 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.20,9 min 1.18,9 min
Info from www.track-challenge.com
06-16-2005, 10:59 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Worcs
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the formatting !! 
Basically it says the S is faster
I didn't spend 10K more to get to 60mph 0.2 to 0.5 secs quicker - Thats not value for money.
I bought it cause its an S2000 ..... the real thing .... enough said !
Basically it says the S is faster
I didn't spend 10K more to get to 60mph 0.2 to 0.5 secs quicker - Thats not value for money.
I bought it cause its an S2000 ..... the real thing .... enough said !
06-16-2005, 11:29 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have both
In the real world the s2000 is significantly faster.
In a straight line it is marginal but throw some decent roads into it and it is no contest.
In the real world the s2000 is significantly faster.
In a straight line it is marginal but throw some decent roads into it and it is no contest.
06-16-2005, 11:46 AM
#44
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had CTR's pass me over 130 mph foot flat to the floor, but I think the fact I had the roof down and didn't care really won it for me.
I would guess the S with the Hardtop on would have been a different story.
Of course all this was in a dream or on a private track or something
If you want a 2 seater sports car the CTR is no good, if you want a more practical car the S2000 is no good. Both very good car's but there are also better cars out there in both classes.
But for an overall package if the practicality is not needed and money is not a factor then the wise man would buy the S2000.
I would guess the S with the Hardtop on would have been a different story.
Of course all this was in a dream or on a private track or something
If you want a 2 seater sports car the CTR is no good, if you want a more practical car the S2000 is no good. Both very good car's but there are also better cars out there in both classes.
But for an overall package if the practicality is not needed and money is not a factor then the wise man would buy the S2000.
