New Car & Driver has S2000 vs. 350Z, Mustang Mach 1, & Audi TT (180hp version)
11-09-2002, 10:57 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
New Car & Driver has S2000 vs. 350Z, Mustang Mach 1, & Audi TT (180hp version)
Pretty much said the TT sucked (I guess the 225 hp AWD version would've done better but would've been much more expensive), the S2000 had a hardtop on it and came in 3rd, the Mustang 2nd, and the 350Z first.
Aceeleration times
TT = 0-60 = 7.3 sec., 1/4 mi. = 15.7, skidpad = .81
S2000 = 0-60 = 6.3 sec., 1/4 mi. =14.9, skidpad = .87
Mustang Mach 1 = 0-60 = 5.2 sec., 1/4 mi. = 14.0, skidpad = .85
350Z = 0-60 = 5.7 sec., 1/4 mi. = 14.3, skidpad = .86
Apparently they were having a lot of time launching the S2000, said it was much easier on the Mach 1.
Top Speed on the S2000 was 146
Aceeleration times
TT = 0-60 = 7.3 sec., 1/4 mi. = 15.7, skidpad = .81
S2000 = 0-60 = 6.3 sec., 1/4 mi. =14.9, skidpad = .87
Mustang Mach 1 = 0-60 = 5.2 sec., 1/4 mi. = 14.0, skidpad = .85
350Z = 0-60 = 5.7 sec., 1/4 mi. = 14.3, skidpad = .86
Apparently they were having a lot of time launching the S2000, said it was much easier on the Mach 1.
Top Speed on the S2000 was 146
11-10-2002, 09:23 AM
#3
Registered User
i was a little dissapointed in that article. how they managed to get a 14.9 1/4 mile out of the same car they previously got a 14.2 out of, and other magazines have gotten a 13.8 out of is beyond me, considering that they claimed to be doing a near-redline drop clutch launch.
of course, they were doing this to a car that had less than 400 miles on it!!!
they also had major complaints about the cramped nature of the interior. oddly, i have never felt that, and i'm 6'2" and almost 200 lbs.
of course, they were doing this to a car that had less than 400 miles on it!!!
they also had major complaints about the cramped nature of the interior. oddly, i have never felt that, and i'm 6'2" and almost 200 lbs.
11-10-2002, 09:40 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Temple City, Berkeley, Boston
Posts: 3,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh.. If you go back to Car and Driver's Aug. 1999 issue with their first test in an S2000, they said that:
"There's plenty of legroom, even for six footers."
"...plenty of room in the pedal box to allow unhampered footwork."
In this test they had no complaints whatsoever, only the lack of "rear-end-action." The seats were rated Excellent in all categories. They did nothing but drool on the car, now they start busting out the complaints in a test of coupes (and one roadster
), what is Car and Driver's problem!?!?
"There's plenty of legroom, even for six footers."
"...plenty of room in the pedal box to allow unhampered footwork."
In this test they had no complaints whatsoever, only the lack of "rear-end-action." The seats were rated Excellent in all categories. They did nothing but drool on the car, now they start busting out the complaints in a test of coupes (and one roadster
), what is Car and Driver's problem!?!?
11-10-2002, 11:39 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: panhandle state
Posts: 11,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just recieved a C&D issue for free, after subscribing to Motor Trend.
After reading the article, its makes little sense if any. There is Turbo 4, N/A 4, N/A 6 and an N/A 8. and an the audi having a awd layout. Furthermore, I really dont think the Audi TTs purpose is a sport coupe, mabey a sporty coupe, but not a sport coupe. They really need to wait till the rx-8 and some mroe comprable opponents come on the market.
Anyway, my .02
Jacob Jones
After reading the article, its makes little sense if any. There is Turbo 4, N/A 4, N/A 6 and an N/A 8. and an the audi having a awd layout. Furthermore, I really dont think the Audi TTs purpose is a sport coupe, mabey a sporty coupe, but not a sport coupe. They really need to wait till the rx-8 and some mroe comprable opponents come on the market.
Anyway, my .02
Jacob Jones
11-10-2002, 11:55 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C&D suck, that's what their problem is. 
Basically, you need to understand the honeymoon is over, as far as car mags go. When the S2000 was new, they all were nice, gushing about how good it was. A few years later, some of its flaws begin to appear in print. The writers have stopped pretending the car is perfect.
Basically, you need to understand the honeymoon is over, as far as car mags go. When the S2000 was new, they all were nice, gushing about how good it was. A few years later, some of its flaws begin to appear in print. The writers have stopped pretending the car is perfect.
Trending Topics
11-10-2002, 01:29 PM
#8
Former Moderator
It's obvious that Nissan is paying Car and Driver a considerable amount in advertisement.
I read the article a few days ago and wanted to post something about it but I figured it really didn't matter.
I read the article a few days ago and wanted to post something about it but I figured it really didn't matter.
11-10-2002, 03:11 PM
#9
Registered User
Nissan has and will spend a crap load of advertising of the 350Z. In every magazine I've seen, there is at least one ad on the 350Z. Pardon me for not wanting a car that everyone and their dog drives. Yes, dogs can drive 
11-11-2002, 01:45 AM
#10
Registered User
i remember watching a blk s2000 (top down, less than 2000km old, not broken-in yet) in best motoring 2 years ago,
da driver (son of that cool old jap driver) managed to do 14 flat 1/mile and said he could do better when the car is fully run-in, top up, better road and weather condition (a warmer day).
i always think drivers in car n driver
-not.
da driver (son of that cool old jap driver) managed to do 14 flat 1/mile and said he could do better when the car is fully run-in, top up, better road and weather condition (a warmer day).
i always think drivers in car n driver
-not.