budgy

i think it would be interesting to see them do it, if they were comparing a 20 year old car to something brand new, put modern tires on an F40 and see what it can do compared to modern cars with that variable removed. in a test with all of these cars being on modern summer tires, even if there is a difference in compounds, its not nearly as drastic. look at the tire size difference between the Mini Cooper S and something like a Cayman.

Jimmy Roadster

For what it's worth, it recall the S2000 CR having similar trouble at VIR on the Car and Drive group test. Granted, I've only done two track days, but I can say that the carbotech track pads I used were much more effective than the stock pads as far as fade resistance. The stock pads were more effective at a cold stop driving away from my house early in the morning. They are designed to be.
I wouldn't fault a car magazine for keeping the car stock and calling it like they see it, but I would rather have less abrasive brake pads for normal driving than squeaky track pads that would chew up my rotors faster.
The only thing I would fault MT for is boosting the tire pressure on all the cars equally (I think they did that in this test). I've never heard of anyone S2000 at a track or auto cross running 36psi all around.

budgy

that is stupid. they should run the recommended tire pressures as well, or individually optimize them

Bunchies

This guy is a multiple race winner and Italian F3 champion. I think he knows a little more about race driving than a lot of the posters here. It's not about finding someone who is infallible. Rather, it's finding someone who is LESS fallible. Even Michael Schumacher makes mistakes, but would you trust his opinion on a car's performance?

circuitclub

I would only trust his comments if they were positive about the s2000. If they are negative or does not fall in line with my predisposed views, then no way in hell. But I consider myself a very open minded, educated person.

TougeS2k

I opted for the MazdaSpeed6 because of the AWD. The MZR direct injection turbo motor is sick! 271hp/280tq is real nice! That lil set up cost me 17,000 with warrenty (because its a must on a Mazda with that many moving parts) and was it better than my $11,000 s2k? F****ck no! The MS6 was over weight and only fun from 0-60 and the build on Mazdas are not on par with Honda. I cant speak ill of the MS3 becuase its clearly just a relative, but my 2.5L Nissan Sentra SER Spec V was a bastard having only 160 tq in a FWD i couldn't imagine the MZR in FWD.

Not Sure

Last year the Cobalt SS beat the s2k and a few other euro cars in a similar magazine test around a track. But no one in this forum traded their S for a Cobalt.

What's my point? I have no point. I don't think anyone here regrets not trading their S for a Cobalt. I guess that's my point.

ahrmike

truth.

prj3ctm4yh3m

I had a N/A RSX that I guarantee was much faster around a large track like Laguna than either car. I sold it because after all I had done to it, I realized it could never be better than it was. FWD cars, as good as some of them are (i.e. ITR) are inherently limited by things that dont apply to a "proper" sports car like the elises/caymans/s2ks. The torque steer was ridiculous, and the cars ability to use all the tire was limited.


This is nothing new, I dont understand why theres all this rationalization going on about an inferior number. Motor Trend is a joke anyway (did you know a 4000lb solid axle mustang handles better than a ZR1????)