One of the early reviews found 0-60 took 6.8 seconds using a conventional launch on mediocre pavement. Later, embarassed, they tried a very high rev launch on a very grippy road surface and found a low-mid 5 second time. They also noted that 0-60 took nearly 11 seconds using a self imposed 5500 RPM launch and shift point limit. That gives some idea of the two natures of the car... High torque cars are more forgiving in that regard.

Stan

 

E30, I agree that it's hard to get good, consistent launches in the s2k. However, I think that whatever mag posted the 11 second with a 5500rpm launch/limit should be burned.

The redline in my E36 M3 is ~7000. I don't know of any mags that reported 0-60 times for a 4277 rpm shift point (61% of redline).

 

>>However, I think that whatever mag posted the 11 second with a 5500rpm launch/limit should be burned. The redline in my E36 M3 is ~7000. I don't know of any mags that reported 0-60 times for a 4277 rpm shift point (61% of redline<<

I think they may been in face-saving mode. They showed 5.x for 0-60 AND they tried the 5500 thing to help the reader better understand the unique nature of the S2000. I'd have to check but I think it was Road and Track magazine. It's a revver and you really need to rev it else it's much slower. By far the best accel times are those posted by the US magazines. Over in Australia and Europe some reviews came up with 6.x second 0-60 times and mid 14 1/4 miles, maybe a high 5 0-60 or two. The s2000 rewards the aggressive and skilled driver who takes the time to practice the most effective accel techniques. Many may find such a car more exhiliarating than a more forgiving machine, such as a V8 with slushbox.

Stan

 

road and track, that's right.. thanks for the correction.

Those bastards, I got in some argument with some schmoe at my school who thought the S2000 could do 4.9 0-60 and said he knew more about S2000s than I did... I didn't even know how to respond to his immature statement except by making him feel even more immature.

 

Yeah, I remember when they posted that 4.9 time for 0-60, it came up a lot in debates. I went out and bought the magazine just to see it for my own eyes (I should have a friggin subscription), then it turns out to be bs and many people suspected as much, but it was fun to bring it up for a couple months.

 

so no publication has ever gotten a sub 14 second 1/4 mile for the S2000?

 

Yes, Motor Trend ran a 13.8. Go buy this month's Motor Trend and look in the back!!!!

 

Read the Z3 review except below my name. Some magazines would call the car a 5.31 sec. 0-60 machine, others would use the average of 5.69 seconds. Some used to down-average. A 5.19 becomes a 5.1. Still others would toss out the best and worst times and average the remainder for a slower time than the 5.69...maybe a 5.8. That's a big difference with no change in the actual achieved times. . Some test with one driver in a car with a couple gallons of fuel and play with tire pressures. Some have two people on board and a half tank of gas and use normal tire pressures. My point is that the test approach matters and is seldom discussed. It's nice when they give a few extra tidbits of info such as the guy tried to do below. I just did a 14.17 1/4 mile in my M3, but noticed that my 60 foot time was 2.26 seconds, not so hot. If I dropped rear tire pressures down below 36 psi I might have a chance to run a 2.0 second time which others have done. But I can't claim that I ran a 13.9 based on that guesstimation. But from that I can say for sure that I could have done better. Better luck next time.

Stan

>>Performance tests show that this new 3.0 is significantly quicker than the 2.8. In several runs from a standstill to 60 mph, the BMW averaged 5.69 seconds, with one run at 5.31 seconds backed up with a 5.45. That's a half a second quicker than the 2.8. Using only third gear, the 3.0 could run from 50-70 mph in just 3.34 seconds and up a steep grade only slowed it 3.0 to 4.59 seconds. Using second and third gear would have cut these times by at least two tenths of a second. The new 3.0 performance levels are near identical (it's only a couple of ticks behind) to the M version which uses a 3.2L engine of 240 hp.<<

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by E30M3
[B]By far the best accel times are those posted by the US magazines.

 

Stan - That Z3 3.0 review sounds pretty interesting. I was not thrilled with the Z3 2.8 that I drove a couple of years ago when I was roadster shopping. But now I hope to see some more roadster competition out on the autocross track in the new B Stock group that includes the S2000, Boxster 2.7 and the Z3 3.0. Also, the BMW M3 E30 & E36 are now BS too.