It's a hardtop defroster switch. There are already several threads on this board discussing this C&D article. Don't let a bunch of guys in Detroit get to you. It's been on their 10 best list for the last three years. They don't hate the car, it just doesn't make a good sports coupe, which we already know. Stop whining about it and go enjoy your car!!!

 

In reality, if Honda did make the S into a coupe, it would be better than our little roadster. The C & D article has them put a 44 lb. hard top on the S, it has 300+ miles on it (not even broken in), they get lousy 0 - 60 times. Now if the S were a true coupe sports car, it would be much lighter than our car, have much better aerodynamics, and be able to out perform our car and be better against those in this comparison.

 

It is a little odd how the mustang beats the S2000. I'll give the Z the victory. But here is what I have found about the mustang scoring.

Overalll rating mustang is one point higher than the S2000. The combined total score is exactly the same. The overall rating is independent of the total score, but it could have been a tie just as easy.

Fit and finish were tie (8) with the audi being highest (9)
I guess the ford has come a long way in fit and finish. I have NEVER seen a ford that can come close to the S2000 or audi (any model).

Style mustang (7) S2000 (8). That's a puzzler. The stang should be about a (3) if that.

The mustang is so much quicker than the S2000 (not broken in) 0-120 19.5 sec (mustang) versus 26.5 sec (s2000). Yet the S2000 spanks the mustang at the race track. as well as every other performance category not having to do with acceleration and got 4 mpg better than the mustang.

It's just as well, I don't think anyone is cross shopping the mustang and the S2000.

 

But it's not any of those things. It's a convertible with a hardtop on. Unless the chassis was redesigned, I don't see how making it into a coupe would make it lighter. Most converitbles that are heavier than the coupes are because a bunch of structural reinforcement was added to the convertible to make up for the lack of roof. Our car was designed from the ground up to be an open car and has no such additional reinforcement to remove.

Honda gave them the car, why would Honda give them a car that's not broken in knowing it will be used for performance testing in one of the most popular car magazines in the US? Honda is at fault for them having a car that's not broken in yet and I agree it was a bad move on Honda's part to do that but you can't blame C&D for testing the car they were given.

 

Before anybody writes in a letter to C&D complaining that if you add up the scores the S2000 should tie the Mustang, check out the disclaimer under the ratings:

"The overall rating is not the total of those numbers. Rather, it is an independent judgement (on a 1-to-100 scale) that includes other factors-even personal preferences-not easily categorized."

They love to point this out to people who write letters like this and don't notice that disclaimer so I'll save you the time.

 

Consumer reports might buy cars to test, but the car enthusiast magazines don't. I just did a brief glance only through the road tests in this month's issue of C&D and it was over $500,000 worth of cars tested. How could they afford to spend that much when car companies would give them cars to use for free for the promotional value? If you've been reading car magazines for a while, surely you've seen tests where they weren't able to get a certain car from the manufacturer or something similar.

I interpreted the part you quoted that they did this to themselves and not to write letters on the complaints about the excess noise, not about testing an unbroken in car since they hadn't even mentioned performance yet and had just spent two paragraphs complaining about the noise. We all know our cars aren't quiet with the top up.

Rai, if you think the S2000 killed the Mustang on the track part of the test, then what would you say the 350Z did to the S2000? The S2000 was only 0.5 mph faster around the track than the mustang, but the 350Z ws 0.7 mph faster than the S2000.

They liked the S2000, but their main complaints were some of the things we like most about this car. It's a pure sports car that does sacrifice some amenities and refinement for performance. The other cars tested in this test don't do this so much and since that was the criteria we got beat by two other cars. Put Michael Schumacher in an NBA game and he would get destroyed. Does that mean he's not a good F1 driver any more? Is that a fair way to judge him? No, but they did something similar here and chose to compare the S2000 to some cars that are similar in price, but not in the same category of car. They have proven that putting on a hard top doesn't make it a sports coupe.

I didn't notice my car driving any differently today than it did before this article came out so I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wickerbill


Rai, if you think the S2000 killed the Mustang on the track part of the test, then what would you say the 350Z did to the S2000?

 

This is the same idiot magazine that tested the Infiniti G35 4th place after every other mag put it first. Did you see the times they got out of the S2K? They obviously told the staffers "shift the S2000 at the same redline as the Z" as it must win with all the ad dollars Nissan is pouring out on their "savior"!!! I just won't buy Car abd Driver, never have due to their bull!!

 

I need to stop reading their crap.....

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jefftse
[B]This is Totally BS!!!

They rated s2000 is 3rd place and 350Z is first....