I see your point. The S2000 while made by Honda is unlike any other car they make (except the NSX). So he could have said for near $30K you could get the RSX's big brother the CL Type S.


For that matter can anyone see getting a RSX when for the same money you can get a 350Z ?

 

Isn't that the same issue with the 4-way comparo of hardtop S, Rustang, Z350, and TT? They only got a 6.3 0-60 time out of the S (with less than 400 miles). I get that (in my properly broken in stock S) in my sleep. I thought these guys were supposed to be better than average drivers.

Anyways, I seem to recall (can't find any of my previous issues since I toss them like red necks toss midgets) they had previously gotten results of 5.8 in 0-60. Well, look at their test results page near the back of the mag. Guess what result is missing? Yup, the S2000's previous results.

 

I don't know why people waste time reading Car and Drivel. It's pure crap.

 

I've been using Car and Driver for toilet paper every since I was potty trained.

 

I thought the C&D statement was fair. I understand people saying that the RSX and the S2000 are different given the FWD/RWD and 2 seats vs. 4 seats. However, in this case we are looking at a fully decked out RSX. My guess is that someone looking to the RSX that is described in C&D is probably not terribly interested in the family aspects of the backseat and also probably inwardly grumbles at FWD. My guess is that the majority of people interested in this brand of RSX, would probably be more interested in just getting the S2000.

That said, we all know that Acura is trying to get back to it roots with high performance vehicles. I can understand why they would want an option for high performance with all their cars even if it competes poorly with their Honda brethren.

 

This is the most senseless thread I have read since I started visiting this website.