Got my magazine today and start reading an article on the CR and this is what they said :
"For one , this go-faster S2000 doesn't go faster. In fact, it's actually a little slower -0- to -60 mph in 5.7 seconds, quarter-mile in 14.4 at 99 mph versus 5.5 to 60 and 14.0 at 100 in the quarter for the last S2000 we tested ("extreme sport" July 2004)

 

Doesn't surprise me. Through the turns is where the car will shine.

 

Big ass wing dragging it a bit?

This really surprised me though

 

so many things could have been different, like driver, temperature, location, etc.

 

we'd need a side by side with the same driver...

at the same time, it's such a small difference, and this car was built for cornering in both the regular and the CR version, so...

 

I agree, there are many factors coming into play here. How could the exact same car, only lighter and with the same HP, go slower?

 

total bs, any stock ap2 will run 13.9-14.5 depending on location, track, weather and driver, none of this information was giving for the 14.4 run. what was the trap speed given? 99? that's good enough for a 14 flat et which indicates driver had an issue launching the car..

i've watched an s2k run a 15.x at atlanta. his buddy drove it to a 14.2 with the owner in the car. then the owner pulled a 14.4 the very next run

had a stock 2002 rsx-s and mag had it at 14.8 - 15.2. at my local track i could pull low 15's all night in cold weather (<50F). my best all stock including tires was a 15 flat. in warm weather (>75) the best i could do on the same track was high 15's (15.7-15.8).

 

Yeah, go tell Honda BTW was that with or without A/C. Without A/c the car would make more HP. Look for the antenna stub on the pic.

 

Not sure how I feel. 'IF' this is true, it would have to be due to the spoilers.

 

Sheesh, the tests were done nearly four years apart. The ground could have been damp, or the tires were very cold, or it was the driver's first time in an S2000, or who knows what. My guess is the spoiler has nothing to do with it.