Just chiming in on the torque issue. Haven driven my S2000 for a couple of months now (quoted 162 ft/lbs) and comparing it to my previous car of a 2002 C5 Corvette (quoted 375 ft/lbs). I must say IMHO the difference really only comes in to play VERY in your face at ~85 MPH and WOT. The S2000 starts to slow down in it's acceleration, where as the Corvette would keep pulling like it was only doing 35. (But then again the Corvette's top speed was ~175 where as the S2000 is something like ~124?)

The magazines might be right in that the S2000 is not a torque beast, but it sure is fun as all hell to drive.

After saying that it MUST be known: I have a S2000 sitting in my garage right now and NOT a Corvette. (Read into that what you want )

But then again, these was just my perspective.

 

Isn't that totally a DUH! situation?

I mean, come on, you or they are comparing a 6.0 L V8 to a 2.0 or 2.2 L four cylinder. Why some folks insist on making such a grossly lopsided comparison is beyond me. Two times the cylinders and three times the engine displacement, sure the Vet is going to outperform.

What get's me is the number of times that our little four cylinder will humble cars with significantly larger engines. Take the 5.0L Mustang for instance!

For what it is, the S2000 does "very" well. Keep it in perspective and you shouldn't have any complaints about low end torque.

JMO!

Drive Safe,
Steve R.