The hardtop is an extra cost ($3000+).

I think C&D specifically ASKED for the HT so they could put the S2000 in the same catigory as the Z. This puts the S2000 at a price disadvantage.

 

after test driving two S2000's this week, I can say this: The first was a 2003 with 10 miles on the clock. After the hype on this site, I was disappointed with the acceleration. THen I drove a used 2001 with 1700 miles on it. HOLY S!@# what a difference. The hype is true, whew!

 

This surprises you? C&D, R&T, and all the other car mags don't know what objectivity means. And test conditions? You'd think after all the testing they do that they'd figure out how to do tests with the appropriate controls and methods. Nope! A high school science student could construct better test methods.

We could change the test criteria, put the cars on a different track, and the results would be completely different. The deck is always stacked!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick Hesel
[B]This surprises you?

 

I'd write a letter to the editor myself (especially since I'm a retired journalist) but to be honest, I am running out of motivation defending
my automobile of choice. Best to just let folks think what they will since opinions have no bearing at all on my own enjoyment of the S2000.
Every week, across enthusiast rooms nationwide, there is at least one "S2000 has no torque" thread. I've decided it's best to keep my automobile's actual performance potential a "secret" to minimize the odds of seeing myself "coming and going" nor shall I continue to try and educate the misinformed masses (which INCLUDES the idiots at Car and Driver, which is a fishwrap compared to EVO or Top Gear magazine).
Let them think what they will....I'd rather pump the accelerator than my chest.

 

Proof?

 

To put this in perspective for you; my car was featured in 1974 in Hot Rod only because the schedule for Motor Trend was full at the time. I was not impressed with the junior wanabe's driving ability then, and things probably haven't changed much . While some of the magazine test drivers are competent, certainly none of them could wring out a car's limits like Sterling Moss. As I've found out autocrossing, the alignment specs are very critical, and this may be so for all the cars tested. To get an honest evaluation, all need to be broken in and aligned properly, then the tire pressures adjusted. They don't do this for the tests, which explains a lot of the differences, not just car to car, but magazine to magazine. I don't race on the track, but since the SCCA has classed the new Z in with the S2000 for autocross, we will get an idea of the differences very soon. I'm not too worried; I bought the car I like, and it looks better than the Chris Bangle copycat Z. My first car was a Nissan roadster in 1966, they still yank my chain. Thenew Z does not. These magazine comparisons are meant to sell mags; always take them with a grain of salt. In 1974, I had to. The dweebs that tested my car then could only get 0-60 in 6.5 and 1/4 mile in 16 seconds. The next week, it ran 14.2 at Orange County International Raceway, and always did 0-60 in 5.2. Ever since then, I've always had a jaundiced approach to auto magazines. It only matters in the real world. They also laughed at fwd as not being any good for autocross; oh how the times have changed!

 

I wouldn't get too excited about this. First, C&D has always been a little weird. I'm not sure it was a put up job and I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but this whole approach to testing with a hard top was just foolish at best. If they wanted to test coupes, that's what they should have done. If they wanted to test competative sports cars, they should have tested them in their most competitive form. Readers aren't stupid. People who are seriously considering between the two will recognize that this test was screwy.

We all know a test will come, honestly comparing the S2000, 350Z, Z4, Boxster and maybe the TT or a base Vette. It will probably be Road and Track that does it and it will be much more honest. I know some of you also mistrust Road and Track, but I find them much more reliable than C&D which is why I cancelled my subscription to C&D long ago.

As for the competition between the two, who care about the 350Z? If I wanted a coupe, I would have bought one. Even if i knew the Z was a second quicker through the quarter, I'd still buy the S.

I'm sure we will see that the S2000 outperforms the Z in a real track test and comes very close to the same figures in acceleration. And after we see that our car matches the Z's performance, we can put down the top and go for a real "sports car" cruise.

 

Having not seen the article, my only quibble would be including the S in the comparison of coupes...

Its a roadster, not a coupe -- even WITH the hardtop.

Like Rick says -- the deck is always stacked. Just like the choice of track. You get a track with some long straights and people with the great handling but slower cars will be complaining. You get a small, tight track and the high HP guys will complain about not being able to wind out their cars...

 

My mother could get a better time and she doesn't drive stick shift.

What i don't get is how the s2000 can go from ten best two years in a row to behind the mustang gt. They alway lambast the gt. For years they have picked on the gt and hated it. Yes they hated it. Read some of there other articles in the past on the gt. Niether the GT or the s2000 has changed in the past 3 years so what gives. Nothing bugs me more than inconsistent
magazines. I use to love car and driver. Always loved to see it in my mailbox. But lately the last 6 or 8 months i usually just toss it aside. They are such pircks there. All high and mighty...I feel the generation gap between them and me. I perfer road and track. This makes no sense a mustang is a coupe the s2000 is a roadster. Lame!