Hahahaha.

Early AP1's like mine, with the S02's, pulled around 0.91 G's, steady state, and I'm still in the process of trying to find out how much higher I can push that number. After a little over four years (of somewhat spotty effort ), I'm now getting steady state numbers of 0.93, and while that number may not be very impressive, it's actually a substantial difference. I challenge anyone who doubts this to try to get 0.93 G's from an AP1 on OEM wheels and tires. The difference between 0.95 G and 1.0 G is HUGE.

I (apparently) happen to be one of the few here who actually likes the CR, and could easily pick a few nits with the review (like the 0.95-1.0 G thing), but I have to admit that I can see how and why the guy sees the CR the way he does. I may not agree with him, but I think his view is valid, from his perspective. I just see it a little differently.

Personally, I can't see the wisdom in selecting an S2000 for a track car. There are good reasons for the MX5 being the most raced car in the USA, and for anyone who's serious about racing a roadster, it's the most logical choice. An S2000 is a heck of a lot more fun, on the street or track, and a good choice for an autocross platform, but for racing, anyone who is serious is going to pick a car made by a company that actually supports racing the car. Mazda does this, and Honda doesn't, so the Honda has to be seen as a less serious contender for the racers dollars.

 

First Swan has driven more cars in his time with the magazine than most of you. As said before he owns aS2000. The CR is a joke by Honda for a few last sales because once again they turned this car into a NSX. The car has not had any good improvements since it came out way back in the year 2000.

A few here walk around with blinders on and get all butt hurt when someone dares pick on their little ricer. I bought mine new in 2002 and what has Honda done to entice me to buy a newer one? Porsche makes sure to up the HP , Honda does jack shlt.

 

And Jack just left town.

 

You have never turned a wheel in anger at a track have you?

As others have said the difference is huge.

Let me put it another way, the O face your girl might make with you versus someone hung much larger than you. Ask her if there is a difference?

 

I've not driven a CR, so cannot comment on it specifically. But in reading about what the CR has to offer ME, I was not impressed. More money for less stuff, and no more power.

There are few cars that ACTUALLY compete with the S 2000 "as is." In fact, I can't name one. Oh, there are different types of cars, such as my SLK 280, which uses a fairly high tech 7 speed auto trans to pretty well keep up with the S 2000 in the 0 to 60, and actually corners pretty flat. But it is a little GT car, was bought as such, and is not a "guts for leather" sports car.

So about the time (me thinks) that Honda should be offering us more power, they instead come out with the CR. And the reviewer above only got 0 to 60 in 5.7? I've gotten my seven year old AP1 there in 5.2. I would have hoped for some progress in that time, which apparently didn't happen.

When the S 2000 first came out in late '99, and I drove one, I was hoping that this would mark a new direction for Honda. Small displacement, high output engines. Rear wheel drive and IRS. Throughout the whole Honda and Accura line. What a competitive advantage! Instead, in the ninth model year of the S 2000, all we get is a strange little permutation called the CR, that will appeal to very few drivers.

Back in the '99-'00 era when I first experienced the then-new S 2000, my optimistic mind envisioned that by now we would have 200+hp Civic SIs with rear wheel drive and IRS, and Accura RS with 450 hp and rear wheel drive and IRS -- all at a price beating the European rivals.

Only a dream.

 

Nothing wrong with the CR, so long you accept it's more of an appearance package than performance package. Not as bad as a Corolla S but no Cooper JCW either.

 

Yea, the quicker steering ratio is just for appearances.

 

Very interesting. I didn't realize that the S2000 was anything more than Honda's version of the MX5 until 2004, but once I looked one over, and drove it, I also saw the car as a sort of dream. Only thing is, my dream was the polar opposite of yours. I liked the car a LOT, and figured Honda would build them with minimal changes for a few years, in limited numbers, and then cease production. I think that's great, and still expect that to be the case, because it's what Honda has always done with their sports cars (including the S roadsters and NSX). There has never been any good reason to suspect that the S2000 would somehow be any different, and I personally like the profile. Get it right, sell it to those who can appreciate it, and cease production before the limited market dries up. That's the way Honda does sports cars, so it's what I expected for the S2000.

LOL, I'll actually be dissipointed if it turns out that I'm wrong.

 

I drove my friend's AP2 the toher day. And The steering ratio was very very noticable. His steering just wasnt as responsive as mine. Im sure it turns the same, but it just took more effort from the driver.

Also, it coulda been his horrendously offset wheels but his bump-steer was god awful on the freeway.

 

I just try to live in a vacuum. I love the car. Everytime I get into in and push the button its pretty amazing. I've wanted this car for along time and now have the means to make it a reality, so to me at least, for what its worth, it doesn't matter to me if they (Honda) have evolved the car or not. I bought this car to have exactly what I have. Now just to play the devils advocate, I think the one thing they could have done is end the production a bit sooner. Add some novelty to the model line so that us as the consumer wouldn't feel the need to have to worry about the evolution of the car. Just my .02