Russ, I totally agree.

Sport Compact Car magazine, which has some insight in things automotive, in their October 2002 issue tested three S2000s. A stock one, S/C one, and the Spoon racecar. Here's a quote, "We've tested the S2000's acceleration before and know it's an exercise in destruction. The F20 lacks the torque to launch at low engine speed, so high rpm clutch drops are the only way to get any sort of respectable acceleration numbers. Past experience has shown us, however, that combining high rpm clutch drops with the S2000's healthy grip is a recipe for drivetrain soup, so we found a different solution. We measured acceleration between 10 and 100 mph. This allowed the clutch to be fully disengated and throttle to be wide open by the time we began to measure speed......" Something for you hot shoes to consider.

 

Sport Compact Car Comparisons for 10 mph to 60 mph [rear wheel hp]:
Stock [203 hp] 6.1 seconds
Comptech Supercharger [281hp] 5.2 seconds
Spoon Race Car [214 hp] 5.2 seconds

 

Man, quoting Sport Compact Car for their "insight" is totally lame. Not flaming you dlq04, but that piece of crap publication has no merit... it's one big ad for the products that they're "testing." Even if they get 3 h.p. for an exhaust, instead of saying it's a waste of money, they will still praise it's laurels.

And 10-100 mph times? That's completely useless. 0-60 times are more informative than 0-100 times, especially for real-world driving. Where can you do a 0-100 run? And why would that be a better judge of a car's "real-world" capabilities than 0-60 times.

0-100 ranks up there with top-speed run. I could care less if my car does 180 than if it does 130. Hell, I really don't care if my car goes over 100 m.p.h. Those numbers all come down to a bigger-dick contest, and it sucks to not have the biggest weenie. But you know what? The S2000 wasn't designed to be the winner of said contest. No point changing the parameters so it is.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ldogdotcom
Man, quoting Sport Compact Car for their "insight" is totally lame. Not flaming you dlq04, but that piece of crap publication has no merit.
Actually, some of their articles are very well written. You might be confusing SCC with Super Street or Import Tuner.
And 10-100 mph times? That's completely useless. 0-60 times are more informative than 0-100 times, especially for real-world driving.
I'm going to disagree with you on this one as well. An all-wheel drive car such as the WRX can boast very impressive 0-60 times but it's dash to 100 mph does not parallel the car's sprint time. The GMC Syclone is another example. Incredible off the line but in stock form, from a rolling start on the freeway, it's vulnerable to automobiles normally lengths behind in a 60-mph dash.
Where can you do a 0-100 run?
My guess is probably in a safer place than I suspect many of you are rolling out your 0-60's and if you're doing them in a "safe" place, are you implying you'd run out of that "safety" zone before 100 mph is reached?
And why would that be a better judge of a car's "real-world" capabilities than 0-60 times.
Because the longer the race goes on, the more is revealed about the car's performance capabilities. This is why I talked about the WRX example above. I could write down a few other notable examples of 0-60 times being misleading but here's a quick example...some cars are built (or geared, if you will) to minimize their 0-60 time because the average car owner in this country uses that as their principal guideline of performance measurement. If you look at the # of automobiles capable of sustaining speeds well above 150mph (which in your case, is a useless endeavor), you won't find many $20,000 Neon's doing that. The fact that such cars can attain those speeds in a relatively safe operating manner should speak volumes for thier EFFICIENCY. You can throw a V-8 into a Miata but is that going to make it handle better at 130mph?
Basing an automobile's performance credentials on such a short distance and/or time (5-6 seconds) is like choosing a wife based on three dates.

 

SCC, Super Street and Import Tuner are all useless. The only somewhat good thing that SCC does is dyno testing. Then it shows 10 h.p. gains for $1200, and justifies that. Some are worse than others, but they are all bad.

2 words... Turbo Lag. But, I'm sure that all you have to do on that truck is "mash the big pedal on the right to the floor" and you'll be dropping all kinds of vehicles up to (and over) the posted speed limit.


How can a 0-60 time be misleading? Unless you're running an old-school VW Bug with a 2100cc motor in the 1/8th or 1/4 mile and you run out of gearing, it's not misleading. Did you notice that the cars with the quickest 0-60 times are often the quickest cars out? I'd really like to know of ONE production car that is a beast in the 0-60 sprint, yet runs out of steam after 60.

Yeah, cruising at 150 m.p.h. is a constructive thing to do. Cruising on U.S. highways at 100 m.p.h is also a constructive thing to do.

Using that logic, the S2000 is a bad choice. Why? It's very narrowly focused (just like 0-60 time). It's not the most comfortable car. It doesn't get the best gas mileage for a 4-cylinder. It's powerband is focused in the upper end of the RPM range. It is underpowered (torque-wise). It doesn't have a glovebox.

Unless I completely read this entire dissertation incorrectly, it seems that this is another S2000 owner claiming his car to be the best car in existance, and structuring the data to back this up. "If we're slow on 0-60 time, let's make the benchmark to 10-100 m.p.h., where our cars shine. Then we'll be at the top of the car foodchain." How many "kill-stories" are there of S2000s vs. (insert random car here) in from-a-stop races? A lot. How many S2000 owners are thinking about a 4.44 or 4.77 rear end? Quite a few (talk about short gearing catering to the 0-60 time).

And as awlays, I'm not disrespecting the S2000, especially by using examples listed above. I'm just trying to convey a point. For the umpteenth-million time, the S2000 is not a drag car. Deal with it. Instead of dealing with it, people seem to take the "we're a 10-100 car! That's what should be measured!" Show me one "Speed Limit: 100" sign, and I'll think that 0-100 is a good idea.

Oh, and one final point... this whole thread is basically taking the idea that a car that finishes the 1/4 with a faster trap speed should be the winner of a 1/4 race. Sorry, but why are there 60-foot times? And why are 1/4 mile races awarded to the quickest person? It's because the car uses it's power, gearing and power delivery (more) efficiently (than the other car).

God, what a manifesto...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ldogdotcom
SCC, Super Street and Import Tuner are all useless. The only somewhat good thing that SCC does is dyno testing.
This is a foolish statement. Get past the ad copy and read some of the articles in SCC. Many are factual and quite informative, though not always inline with my own sentiments, I wouldn't go so far to say they're useless. Could you point out why you think an article explaining gearing is useless? Who cares that they think 10hp gains for $1100 are worth it? Who cares? Probably the people who can afford to spend that kind of money on such an intake. Checked out a Mugen CAI lately? The fact that you don't want to doesn't mean enthusiast writers are to skip over such offering because there are those who think it's a "waste." Ferrari doesn't seem to have trouble selling $250,000 automobiles but I guess we should all stop reading about them since we can't afford to buy one???????????
Then it shows 10 h.p. gains for $1200, and justifies that. There are many readers of that magazine who invest $3K on custom interiors...you might want to ask yourself, if such HP/$ atta-boys didn't appeal to their general readership, why would they include such reviews in the magazine? You seem to forget some of these owners have spent $900 on a carbon fiber hood that gives NO horsepower. Some are worse than others, but they are all bad.
Well, ok.
As for your Syclone knowledge and your answer to my ownership recollection of highway rolls with the Sy, you replied 2 words... Turbo Lag. But, I'm sure that all you have to do on that truck is "mash the big pedal on the right to the floor" and you'll be dropping all kinds of vehicles up to (and over) the posted speed limit.
WRONG.
Buy one and then get back to me. I owned one of them AND an '87 Buick Grand National. It wasn't because of TURBO LAG. I won't go into a dissertation of Syclone pro's and con's because there are plenty of websites that could help you in that department.
How can a 0-60 time be misleading?
It's misleading when someone bases a car's total performance on that time. My MR2-S was capable of great launches but for a car that can do a mid-6-second 1/4-mile (after my modifications), it's 1/4-mile times didn't indicate I was driving a mid 6-second 0-60 ride. Let me help you some more with this logic. My '98 Contour SVT would get toasted by a '98 Mustang GT in the 0-60 dash, but was actually SLOWER to 130 mph than the four-door. The point? I had many highway kills with the Contour against cars easily quicker to 60mph. Many cars are difficult to launch but from a rolling start, shine. Did you notice that the cars with the quickest 0-60 times are often the quickest cars out?
Not sure what you mean by "out" but once again, my initial post wasn't to compare this car with a Supercharged Cobra. My point was clear. I think, especially with younger drivers, there is way too much emphasis on a car's 0-60 times and this silly "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality in engine development takes away from other aspects of ownership that might one day, appeal to the senses. I see these buzz-bombs cruising the streets each weekend, revving on anything and anyone, but when I take to the hills or the side-streets, out in the woods of Vermont, I NEVER see these clowns. They're all straight line Mario's.
I'd really like to know of ONE production car that is a beast in the 0-60 sprint, yet runs out of steam after 60.
No one hear implied anything of that manner. I believe I am talking about cars whose transmission platforms allow for quick launches but at the end of the 1/4 or once triple digit speeds arise, their limitations are clearly evident. My '91 Dodge Spirit R/T could do a sub 6-second 0-60 but once over 100, it was like pushing a sheet of plywood through the air. My Ford Lightning SVT is another example. It's quick, but not particular so at highway speeds simply because it's so freakin' heavy. It'll get to 140, but it'll take awhile.
Yeah, cruising at 150 m.p.h. is a constructive thing to do. Cruising on U.S. highways at 100 m.p.h is also a constructive thing to do.
You wayyyyy so missed the point of that bit of information. What tires are you running on your own car? Why pay $200 for a tire rated beyond 125mph if you never think you'll go that far? My point was this....automobiles designed to run at such high speeds are usually at the forefront of technology and performance, so basing a purchasing decision on what a car can do from 0-60 would pretty much eliminate many phenominally nice automobiles.
Using that logic, the S2000 is a bad choice. Why? It's very narrowly focused (just like 0-60 time).
It's a sportscar. Sportscars, at least all the ones I've owned, are not drawn to maximize a 0-60 time at the expense of other facets of performance. Also, in case you haven't owned many, there are MANY great sportscars with (by today's standards) horribly slow 0-60 times. I suppose they should all just rust away behind someone's barn because they can't do the 0-60 in 6 seconds?
It's not the most comfortable car.
Purely subjective. Plenty comfortable for me.
It doesn't get the best gas mileage for a 4-cylinder.
I got 28.9 mpg averaging 74mph for 850 miles this weekend. Seems fine with me. It's powerband is focused in the upper end of the RPM range.
And that's a BAD thing? BWHAHAHA It is underpowered (torque-wise).
Like you said, keep your foot planted on the big pedal and magical things happen.
It doesn't have a glovebox.
Ahhhh. ok. Next.
Unless I completely read this entire dissertation incorrectly... Indeed you have.
... it seems that this is another S2000 owner claiming his car to be the best car in existance, and structuring the data to back this up.
You're not even remotely in the ballpark. I wouldn't know where to begin to bring you back to left field, but after three decades of automobile ownership, mostly with two seaters and other sportscars, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the discussion.
"If we're slow on 0-60 time, let's make the benchmark to 10-100 m.p.h., where our cars shine.
Herein lies the lesson. Put the magazines down for a second or two and drive the freakin' car. Not point it in a straight line and call yourself an enthusiast. I'll grant that my definition of automobile enthusiast doesn't make it biblical and I'm certainly not the "burning bush" of defining what another owner should do or how they should feel, but you definitely are coming across as the kind of owner who puts wayyy to much emphasis on #'s and not enough on the journey. This is why I prefer reading the magazines from Europe. Most of the articles write, not about #'s or figures, graphs or assaults on the asphalt, but how the car FEELS and HOW does it transfer it's pros and cons to the driver. Automobile ownership, and the legitimacy of a sportscar, simply cannot be distilled into it's 0-60 time.
For the umpteenth-million time, the S2000 is not a drag car. Deal with it.
I don't drag my car nor have any desire to do so. The kind of driving that appeals to me is done with nature's trees in my mirrors, not electronic trees facing my windshield. Instead of dealing with it, people seem to take the "we're a 10-100 car! That's what should be measured!" Show me one "Speed Limit: 100" sign, and I'll think that 0-100 is a good idea.
I haven't yet seen any speed limit sign that said, "0-60."
I guess our ages, experience, etc clearly have forged our opinions. I've owned mid 12-second automobiles, and a Bertone X1-9 that damn near could be outrun by a decent sprinter. Guess which one I reget selling more?
Oh, and one final point... this whole thread is basically taking the idea that a car that finishes the 1/4 with a faster trap speed should be the winner of a 1/4 race.
It does? Who said that? I, for one, didn't begin the thread by writing only 1/4-mile times should be considered when rating a car's performance. You seem to have steered the thread into a discussion of drag racing. Sorry, but re-read the first post and maybe we can get back on topic. I said I've seen cars engineered for quick 0-60 times only to lose "steam" when the speeds approach triple digits (in most cases, around the 1/4 mile mark) so it takes more than a quick dash to 60 to evaluate an automobile.
And why are 1/4 mile races awarded to the quickest person?
See what I mean? You keep bringing up drag racing. I could care less that a Neon SRT might get to 60 before me, or the 1320 for that matter, but the notion that I should redefine the validity of my S2000 because Dodge is creating chocolate covered shit amuses me.
I'm sure it will be a fun car to drive but less fun to own.

You can create a 12-second shitbox but that doesn't make it a sportscar.
And THAT, my stop light Grand Prix friend, IS the point of my manifesto.

 

The problem with 0-60 is that some cars shift 2->3 before 60 and it makes their cars look slower.

I heard manufacturers sometimes intentionally select a 2nd gear ratio which will allow the car to show a good 0-62 MPH (0-100kph) showing in the auto magazines.

 

>>>I heard manufacturers sometimes intentionally select a 2nd gear ratio which will allow the car to show a good 0-62 MPH (0-100kph) showing in the auto magazines.<<<

Exactly. An example is a stock E30 M3. It hits redline at 56 MPH in 2nd gear. Had they made 2nd higher, it would have a quicker 0-60 time yet a slower time to a given distance time. In this case a chip allowing higher (but still safe) revs cuts 0-60 by about 0.6 seconds. Or a higher rear diff allowing miore time in 3rd gear also cuts 0-60.

Another example is the present Celica - the gears are kinda messed up in that car. They chose to speed up 0-60 but left the car falling out of VVT or whatever it is called.

I like the Euro mags who post in-one-gear speed-to-speed tests. That way you can compare times to other cars without drivers skill and road surface variations. You can alos get an idea about the engine's flexibility/elasticity - how much you NEED to downshift. "Torquey" cars tend not to give the impression that downshifts are mandatory. Part throttle and WOT below the maximum oompth RPM range matter too and contribute to the feel of a car.

Stan

 

Just few points.

IMO in stock form the S2000 is no drag car and I can't fathom why anyone would expect it to be one.

If 0-60 is such a wonderful benchmark, which may or may not be true, then how does one explain such a wide variation in results for the S2000:

5.2 seconds (Motor Trend, Feb

 

To those of you who have an S2000!!!! Does anyone else have to listen to their co-workers talking about how fast their VW's are. I just can't wait until I actually get an S2000. I just got promoted so it will be a few months. It's not that i hate VW's( i love the sound of turbo). It's just that they hate the S2000. I think it's b/c I would pose a great threat to their ego if I smoked their bitchasses.