Following is data taken from Motor Trend, Road & Track, and Car & Driver mags on the S2k:

Motor Trend (5/01) - 0-60 5.2 sec.; 1/4 mile 13.8 at 100.5; braking 60-0 113 ft; skidpad none; slalom 70.1 mph.

Road & Track (6/01) - 0-60 5.5 sec; 1/4 mile 14.1 @ 99.6; brake 60-0 123 ft.; skidpad .90g; slalom 65.l9 mph.

Car & Driver (6/01): 0-60 5.8 sec; 1/4 mile 14.4 sec (no mph); brake none; skidpad .90g; slalom none

Interesting variety, no? These figures were found in the consolidated list of cars tested towards the end of each magazine. Sure would love to see any other figures you guys have found in mags or from real life.

 

MT 2/2000 0-60 5.8 1/4 14.2/98.1 60-0 110' lat .95 sl 70.3
R&T 00 sp/gt 0-60 5.3 1/4 14.0/99.5 60-0 119' lat .92 sl 63.8

 

I guess road conditions and driver ability really play a big role in how well the s2k perofrms.

 

True for all cars.

 

It also depends on how many miles were on the test cars. They run better after 5000 miles are on the clock.

 

I can understand that there might be an acceleration difference in cars with low mileage, but the slalom, skidpad, and 60-0 braking figures, the mileage on the S2k ought not to make that much difference. In addition, I'd suspect that NONE of the cars the mags tested had much in the way of mileage on them. Of course, I have no way to know, one way or the other.

Another thing I've noticed is that some of the compilations of test data do not necessarily match the figures in the actual tests. Also, some other performance figures I've seen are clearly wrong. For example, one of the alleged "consumer" type groups (not Consumer's Union) reported a 0-60 of over 6.3 seconds. Hell, I can do better than that with two people in the car and going up hill.