I received my January Road and Track today. The article is comparing the S2000 to to NSX, the S2000 was clocked with a 4.9 0-60! I think that just shows what variation in timing we can get based on road condition and launch RPMs.

Wesmaster

 

I think R&T's 4.9 second 0-60 time is either the result of their attempt to perform computations while under the influence of acid, or a typo. Probably just a typo.

2x6spds

 

Hate to say "I told you so" but where were those guys who were arguing 0-60 numbers with me??? I said 5.0 and the scoffed and puffed and blew my house down. Well, the M3's numbers of what was it 4.6-4.8 are not all that much faster huh!

 

I wonder if it's for real...we'll see next issue if they say it's a mistake.

 

If they got a 4.9 it was downhill.

 

I agree. It's printed there in a magazine. Published! Right there, in black in white. Read 'em and weep.

All you M3 people are insane, and I resent some of the sacriligous comments on this board:

"If they got a 4.9 it was downhill."

"I think R&T's 4.9 second 0-60 time is either the result of their attempt to perform computations while under the influence of acid, or a typo. "

Where's the faith brothers?

 

I haven't gotten this issue yet, but I believe our S2000 could do 0-60 in 4.9 sec if it's in the right hand. But I was wondering it is the same driver who drove both the S2000 and NSX? If it's the same driver, NSX could do better than 4.9, probably somewhere close to 4.5 sec.

 

Wesmaster

What 1/4 mile time did Road & Track get ??

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ldogdotcom:
[B]

1st run

 

A 4.9 is .3 better than the quickest previously reported, .7 better than the majority of the