[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdelena:
[B]A 4.9 is .3 better than the quickest previously reported, .7 better than the majority of the

 

I HIGHLY doubt that it is true, though i have managed a best of 5.11 using GTECH and have ran numerous 5.1s.

Given AMAZING traction and cold temperatures it might be possible although when you have one you don't have the other.

So basically i think it is a mis-print although it is not impossible.

 

Maybe it is possible to get a 4.9 sec run, but I wouldn't want to own the clutch afterwards.

BTW, I don't feel that S2k owners who panned these numbers are doing injustice to our car's reputation...I feel that we have a *very* fair bunch of drivers here and you guys have real-world experience with the Stook. Your critique of Road & Track's numbers, even though you are Honda's biggest fans, makes me all the more confident in rest of your pronoucements on this board.

 

So let me get this right, lets think this out logically. A major car magazine with a circulation I would guess around 700,000 (CAR & Driver has the most at 1 mil) who is well known for being dam good at testing cars posts numbers and a few people doubt the numbers. It's illogical for me to think that for some reason Road & track would simply state that the S2000 pulls a 4.9 second 0-60 without doing several tests, probably of which they took an average. I'll take the high road and make the statement that indeed, I trust Road & track a lot more then a few guys who post messages to a board and don

 

Gee, Y2KS2K, why would anyone be interested in the opinions of a bunch of S2000 owners when it comes to commenting on an outrageous claim that a stock S2000 does the sprint in 4.9 seconds? You sure make a strong point that if someone prints such a statement, it must be true no matter how absurd it may appear on its face to those who spend so much time trying to wring max performance out of our own but obviously lesser examples of the breed. The word "gullible" does spring to mind, although I don't think it is a completely adequate explanation.

Nevertheless, I think R&T was serious about their 4.9 second report since they indicated their S2000 was quicker than their NSX.

Anyway, Y2KS2K, do you think yours does it in 4.9?

2x6spds

 

What would be our motivation for slamming our beloved S2K on its 0-60 time?

I believe R&T is a very reputable magazine (I subscribed it for the last decade for god sake) but this particular test result is subject to skepticism.

I am not saying our S2K can't do it (I really hope it can), but it is rightful for some to be skeptical given 99% of all other reputable magazines tested slower time....you can't possibly believe R&T is the ultimate Bible of all performance stats.

Just like in statistic, it's an outlier and it is only logical to take it w/ a grain of salt, until more similar test results confirm it.

[This message has been edited by PsychoBen (edited December 08, 2000).]

 

Like i said it is not impossible but highly unlikely.

 

I think they transposed the numbers with the NSX when they typed up the article.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdelena:
[B]If they got a 4.9 it was downhill.

 

Maybe Honda did some fine tuning on the car they gave them to drive