http://www.roadandtrack.com/RoadAndTrack/A...brands_pg5.html

Steve Millen again is the main guy here.. This is what he says about the M Roadster and I quote "I don

 

Old news which has been discussed extensively here in the past.

This is from the January 2001 issue of Road & Track Magazine where they compare the S2000 to the NSX.

In error, they give the S2000 the 0-60 mph acceleration and 60-0 mph braking stats from the NSX.

 

I know the S2000 #'s were identical to the NSX, but where did you get the Info that it was a misprint?

 

There has been no proof of this.
I believe the 4.9 since it can be a 4.99 is possible for the s2k. I have done a 5.11 and my car wasn't even fully broken in yet.

I don't want to get into this again, but you shouldn't be saying it was a misprint without being sure.

 

Agreed Sev, they even SAY in the article:

"Many will point out that its

 

Did R&T make a retraction in the subsequent issue? I don't recall seeing it.

What is your basis for claiming it is a misprint?

 

Its most likely a misprint for the following reasons:

4.9 is awfully fast for an S2K

The NSX acceleration and braking stats are identical to the NSX test index stats listed in the back

The S2K accel and braking stats are identical to the NSX stats

The S2K accel and braking stats don't match the S2K stats in the test index.

If you look at all the other cars' stats, they match the test index for that particular car. The S2K is the only one that doesn't. And from people who have driven both cars back to back, the NSX is definitely quicker.

UL

 

i disagree

 

One reason why there're no concensus for 0-60 time for the S is IMO its high redline and launching possibilities. Just look at the below published numbers, my guess is that R&T got the time by launching around redline. MT did say they launched at 8K RPM.

estimate of launching rpm
R&T = 4.9s 9K +
C&D = 6.8s 4-5K RPM
MT = 5.8s 8K RPM (confirmed)

This also means that if it's launched at 4k rpm, you'll probably get something closer to 8 sec! The NSX' 0-60 time of low 5's is more consistent because where you launch doesn't matter as much. That car, especially the 97 and later models, takes much less effort going fast. The S can put up impressive numbers if you're willing to climb the rpm ladder for it. Personally, I'm more comfortable revving the car on 3rd-5th gear. It's better on the tranny and engine i figure... maybe just psychologically thing.

[Edited by SixthGear on 02-26-2001 at 01:19 AM]

 

That's o.k., but just check the road test summaries and I think you'll change your mind. The "Battle of the Brands" was done in Jan 2001. I pulled out my September 2000 issue and looked at the road test summary there.

The results(0-60/60-0)

M Roadster 5.4/121 - Sept Issue, tested at 5.4/121
Z8 4.5/122 - Sept Issue Summary 4.5/122

Camaro SS 5.5/129 - Sept Issue Summary 5.5/129
Corvette Z06 4.6/123 - Sept Issue Summary 4.6/123

360 Modena 4.3/110 - Sept Issue Summary 4.3/110
550 Maranello 4.7/112 - Sept Issue Summary 4.7/112

S2000 4.9/134 - Sept Issue, tested at 5.5/123
NSX 4.9/134 - Sept Issue Summary 4.9/134

SLK320 6.7/129 - Sept Issue Summary - no listing
SL500 6.2/125 - Sept Issue Summary - 6.2/125

Boxster S 5.6/125 - Sept Issue, tested at 5.6/125
911 Turbo 4.0/119 - Sept Issue Summary - no listing

Now, aside from 2 new cars which may have been tested in the intervening months, you'll note that the times already listed in Sept are identical to those provided in January. I don't think R&T retested those particular items. Looks like they just went to the roadcourse and ran timed laps. There is simply no way that 9 of those cars would record identical 0-60 and 60-0 measurements 4 months later - R&T doesn't correct for conditions and there is always a margin of error. And the odds that the S2K would record exactly the same numbers as the NSX despite being 3 seconds slower on the roadcourse are about as bad.

So, in conclusion, the S2K numbers are in error, IMHO.

UL