I know a BMW mechanic who tests M3's all the time and after he took a test drive in my S2000 he exclaimed it "felt" faster than "any" M cars he'd driven and he went out and bought himself a new S2K the very next day. NO BULL, TRUE STORY!!

 

I had an 97' E36 M3 Coupe. I raced my S2k vs it many times prior to selling it. The cars would be dead even from a stand still or the M3 may have a slight advantage(launch) but once you get in to 4th gear the S2000 pulls away slowly. This happened pretty much everytime. The S2000 just feels stronger pass 90 to me. Both cars were bone stock at the time.
-Brandon

 

From test data (R&T 5/97 for M3, 9/99 for S2000):
M3 / S2000
0-60 5.6 / 5.3
0-80 9.2 / 9.0
0-100 14.5 / 13.8
So, elapsed time from 60-100 is 8.9 s for the M3, 8.5 for the S2000. I think both had two shifts in this range, so no advantage there. Given car, driver, ambient differences, close enough to be inconclusive.

From the theory perspective...

I do agree who mentioned that aerodynamics become more important. But some quickie calcs at these speeds (60-100) show that the accel force these cars are capable of is about 10x that of the drag at 60 and approx 2x that of drag at 100. My very simple vehicle calc (which makes a lot of assumptions) guesstimates that after about 110 mph, the M3-like car has the superior accel due to the increasing importance of drag vs weight. Yes, the aerodynamics of virtually all drop tops are poor.

Some have mentioned gearing. To my understanding, yes there is an effect. But perhaps not what conventional wisdom might dictate. I frankly don't understand why (as some attest) the S2000 would "pull better from 4th on". It really should just be a matter of trading off the spacing of the gears (which determines how close each car remains near their pretty much same 240 hp peak) vs the number of gear changes (which costs time). From late 1st gear on (30 mph), you are in the powerband of the S2000. If you are racing, you'll just be hanging on to those high revs, shifting at redline. So, why would it have to wait for 4th to show its mettle? Perhaps the s2000's gears are too widely spaced down low, pulling it too far out of its power band even when shifted from redline? Surprising if so, given its 6 spd and lack of a tall 6th.

In less words: I agree with the original poster that the large displacement (high torque) benefit is all at low rpm. Which in a 60-120 race started from high revs, is nearly irrelevant.

Anyway, these two cars should be close. Both theory and test bear that out.

 

I also traded a 1997 M3 for the S2000. Never regretted the decision

 

Haha FCGuy you just happened to take the fastest numbers published for the S2000 and some of the slowest for the M3. What about the reviews that have the S2000 has a 14.2-14.6 car in the 1.4 and 5.8+ 0-60?

 

Palmateer... the funny thing is that I traded my S2000 for an M Coupe, and there hasn't been one day that I've regretted the decision.

And Steve C... good point. Let's take averages and (on paper) find out which car is quicker.

And one more thing... let's remember that the M3 Coupe is a lot bigger and heavier than the S2000 is. Apples to apples... try the M Roadster or M Coupe.

Once again... not a flame.

 

Didn't mean to. I just took the ones that I quickly found references to that I have in my personal collection. Whether those are particularly fast or slow for either car, I do not know (well, I do know that the first R&T and C&D tests had the S2000 very slow, but not since).