There is some value in the test for at least classifying the cars into broad groups. You get a general impression of what the car can do. Is it a 4 second drag monster? No. Is it a 9 second grocery getter? No. It's a high 5 second roadster. Any time spent nit picking tenths of a second differences in 0-60 times would be better spent test driving the cars and identifying the one you think feels the best.

My .02,
Kris

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by krhorrocks
[B]There is some value in the test for at least classifying the cars into broad groups. You get a general impression of what the car can do. Is it a 4 second drag monster? No. Is it a 9 second grocery getter? No. It's a high 5 second roadster. Any time spent nit picking tenths of a second differences in 0-60 times would be better spent test driving the cars and identifying the one you think feels the best.
........

Very well said, in very few words. My old RX-7 3rd gen was a low 5 seconds coupe, and that gives a good first order description of its performance. If using a few more words, the S2000 is a high 5 second roadster, with a lot of variability in that value because its low torque, high rev engine makes the launch from a dead stop a very sensitive and difficult process. What the hell, it's great fun to drive, and I can't worry too much if Car Nut Magazine A declares the value to be 5.9, and Car Nut Magazine B declares it to be 5.5.

 

They were measuring a car's performance around a racetrack in a statistically unsound way. The bs deserves to be debunked just like the statistically unsound 0-60 time. It's bs to publish that an S2000 is faster around a racetrack than a boxster, M3, and SLK based on one driver, one car, one day.

Debunk away, sir.

 

MY 2000 was faster,had a stronger motor.

 

Magazine's point of view - the bigger the ad (revenue!!), the "better" the car.

Aim of magazines - make MONEY
(from adverts, and pander to popular opinion to increase circulation)

Sadly, fair and accurate reporting is a secondary consideration.

 

Over in the United Kingdom, we have a mag called AutoCar and they measure acceleration through the gears from 30 - 70mph

This is the figure I always look at

 

You make it sound as if that "one car sample" would automatically NOT be representative of the model. It is more common that differences in acceleration sample to sample are in the tenths of seconds. That makes a single sample okay to class the car as stated above (high-5-sec car). Stock S2000's have a huge variation in results depending on launch technique, accounting for most of the magazine spreads (even more stupid results with s/c cars).

And to some of you others, stop crying about how 0-60 is not important and the S is no drag monster. I bought my S based partly on Honda's advertised sub-6 second 0-60. That is fast. And when I'm driving aggressively I appreciate being able to blow off most other cars at the light. I wish we didn't have to rev obnoxiously and break the tires loose to do it.

 

The S2000 has one of the biggest changes in 0-60 times that I have seen, however, we all know why this is. The S2000 is not an easy car to drive and to get great 0-60 times, you have to drop the hell out of the cluch, and keep the RPMS above 6000 when you shift, one little mistake and you will cut .5 seconds off your time.

As far as the 0-60 times goes for me. I think that it's important to know what the car is capable of compared to other cars in it's class. I'd trust the MT or C&D guys before I trusted Nissan's 350Z brochure.

I'd still buy the S2000 again if it had a 0-60 6.1 sec time posted everytime. For the price, it's hands down, the best convertible sports car on the road right now for under $35,000.

 

And may I add to this that the S2K only begins to deliver after 5850 rpm in 1st gear. So you sit and wait for it to kick in, so to be fair, compare acceleration time from that exact point to 60 mph and you'll figure out why this car is meant to be driven on the race track and also why once you reach that magical mark, the z4 and other cars don't match up, pound for pound.... so why bother with 0 to 60 ?