S2000 0-60mph
09-05-2007, 02:34 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough i was driving back home with a mate last night and we timed mine from some traffic lights! Hit 60 in 6.4 but its never that accurate and i didnt get get an amazing start and i had the airbox cover off. Still felt quick though 
I believe when the magazines time the 0-60, its not a pretty sight for the car as they often dont use much clutch between gear changes and lots of dumping the clutch at high revs for the take off! So it would be hard to get close in the real world with your own car..
I believe when the magazines time the 0-60, its not a pretty sight for the car as they often dont use much clutch between gear changes and lots of dumping the clutch at high revs for the take off! So it would be hard to get close in the real world with your own car..
09-05-2007, 03:16 AM
#12
0-60 is meaningless "pub type talk" IMO.
Unless you start at 0 mph and perhaps race someone till 60 then stop.
I guess the only scenario is at traffic lights. The S doesnt shift until after this and this when gears come into there own
Unless you start at 0 mph and perhaps race someone till 60 then stop.
I guess the only scenario is at traffic lights. The S doesnt shift until after this and this when gears come into there own
09-05-2007, 03:26 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-60 is a bit pointless, but it is one of the only indicators we have. 0-100 times give a better picture, buy "why would you ever want to do 100" ..
0-20 in the S2000 is pathetic.
0-20 in the S2000 is pathetic.
09-05-2007, 03:39 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I checked my speedo with a GPS as it didn't feel as fast as the speedo suggested. In general it was about 2mph out, ie 62mph on the speedo was actually 60mph. Put a smile on my face though as the car really was that fast 
09-05-2007, 04:18 AM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 17,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see home honest discussion here. Mine was around 6 seconds, I think there's no reason to disbelieve the 6.2 sec Honda claim for the newer car, despite it being a bit heavier.
09-05-2007, 05:08 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On the slippery slope
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are too many variables when looking at the 0-60, road surface, fuel type, fuel load, air temp, Tyres... the list goes on.
Its widly acknowldged that the s isn't a 0-60 monster but is still repectable, I believe a better measure of performance (if you must get into a P*ssing contest) would be to time 0-100-0 this is a better measure for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Its widly acknowldged that the s isn't a 0-60 monster but is still repectable, I believe a better measure of performance (if you must get into a P*ssing contest) would be to time 0-100-0 this is a better measure for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
09-05-2007, 05:28 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 5,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crotch Rocket,Sep 5 2007, 01:08 PM
There are too many variables when looking at the 0-60, road surface, fuel type, fuel load, air temp, Tyres... the list goes on.
Its widly acknowldged that the s isn't a 0-60 monster but is still repectable, I believe a better measure of performance (if you must get into a P*ssing contest) would be to time 0-100-0 this is a better measure for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Its widly acknowldged that the s isn't a 0-60 monster but is still repectable, I believe a better measure of performance (if you must get into a P*ssing contest) would be to time 0-100-0 this is a better measure for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Although I'd suggest 40 to 70 time is more relevant for everyday driving.
