Time will tell on that one.


This is where most people who've never driven anything more capable than an S2K fall down. Their imagination cannot comprehend anything that could corner quicker than their own car, so therefor writeoff the difference to anything else as minimal. Believe me mate, it's not.

Anyway, this was about a CTR vs an S2K till that clio troll butted in.

 

I'm really surprised to read this thread - i'm in the market atm for a S2000, just currently struggling to find the right one..... but having never driven a CTR or S2000 before i'm a bit shocked to hear that in a straight drag the S2000 would struggle to put clean air between it and the CTR

The S2k is only circa 50Kg heavier but has an extra 40 Bhp and 8 Lbs Torque


If I'm in the market for a fast sports car (not TVResque fast but brisk), am I looking at the wrong car? or is the CTR faster than figures may suggest.....

 

sorry completely disagree
im more than able to comprehend that another car can corner quicker than the s, but my point was that either car is capable of cornering far quicker than i would ever dare to attempt on a public road and i suspect (and hope this is true for most mediocre drivers which lets face it most of us are) so under this situation the thing that matters is the driver....

 

Despite the other 30bhp/ton the S2K somehow dramatically loses out its advantage to the Civic. I don't know how though, the 30bhp/ton a Civic had over my little Saxo VTS was very noticeable, but from the Civic to the S2K, there is bugger all difference, and like I said it's more down to a Civic driver having rather softer limits than the S2K's. I suspect it's gearing. The 4.57 ratio final gear in the S2K really helps acceleration, to the point that it would convincingly outpace a Civic.

The Civic will understeer if you get it wrong, if you are too ambitious in the S2K you'll more than likely head into a corner backwards as the S2K doesn't know what understeer is. Which is both a blessing and a curse.

For a properly fast topless sports car, look at TVR Tamora (costly to run) or a 987 S Boxster (costly to buy), or Elise R - "impractible" (sic).

The S2K is a good compromise. Medium speed, medium handling, medium running costs.

 

It comes completely naturally mate, and well within speed limits. I speed up at roundabouts where in the S2K I had to stamp on the brakes. It's effortlessly quicker in the corners.

 

having moved myself from a CTR (after 3 years ownership) to an S2000 2.5 years ago I don't think you can make a direct comparison just by looking at speed - it's the whole package which is significantly better in the S2000. I would never dream of moving back to the CTR (no matter how much I loved it).

One point on making quick progress between the two which hasn't been mentioned is overtaking on A roads - invariably I found I would have to change gear mid overtaking in the CTR (due to lower rev limit), which you typically don't need to do in the S2000. I find keeping both hands on the wheel when on the wrong side of the road a significantly more pleasurable experience.

 

The S2000 can achieve mid 5 seconds to 60mph - no doubt in my mind. But it's very hard to do! My mate has an elise and at Crail my best lauch could match his best launch. However, he could knock out his best launch 95% of the time whereas I was more like 40-50% given the technique that must be employed to do it in the S2000.

 

with anondrew

Gotta love 3rd gear for that

 

It's the area under the torque curve & the gearing that makes teh difference.

The CTR is also far more aerodynamically efficient than the S2000.

Absolute figures are meaningless.

We're discussing UK roads, where ultimately, the road conditions cause one to back off.

Indeed, the width of the vehicle is a real issue. The S2000 and CTR are both fairly slim.

Over 1800mm, most cars are tricky on a back road.

Actually the new Tuscan S is the only car I would say IS decisively faster then the S2000! Width/visibility notwithstanding. Trouble is, they tend to self-obliterate!

 

Really? I'd have thought the lower frontal projected area and the lack of such a blunt rear end would make the S more efficient.