1999 Honda S2000

Well whatever the power is, its not like either car is bad for power with 2.0L, and if either Company wanted too, they could put more power into there cars, the key word is "Choose!"

@Georg: and again with the bullshit.... You are claiming Porsches superiority but in fact you're just making a crooked comparisson. A 906 is NOT a normal roadcar... its a racecar. And when we look at some of the competition....
Alfa romeo 33 Stradale 2.0l v8 230bhp...and by 1968 it was producing 270bhp.
And for Honda? 1,5liter v12 normally aspirated in 1965 produced 230bhp @12000rpm.

You can try to get away with that kind of bullshit but there are people that have some idea of car history and again you get the lid on the nose.

For a mainstream production engine, the s2000 2,0l is exceptionable and there is very little that comes close, even today.
Take you german fanboyism to the Audi-fansite or something.

@golf diesel

what so special about that engine perfromance...back in 1966 Porsche had already a 220hp 2.0l 4banger production engine build into the 906
so Honda needed over 30years to come up with a slightly more powerfull n/a 2.0l 4banger ..and you call that best engine ever.. a engine known lacking factory claimed perfromance..

PS:1998 is year of introduction

i don't know about you but...236 bhp from 2 liter aspirated engine..and that from 1999..best 2 liter engine ever

I like the nissan 350z better then the s2000.

I only brought it up because some are trying to compare 0-100kph to 0-60mph times...

Most people on this site already know this...(Most) but i guess they should put a Metric/Imperiam option as well.

Let's not forget (and others have alluded to this), but 0-60mph is different from 0-100kmh. 0-62mph is the better equivalent to 0-100kmh.

Damn cheater..

Yes that was a quicker lap but the S2000 was heavily modified so not a time we can accept here (everything we list is from a stock car).

S2000 has done the Tsukuba circuit quicker than 1.07.9, here it did a 1.06.45 in time attack, quicker than an M5 (E60) and M3 SMG (E46), link ...[url]http://videos.streetfire.net/video/BMW-M3-vs-BMW-M5-vs-Mazda_697665.htm[/ur]

Also, just FYI the fastest recorded time for an S2000 in an Australian publication was 0-100km/h in 6.2 seconds and 0-400m in 13.87 seconds.

Georg: Appreciate your thorough attitude, but the S2000 does have the ability to do 0-100km/h in under 6 seconds. There actually was a car mag that managed 0-100km/h in 5.85 seconds (possibly german), not to mention several American motoring journo's have managed 0-60mph in 5.4 and 5.5 seconds (add 0.3 seconds for an aprox 0-100km/h time). I own a 2003 S2K, so I know firsthand that this car is difficult to get great times out of, but not impossible. At the end of the day it will shine on a road course moreso than the drag strip.

S2000 may not be the fastet 0-100kmh but it still i more fun to drive around then a uggly ass mazda :)
and with a turbo charger kitt it will kill the other turbo cars with simple adjustments.

That Road and Track article is the fastest S2000 I've seen..... as a former owner I would love to think all S2000s are as quick but 4.9 to 60mph (around 5.2 to 100kph) is much quicker than any other tests I've ever found. 0-100kph in under 6sec is definately possible as there are plenty of recorded 0-60 runs in 5.5sec and 62mph is possible in 2nd gear so there is no extra time needed for a gear change.

not the Germans only.... most nations in the world clock 0-100km/h not 0-60mph .. show me a 0-100km/h test sheet in under 6 seconds..

Honda claims 0-100km/h 6.2s...
http://www.honda.de/content/automobile/modelle_s2000_technische_daten.php?mv=57

"we talk here about 0-100km/h not 0-60mph.. in no test a S2000 reached 0-100km/h in under 6s! "

Do you honestly think it takes the car over a second more to go 2mph faster?

Road and Track tested it and got 0-60 time of 4.9 seconds. I knew the AP1 were supposedly faster because they are lighter and you don't have to shift as soon, but I hadn't heard of one that fast before.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=155&page_number=5

The Germans must have gotten some weak S2000s.

FYI, in the U.S. and Japan and I believe most of the rest of the world now has the 2.2 liter engine (U.S. has had it since 2004). The U.K. still seems to get the 2.0 liter engine, which by most accounts I've read, is slower. Can FastestLaps also include results for the 2.2 liter version?

2004 S2000 (AP2), Car and Driver results

0-60 in 5.5 seconds
1/4 mile in 14.0 seconds reference link below.

Also, there seems to be something wrong in the s2000 "track performance" algorithm. Whenever I compare it to any other car, it gives somewhere between 0 and 8 points for that category. I know it's better than that! How can we get a correction?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/convertibles/2004_caterham_seven_superlight_r_vs_factory_five_racing_mark_ii_roadster_honda_s2000_lotus_elise_mazdaspeed_mx_5_miata_comparison_test/2004_honda_s2000_comparison_test

Motor Trend 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0403_compact_sport_coupe_comparison/specs_price.html

Car And Driver 0-0 in 5.5 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/japanese_performance/2008_honda_s2000_cr_short_take_road_test

http://www.performancecarmagazine.co.uk/ the times should eventually appear in their "Road Test" section. I added the three times so far as have the magazines.... hopefully I'm a trusted source???? ;-)

is there somewere a online source for the Bruntingthrope laptime?