- #149 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
by habitat1
-
Jun 06, 2007 (6:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 12:20 am)
Oh, the 0-100k means a lot more than 0-60mph.
I was referring to 0-100 MPH (not KPH). By "metric" I meant standard of measurment, not the metric system. I should have been clearer.
|
- #150 of 183
-
Hmmm
by dadsz
-
Jun 06, 2007 (7:30 am)
-
|
Is it me or does TrickTrucks come off like a GM employee or one from their advertising agency? First he successfully hijacked the thread away from the SC vs. Z conversations, then continues with the comparisons to the GM car over and over. Guess he's trying to build brand awareness, but enough already mate...
|
- #151 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [habitat1]
by dat2
-
Jun 06, 2007 (7:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jun 06, 2007 6:10 am)
Sorry for attacking you last night, not sure what got into me anyway. However, for a bit of fun take a look at CAR magazine from the UK, and in the back where they have quick rundowns of a lot of cars, take a look at the "Zed" read, where they prefer the Z over a Boxster and that is their recommendation!
|
- #152 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
by habitat1
-
Jun 06, 2007 (8:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 7:55 am)
No worries. I'll check the Car magazine article out if I get a chance. Not sure what their recommendation was based upon, but I also picked an S2000 over a base Boxster on performance and a Boxster S on price back in 2002. The 350Z coupe gives you a lot of performance for a minimum of $10-15k less than the 2007 base Boxster.
|
- #153 of 183
-
Re: Hmmm [dadsz]
by anythngbutgm
-
Jun 06, 2007 (8:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dadsz (Jun 06, 2007 7:30 am)
Yeah, I noticed that too. The logic was a bit off as well, but anyways...
Only thing worth commenting on was this:
Now add to this the weight difference and what you have is the automatic equipped GXP driver smiling as he whizzes by the S2000.
Per Edmunds:
2007 S2000: 2855 lbs
2007 Solstice GXP: 2976 lbs
link title
So no.
Comaprably, the Lotus Elise comes in at a featherweight 1984 lbs.
|
- #154 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
by biancar
-
Jun 06, 2007 (10:38 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 7:55 am)
Dat2, can you post a link?
|
- #155 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [biancar]
by dat2
-
Jun 06, 2007 (8:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: biancar (Jun 06, 2007 10:38 am)
Hey, I looked on their website and I didn't find the giant rundown section. If you stop by one of the big bookstores like Borders, etc, just pick up any issue of CAR magazine, and turn toward the back. They have every new car back there and that is where they say pick the Z over a Boxster any day. It's pretty cool...
|
- #156 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [biancar]
by dat2
-
Jun 06, 2007 (8:25 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: biancar (Jun 06, 2007 10:38 am)
The C/D track comparo was in one of the issues last fall I believe, they used VIR and said it was the closest thing in the US to a Nuremborge like track. They then sorted out cars into different categories, 30-40k, 40-50k and 50k+ or something, the Z won the 30-40 group and outgunned some of the cars in the 40-50 group running around VIR. It was a very detailed article and a lot of fun, and they said they would benchmark all sports cars with that track run in the future. (although I haven't seen anything else from there again!)
|
- #157 of 183
-
Re: S2000 torque? [dat2]
by accelerator
-
Jun 07, 2007 (5:51 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Jun 06, 2007 8:25 pm)
I read that article, too. That was a great comparo!
|
- #158 of 183
-
Ahem...
by claires HOST
-
Jun 07, 2007 (9:29 pm)
-
|
We have an existing discussion for comparing the
S2000 vs. Sky/Saturn, and we have several discussions about the merits of GM vehicles vs. those of German/Japanese makes in several topics over in News & Views.
|