Rambo wrote:Maybe that's why S2's are (alleged) to be slower ? A lump of 4 x 4 must be heavier than fibreglass. I had noticed the galvanized steel bracket too. Or is it passivated zinc /??
The steel bracket is where the towball attaches so I can tow a caravan ...
S2's are slower according to all the data of various road tests. Autocar tested an SE in 1990 and recorded 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds using their 5th wheel (indicating 63 mph on speedo). Standing 1/4 mile 15 seconds with terminal speed of 92 mph. They tested an S2 in 1994 and recorded 0-60 mph in 7.3 seconds, standing 1/4 mile 15.8 seconds but no terminal speed was quoted.
In the '94 article it says " But right across the board it proved slower than it's marginally lighter, more powerful predecessor. And not just by a small amount but massively so in some areas. To 60 mph it is almost a second adrift, to 100 mph it is a scarcely believable four seconds slower and in each in-gear increment it is beaten hollow by its non-catalysed forebear."
But the '94 article had a subheading of "It may be slower than before and no more adjustable, but the S2 is a better driver's car". In the article it seems the 7" wide 16" wheels and uprated suspension to deal with the increased weight made a nicer car to drive from the testers viewpoint, even if it was a lot slower. So it's 'horses for courses'... Elan driving isn't about straight line speed anyway, is it?
S2 with an Everest chip deals with the power issue, or SE on wider wheels ...