Originally Posted by abbid

S2000:

Performance
0-60 mph: 5.5 sec
0-100 mph: 13.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.1 sec @ 99.6 mph
Skidpad: .90g
Top Speed: 140 mph
Braking, 0-60 mph: 123 ft
Slalom Speed: 65.9 mph



RX8:
Performance
0-60 mph: 5.9 sec
0-100 mph: 15.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.5 sec @ 96 mph
Skidpad: .88g
Top Speed: 150 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 114 ft
Slalom Speed: 65.4 mph


It is faster to the 100.

Originally Posted by rx8pilot

i've had the S2000 up to 152...verified by my "friends" radar gun.
and the 8 has been to that exact number also.. but damn the difference in road noise at that speed in the S will make ur ears bleed.

Originally Posted by bmcc49er

Paid $33,600 miles 4600, holy shit...

Originally Posted by Aseras

ok explain to me why the 1/4 mile is 14.1 sec @ 99.6 mph but 0-100 mph is 13.9 sec.

Originally Posted by Fanman

Heard they are killing it after the 05', maybe 06' year due to lagging sales.

Originally Posted by Fanman

Heard it on Temple of VTEC & S2k board, not dealer (who I never trust).

Originally Posted by nolarx8

We started out with the miata ms (i like to stay in the family). but she loves the honda paid 33600 . I have a 04 rx8 with alot of love & sweat (ms fly,borla,k/n,nitrous) The difference so far s2000 feels alot faster to 100 but i guess it is, as tourqe goes kinda feels the same. It's like my 6speed rx8 with the five thousand i put into aftermarket parts. You ask which do i like the best (so far im staying with my 8, the inside feels and looks better. but it's only been two days Iwill let you know.

Originally Posted by Aseras

ok explain to me why the 1/4 mile is 14.1 sec @ 99.6 mph but 0-100 mph is 13.9 sec.

Originally Posted by nolarx8

It's Been ten days since we picked up the honda and im gonna try to give you guys my honest opinion of the two. First of all i love mazda and all rotaries, I had a 92 2turbo sold it when the engine started messing up. First of all the car drives almost the same, Braking goes to the 8 (I feel like i have no problem stopping in my 8 at high speeds), The inside has to go to the 8 (Just straight up cleaner) and more gadgets, Here's the part i wish i was wrong but the s2000 is just all around faster (0-60 honda is way faster s2000 5.4 Rx8 5.9 but feels alot faster than .5) to 100 the s2000 gets up fast you can really tell the difference. I told you guys i was gonna report good or bad here it is. final thought on the two both are very different cars but close at the same time. all i can say is thank god im lucky enough to be able to drive both on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by nolarx8

It's Been ten days since we picked up the honda and im gonna try to give you guys my honest opinion of the two. First of all i love mazda and all rotaries, I had a 92 2turbo sold it when the engine started messing up. First of all the car drives almost the same, Braking goes to the 8 (I feel like i have no problem stopping in my 8 at high speeds), The inside has to go to the 8 (Just straight up cleaner) and more gadgets, Here's the part i wish i was wrong but the s2000 is just all around faster (0-60 honda is way faster s2000 5.4 Rx8 5.9 but feels alot faster than .5) to 100 the s2000 gets up fast you can really tell the difference. I told you guys i was gonna report good or bad here it is. final thought on the two both are very different cars but close at the same time. all i can say is thank god im lucky enough to be able to drive both on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by kreuznach

It would be great to be able to hop out of one car and get into the other to do a little comparison. You two are lucky.

I've had my S2000 for 2 weeks now. And just yesterday did a 250 mile trip. I can say this: I missed the RX8. The '8 is 10X's more comfortable. Both have great seats, but the Mazda has it all over the Honda in the comfort department. As for handling and driving, I still say the RX8 is the easiest car to drive I have driven. It does everything very well and with out drama. The rotary not only revs smoother, but is more willing to rev. My S2000 is a 2.2 ltr and redlines at 8000 rpm. I miss the hell out of the extra 1000 revs. The power really comes on at around 5800 or 6000 rpm, much like in the '8. However, in the Honda I only have 2000 rpm to go at that point.

The S' will require more time behind the wheel, but once I have that in, I think the Honda will be the "faster" car to drive. The '8 corners well, but the S' corners like its on rails. Though the braking point is later in the RX8, because of it's better brakes, I think exit speeds will be higher in the Honda. It's also much flatter through corners than the Mazda.

I disagree with you, VRRocket on the gear boxes. First, the RX8's and Miata's (I used to own a 2001 Miata) gear boxes are nothing a like. The Miata's has a much shorter throw and is more accurate. Second, neither can beat the Honda's. Short, precise and falls right to hand.

In the end which makes a "better" car is strictly subjective. Putting the top down is a part of the sports car experience. With out that ability, I was miserable in the RX8. Soft tops make slow cars seem fast and fast cars seem faster. I give the knod to the Honda.

Originally Posted by m477

The s2000 is one of my favorite cars, it is not unlike the FD I used to have. :)

But I picked up my 5/04 build Sport model with barely more that delivery miles on it for $21k and change. Even if I could find a leftover 2004 s2k, it would still go for about $8k more. And while I love having the top down on nice days, I would definitely need a hardtop for the winters here which is another $3k. So in the end, it's hard to argue that the s2k is really $10k-12k better than the RX-8.

Plus I just like the feel of the Renesis better. I know someone will flame me with magazine numbers, but I just like how it's more linear and revs easier.

Originally Posted by m477

The s2000 is one of my favorite cars, it is not unlike the FD I used to have. :)

But I picked up my 5/04 build Sport model with barely more that delivery miles on it for $21k and change. Even if I could find a leftover 2004 s2k, it would still go for about $8k more. And while I love having the top down on nice days, I would definitely need a hardtop for the winters here which is another $3k. So in the end, it's hard to argue that the s2k is really $10k-12k better than the RX-8.

Originally Posted by m377

Plus I just like the feel of the Renesis better. I know someone will flame me with magazine numbers, but I just like how it's more linear and revs easier.

Originally Posted by 124Spider

It depends on what's important to you. I wanted a two seat roadster with good looks, good power, and good overall performance; they don't come any better than the S2k, for anything near the price. My wife wanted a nice performing four seat coupe. They don't come any better than the RX-8 for anywhere near the price. One of each suits us well! :)

Originally Posted by m477

I maintain that the S2000 isn't $10k better than the RX-8.

Originally Posted by m477

"Inverted parabola" -- I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. Look at any dyno, and the power is basically a diagonal line from idle to just before redline where the peak power is. There's no major bumps or wobbles from things like turbo lag or VTEC suddenly kicking in at some point. This is what I mean by 'linear.'

Originally Posted by 124Spider

"Worth" is in the wallet and preferences of the purchaser. I think it is. ;)


A couple of months ago, we had an RX-8 dyno day here in Seattle. I brought my S2000. So, on the same day, back-to-back, we dyno'd an RX-8 and and S2000. Here are the power curves; the first one is the RX-8, which peaks and then falls (like an inverted parabola). The second is the S2000, which goes straight up to red line, with a jump for VTEC. Now you tell me which is closer to a line.... :D

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

Your car isn't stock now is it?

Originally Posted by 124Spider

No, it has an aftermarket radio, hybrid brake pads and DOT4 fluid, and Mobil 1 engine oil and differential oil. :p

Actually, otherwise, it is stock (I autocross, and I want to stay in stock class, so no significant mods are allowed). Those numbers were uncorrected for temperature and pressure; corrected, mine was 210hp, so the RX-8 would be something like 178hp, corrected.

The 2004-2005 S2000 typically dynos at 205-210 corrected. Unlike Mazda with the RX-8, Honda seems to under-report the power of the S2000.

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

that torque # seems a bit high.

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

Looks like it suffers less drivetrain loss than the 8.

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

I almost bought an s2k but the short wheel base made my friends s2k feel really unstable on high speed tracks when I drove it. I do love the vtec surge on the earlier models. too bad the nsx is so much $$$$.

Originally Posted by 124Spider

A couple of months ago, we had an RX-8 dyno day here in Seattle. I brought my S2000. So, on the same day, back-to-back, we dyno'd an RX-8 and and S2000. Here are the power curves; the first one is the RX-8, which peaks and then falls (like an inverted parabola). The second is the S2000, which goes straight up to red line, with a jump for VTEC. Now you tell me which is closer to a line.... :D

Originally Posted by m477

It has been very well documented about how the ECU on the RX-8 goes into "safe mode" when dynoed.

Originally Posted by m477

It has been very well documented about how the ECU on the RX-8 goes into "safe mode" when dynoed. The current version M3 does the same thing, and I think the new Porsches are supposed to be the same way too.

The simple fact is that every rotary since the 1960's has had the diagonal line power curve. The engine is basically like a turbine, and the torque is fairly consistent throughout the rev range. It's simply inherent in the design. When a complete aftermarket ECU eventually gets developed, the RX-8 will dyno just like all the older rotaries. In the meantime, look at dynos of NA FC's.

Originally Posted by m477

And as far as the price thing goes, let me put things in perspective here. For $10k more than the S2000, I can get an Elise or Vette, which are definitely on a higher level. For $10k less that what I paid for my 8, about all I can get is a Hyundai econobox, which is nowhere near the same caliber of car. So in comparison, the extra $10k I could have spent to get an s2k really wouldn't have gotten me much.

Originally Posted by MrH

First, to BlueEyes, forced induction on an S2k just spells trouble. You'd need to do some serious work if you wanted to run any significant amount of boost, due to its ridiculously high compression ratio (it's somewhere around an 11:1 if I recall correctly).

Originally Posted by MrH

While those dynos seem impressive (especially the S2k. I knew it had a fairly flat torque curve, but wasn't aware of how much torque it made at lower engine speeds)

Originally Posted by MrH

, do you honestly think the RX-8 is putting out 186 hp at the wheels, and the ECU is not intervening in some way?

Originally Posted by MrH

Taking the 17% drivetrain loss assumed for FR cars, that'd be about 224 hp at the crank. And that's very well possible given the conditions, but the same conditions should also apply to I highly doubt the RX-8 is underrated by 10 hp, and the S2k is overrated by 25 hp.

Originally Posted by MrH

Also, it doesn't make logical sense that the RX-8 would just drop off in torque as it reaches the upper RPM range, considering it makes peak power at around 8,500 RPM. It just doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by MrH

Throw in the performance numbers, and while they lack behind the S2k, it's not like the RX-8 is getting blown out of the water, like it should be if what you say is true.

Originally Posted by MrH

First, to BlueEyes, forced induction on an S2k just spells trouble. You'd need to do some serious work if you wanted to run any significant amount of boost, due to its ridiculously high compression ratio (it's somewhere around an 11:1 if I recall correctly).

While those dynos seem impressive (especially the S2k. I knew it had a fairly flat torque curve, but wasn't aware of how much torque it made at lower engine speeds), do you honestly think the RX-8 is putting out 186 hp at the wheels, and the ECU is not intervening in some way? Taking the 17% drivetrain loss assumed for FR cars, that'd be about 224 hp at the crank. And that's very well possible given the conditions, but the same conditions should also apply to I highly doubt the RX-8 is underrated by 10 hp, and the S2k is overrated by 25 hp. Also, it doesn't make logical sense that the RX-8 would just drop off in torque as it reaches the upper RPM range, considering it makes peak power at around 8,500 RPM. It just doesn't add up. Throw in the performance numbers, and while they lack behind the S2k, it's not like the RX-8 is getting blown out of the water, like it should be if what you say is true.

Originally Posted by 124Spider

Nonsense! Lots of people have forced induction with S2000s, both turbos and superchargers. There certainly is tuning to be done (much more with a turbo that an sc, apparently), and one has to be judicious, but you'll nuke your differential before you blow up that engine if you do things right.

When they revamped the S2000 for the 2004 model year, they flattened out the torque curve, which makes it a much more street-friendly car.
I have no idea. I do know that I've read many threads on this site aobut it, and there are many more people positing that the engine does indeed put down that much to the wheels than that there is some mysterious force acting to retard dyno results.
Given Mazda's issue with the 247hp originally, it's not at all hard to believe it's 224 at the crank, and/or has more drive train loss than the S2000. Also, I certainly believe that the original S2000 was 240hp at the crank, and they dyno at 190-195 (corrected), so, yes, I do believe that the 2004/2005 S2000 is something like 255-260 at the crank.
Why not? Most cars have that kind of torque curve; hp is just, essentially, torque times rpm, so it does add up.
That is a valid point, but gearing explains some of that; in particular, my car redlines at 57mph in second, requiring two shifts to get to 60, while the RX-8 requires only one shift. This will artificially close the gap, but I suspect that 0-125 (both cars in 5th gear) would go rather decisively to the S2000.

But, gee, what would you expect. The RX-8 is a great car, especially given that it is a four seat, four door car. But it has more compromises (and weight) than the S2000. I would rather take our RX-8 on a 12 hour drive on the interstate highways than the S2000, since the RX-8 is so much quieter and more comfortable (I would have to ignore the huge difference in gas mileage). But I'd much rather take my S2000 on the track than my wife's RX-8, especially on a nice day (top down and all that). But it's not torture for me to have a long drive in the S2000, and the RX-8 is a very capable track and autocross car. Each car serves its target market very well. Do we really have to "fight" about relatively inconsequential things?

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

I think the 8 can hang with the s2k in autox. But not stock for stock. Put a similar bone crunching suspension on the 8 and it is extremely capable.

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

I really think that there is something fishy about the 8 dynos but have no proof so all is nul. Anyways, both cars are very different aside from the power #'s. Sure the s2k is more fun out of the box but I'm real happy with the 8's comfort.

Originally Posted by DARKMAZ8

I wonder when honda will unveil a new s2k. I think it's due.

Originally Posted by 124Spider

Nonsense! Lots of people have forced induction with S2000s, both turbos and superchargers. There certainly is tuning to be done (much more with a turbo that an sc, apparently), and one has to be judicious, but you'll nuke your differential before you blow up that engine if you do things right.

Either that differential is weak, or that engine is a complete monster. I'm thinking it's the former of the two. A compression ratio as high as that, and forced induction never go well.

When they revamped the S2000 for the 2004 model year, they flattened out the torque curve, which makes it a much more street-friendly car.

I have no idea. I do know that I've read many threads on this site aobut it, and there are many more people positing that the engine does indeed put down that much to the wheels than that there is some mysterious force acting to retard dyno results.
Given Mazda's issue with the 247hp originally, it's not at all hard to believe it's 224 at the crank, and/or has more drive train loss than the S2000. Also, I certainly believe that the original S2000 was 240hp at the crank, and they dyno at 190-195 (corrected), so, yes, I do believe that the 2004/2005 S2000 is something like 255-260 at the crank.
Why not? Most cars have that kind of torque curve; hp is just, essentially, torque times rpm, so it does add up.

I'm well aware of that, but by looking at your dyno, wouldn't you agree it looks suspicious that power just drops like a rock after 8k?


That is a valid point, but gearing explains some of that; in particular, my car redlines at 57mph in second, requiring two shifts to get to 60, while the RX-8 requires only one shift. This will artificially close the gap, but I suspect that 0-125 (both cars in 5th gear) would go rather decisively to the S2000.

0-125 , both cars in 5th gear? How exactly would that work? Are you saying both cars run from 0-125 mph? Care to clarify? You'd have to see that everything matched up as well (gearing, and wheel size), which I highly doubt does.

But, gee, what would you expect. The RX-8 is a great car, especially given that it is a four seat, four door car. But it has more compromises (and weight) than the S2000. I would rather take our RX-8 on a 12 hour drive on the interstate highways than the S2000, since the RX-8 is so much quieter and more comfortable (I would have to ignore the huge difference in gas mileage). But I'd much rather take my S2000 on the track than my wife's RX-8, especially on a nice day (top down and all that). But it's not torture for me to have a long drive in the S2000, and the RX-8 is a very capable track and autocross car. Each car serves its target market very well. Do we really have to "fight" about relatively inconsequential things?

I'm not trying to argue with you. I don't even own an RX-8. Merely an ethusiast who likes the car for what it is. I like the S2k as well, but I find it a little out of place that some of you guys don't even question the dramatic drop in torque the dynos are suggesting, when the actual car seems to suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by MrH

I'm well aware of that, but by looking at your dyno, wouldn't you agree it looks suspicious that power just drops like a rock after 8k?

Originally Posted by mrh

0-125 , both cars in 5th gear? How exactly would that work? Are you saying both cars run from 0-125 mph? Care to clarify? You'd have to see that everything matched up as well (gearing, and wheel size), which I highly doubt does.

Originally Posted by mrh

I'm not trying to argue with you. I don't even own an RX-8. Merely an ethusiast who likes the car for what it is. I like the S2k as well, but I find it a little out of place that some of you guys don't even question the dramatic drop in torque the dynos are suggesting, when the actual car seems to suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by kreuznach

Took the S200 for my first drive in the mountains today. WHOA! What a car! Man, it can really go. It requires your full attention and rewards you for your effort. I'm not really a numbers man. My two fav cars that I've owned are a 75 Fiat X1/9 and a 01 Mazda Miata ... I obviously don't care about 0-60 times or HP. I don't have dyno or road test numbers. Just the seat of my pants ... and the Honda wins. It's the better car. I tried to keep my comments neutral and point out the good and bad of both cars, but the truth is the S2000 simply is the more rewarding car to drive. Therefore, it's the better car.

Originally Posted by kreuznach

Took the S200 for my first drive in the mountains today. WHOA! What a car! Man, it can really go. It requires your full attention and rewards you for your effort. I'm not really a numbers man. My two fav cars that I've owned are a 75 Fiat X1/9 and a 01 Mazda Miata ... I obviously don't care about 0-60 times or HP. I don't have dyno or road test numbers. Just the seat of my pants ... and the Honda wins. It's the better car. I tried to keep my comments neutral and point out the good and bad of both cars, but the truth is the S2000 simply is the more rewarding car to drive. Therefore, it's the better car.

Originally Posted by kreuznach

Took the S200 for my first drive in the mountains today. WHOA! What a car! Man, it can really go. It requires your full attention and rewards you for your effort. I'm not really a numbers man. My two fav cars that I've owned are a 75 Fiat X1/9 and a 01 Mazda Miata ... I obviously don't care about 0-60 times or HP. I don't have dyno or road test numbers. Just the seat of my pants ... and the Honda wins. It's the better car. I tried to keep my comments neutral and point out the good and bad of both cars, but the truth is the S2000 simply is the more rewarding car to drive. Therefore, it's the better car.