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.

VRRocket

We'll agree to disagree on gearboxes miata vs. s2k. That aside, I think you have the perfect balance between a miata and an 8. The miata is on rails in handling (although the 8 is no slouch) and the 8 spanks the miata in power. The s2k marries both with fantastic handling, high revving power (quicker than the 8, mainly power to weight) and the benefit of a 180 degree sunroof. What's not to like? :D

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.

VRRocket

Move where the sun is!!!!!!
In NC, we can easily use a ragtop year round. We have two real seasons for ragtops - right now and fall are awesome, but summer is too hot and winter....well, you know that. Ragtops are fun up to about 80 degrees, and even at 85 they tend to be a bit warm. I drove my Miata at 50 degrees with the windows up and the heat on, and on 85 degree days with the windows half up and the AC on full blast. It's a seasonal car, but you will always remember that perfect spring/fall 72 degree day. S2K rocks.

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!

Not a flame at all, but a question. I hear this repeatedly on this board, but I have no idea what it means for an engine to be linear, or to rev easier. As a matter of fact, the power curve of my S2000 looks like y=x, with a bump at VTEC point, hitting maximum power at redline, while the RX-8 engine is more like an inverted parabola. And, since my S2000 weighs almost 10% less than our RX-8, puts down about 18% more hp to the drive wheels, and is (I think) geared a bit lower in the lower gears, it seems unlikely that the RX-8 actually revs easier. I have pondered this question a bit, and the most likely explanation I can find is the fact that the RX-8 is so very much quieter, and rides so much smoother, than the S2000, high revs can sneak up on you with the RX-8, while with the S2000, you are blasted with sound as the engine approaches redline, so there's no surprise. I certainly can understand prefering the RX-8 to the S2000 (although I don't), but I suspect that the butt dyno which tells people that the RX-8 delivers power more linearly than the S2000, and more quickly, is thrown off by the uncalibrated ear dyno.

m477

Mostly, I cared about the drive. Not the magazine numbers, not the spec sheet, the drive. Anyone who has ever owned a Miata will know exactly what I'm talking about, those cars aren't impressive on paper but are SO much fun once you get behind the wheel. The RX-8 and S2000 both excellent in this regard (and both are more fun to drive than many cars putting out better numbers), but I maintain that the S2000 isn't $10k better than the RX-8.

Well, you sort of answered your own question. The Renesis is extremely smooth and there's no bumps in the power curve like VTEC. When I'm warming up the car, I often find the tach jumping higher and quicker than I intended. And it's not just the RX-8, my FD was much the same way. That's simply the nature of the rotary. Any piston car, even the s2k or 1.6L Miata, simply feels like there's more resistance trying to get to redline. And it's not the noise, as my FD had an aftermarket exhaust.

"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.'

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

DARKMAZ8

Your car isn't stock now is it?

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.

DARKMAZ8

that torque # seems a bit high. Looks like it suffers less drivetrain loss than the 8. 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 $$$$.

124Spider

it's 145 lb.-ft. corrected.
or less manufacturer inflating of crank numbers, since they're rated by their respective manufacturers at less than 1% different, and they dyno 18% different! That's not just drivetrain loss, which shouldn't be very different on two similar rwd cars.
I'm surprised to hear that your friend's s2k felt unstable at speed, since the s2k is a very fine track car. I track mine regularly, and it's solid as a rock; I haven't had it above 130, but I always hit 130 on a dry track, and there's no feeling of unsteadiness. If your friend's car felt unsteady, either it was very windy, or there was something wrong with the suspension or tires.

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.

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.

DARKMAZ8

I think your on to something. Check this link:

http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=416012

here is the dyno of an s4 fc n/a w/streetport:




That's more like it. :D

124Spider

I really have no interest in a fight. Even accepting everything you say as gospel, which it isn't (it may or may not be correct, but it is not an established fact), and accepting the dyno chart in the previous post as representative of the Renesis engince (despite no evidence to support that), it is still the case, mathematically, that if you do a best line fit on the rotary curve, and you do a best line fit on the S2000 curve, from, say, 3000 rpm to redline, the standard deviation on the S2000 curve still will be much lower than the rotary, indicating a much more linear natural curve.

I'm sorry, but I'm obviously making a mess of my simple message on price. You wanted a specific set of things in your car, and you were willing to spend a certain amount of money to get those. For those criteria, the RX-8 was "worth it" for you. I wanted a wholly different set of criteria. For me, the S2000 was worth it. I didn't want an Elise, since I needed a daily driver, and the Elise can't be that. I didn't want a Corvette, because I wanted a nimble little roadster. I didn't want an RX-8, since I wanted a nimble little roadster. For me, the S2000 was the very easy winner, given what I wanted in a car; the others are great cars, but not what I wanted. To each his own. My wife doesn't even like my car, but she loves her RX-8. That's the beauty of the car market these days--there's an attractive performance car for practically everyone.

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.

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?

Ike

If the ECU was interfering countless tuners would be seeing it on the dyno runs, also people have tried to find this mysterious limp mode on the RX-8 and have been unable to do so (see Sport Compact). Do you honestly think that even if the limp mode was a problem that the ECU reducing the engine to putting out 180whp would do a damn thing to save anything. That thing from rotary news was released by Mazda simply to try to cover its ***. Also as I've pointed out many times, all the dyno runs, all the 1/4 mile traps, Racing Beats engine dyno, as well as the old butt dyno indicate it's closer to 220hp, but yeah it must be the ECU's fault

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

124Spider

Of course, put any number of modifications in any number of cars, and they can "hang with" the S2000. But the S2000 got bumped up to Stock A this year, while the RX-8 stayed in Stock B, for a reason. :p But it certainly is true that the RX-8 is a very capable car; only a fool would deny that.

And that's the tradeoff, ultimately. Ain't it nice that both cars exist?

It's anybody's guess when, or if, there will be a major reworking of the S2000, or it it will even be continued. Honda makes no money on the S2000, since sales are so miniscule, but they like the prestige of putting out a car that gets so much good press. Who knows?

MrH

.

124Spider

No; rev limiters will do that. My car redlines at 8k. What's "suspicious?"

No; I'm just suggesting that picking a speed which has both cars making the same number of shifts would be a better indicator than 0-60, where the S2000 has twice as many shifts as the RX-8. Both cars would be well into fifth gear ath 125, so they would have the same number of shifts.

Absent an explanation which is backed up with proof, I will continue to think that Mazda has, at least, been aggressive in the specs of the RX-8, while Honda has been conservative with the S2k.

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.

Ike

I wish I lived in a warmer climate... Have had my eye on a used silver with red interior and 15k miles on it for a while now.

DARKMAZ8

You must have some smooth roads where you live. Any serious bumps and the s2k felt sort of twitchy. On a nice smooth road it definately is a joy to drive.

124Spider

Those Fiats were fun when you could get them on the street, weren't they?

Be careful with the S2000 when driving it aggressively. It's very easy to lose the rear end if you make a mistake, and that could be ugly in the mountains. But it is a gas to drive like it was intended to be driven, isn't it?

I certainly agree that the S2000 wins in the "fun to drive" category, but that doesn't make it, objectively, a "better car" than the RX-8. It makes it more fun to drive for you and me. Objectively, stock for stock, it's a better car on the track and in autocross, but, by any standards, the RX-8 is a better car for four people, or even two people and a lot of cargo, and the RX-8 is still a lot of fun to drive.