G8rboy

I'm with zerobanger- having driven my Miata for the last 5 years, and over 90% of that time with the top down, I'm really enjoying having a solid, quiet roofed vehicle for a few years at least. When I am ready for another roadster, it's probably going to be an S2000 though- they're incredible little machines.

nucleus

I think Gordon got it right about RWD in the winter... Turn the DSC off in town and you can steer with the throttle, make s the car much more placeable. Four years ago I moved back to Bozeman Montana after being in Dallas Texas for three years. I had two cars, a FWD Civic and a RWD 325i. Wintertime the car of choice was the BMW. The softer suspension was also nice in slippery conditions. I HATE FWD on ice, get off the gas too fast and you lose your steering.

If you think about it the main advantage to AWD is acceleration. An AWD car doesn't stop or turn any better than RWD or FWD. Remember, a RWD car will out-accelerate a FWD car in all but the most slippery conditions, because of the weight transfer. Most AWD cars are really FWD with the rear drive added, so in the end they are front-heavy understeering pigs. BMW is the exception, making AWD right with good front/rear weight distribution and torque bias to the rear.

Overall, what determines handling limits in all conditions are weight, weight distribuition, and COG.

So what I am saying is that what makes a car handle well in the summer also makes it handle well in the winter. So a low center of gravity, 50/50 weight distribution, and RWD is really the way to go unless you have mega deep snow, where more ground clearance and AWD will have an advantage.

I speak with knowledge, driving 40,000 miles a year, commuting over a mountain pass in Montana every day. Right now my daily driver winter and summer is a Series 5 Turbo II. Blizzaks and relatively soft near-stock suspension make this car able to run circles around most of the AWD/FWD cars and heavy-pig SUVs out there. I do a lot of high speed highway in inclement weather with extreme (up to 90MPH) crosswinds. A higher profile car or a heavier car would require me to slow down more in slippery conditions. I drive past SUVs and FWD cars in the ditch all the time. It cracks me up when ignoramuses out there talk about how FWD/AWD are so much better and then they have the cheapest costco-crap all-season tires on their stupid FWD car.

Remember this if nothing else:

Blizzaks RULE. Punto, period the end.

Two weekends ago I got up in the mountains on a back road where the snow was so deep and rutted that I had to drive out of the ruts to keep the Rex from high centering. No problem.

Dude, I bet that little S2000 will be a great winter car, throw a hardtop and some Bizzaks on it and you are set. You will have a blast driving it in the snow, the great steering will give you feedback as to what front tires are doing.

Turn off that traction control and have fun!

amartin

No..not at all..having both.. and having several other RWD/FWD vehicles.. I can tell you, with 110% certanty... the S2000 is fookin scary (to say the least) in high-water/snow/slick roads.

I won't attribute it to tires, suspention, or driver... just fact of the matter.... Get those conditions, and unless you have chains on the s2k (ouch, would you reallly do that!?)... the S2K is down-right scary... of course, in a big-open parking lot...its fun.. but going to work..oh NO..NO NO NO.

There's a lot to be said for the TSC/DSC of the RX-8... wouldn't want it for auto-x..but in poopy weather.. heck, just a drizzle.. I tell ya, its really goood stuff.

zerobanger

Mabye "YOU" almost never go back, but I did it for 7 years and as my ONLY car I could not stand it anymore. The only thing the S2000 can do better than the Rx-7 is putting the top down, interms of performance, looks and design the rx-7 is 100 times better. I would love to have an S2000, but it cant replace an FD and obviously if you are going to own a 2nd car one of them should be practicle.

I agree that for top down driving the S2000 is the hands down winner.

racerdave

To be honest, if I wanted a two-seat convertible sports car, the S2000 would be the only one I'd choose... over the Miata, Boxster, etc.

But since I need a fun, 4-passenger sports car with a hint of practicality, the 8 it is...

ToRX-8orToZ

These threads are lame.

If you want a sporty practical car, the choice is obvious.

If you want a sports car and don't need to worry about practicality, the choice is obvious.

If you want a roadster, the choice is obvious.

If you want a fixed roof, the choice is obvious.


Equally as lame are 8 owners who take on a myopic view of their cars because Motor Trend placed the RX first in a sportscar comparo due to the fact that it has back seats, a softer suspension, and a quieter cabin.

8, Z, S2K.... I wish I could have them all. All of them... and a C6, so I could romp on Zerobanger and his 7 when he gets mouthy.

Japan8

And I wish I had Mille Factory, 999R, CBR1000RR and R1. Any one of which would not only get the gas mileage of a Prius or other hybrid, it would romp all over any car you put forward outside of the 8sec drag cars. It also carries the same number of people as the S2k and with exception of the 999R, costs about half the price and offers the ultimate open air experience.

In a nutshell... I'll never buy a roadster when I can have a bike instead with plenty of change.

ToRX-8orToZ

Cool.... it's just that most of us are CAR enthusiasts... wtf do bikes have to do with this forum?

Japan8

Being a car enthusiast does not exclude one from being a bike enthusiast.

People we discussing open aired bang for the buck.... not practical, uncompromising roaster sports cars. And it is a perfectly fair statement to say that a bike is very similiar... seats only 2, can't carry much of anything... but it's also much faster and a better "bang for the buck." That is just fact.

Now if you're not info bikes, or can't afford one... or simply would rather have a car/truck.... then that is a matter of personal opinion and choice.

ToRX-8orToZ

Well, I think most of us could afford to spend 13K on a nice bike... considering most of us spend 3-4 times that on a single car; but I digress.....

As for opinions... here are my two cents... I still think it's silly to throw a bike into a bang for the buck conversation about CARS.

We all know a fast bike will rape any fast car performance wise, but attempting to suggest that a bike is a good substitute for a roadster is... about as gay as it gets... I mean... I thought the gayest thing I ever saw was two guys kissing in the park... untill I read that comparison.

Japan8

Your opinion is your own. IF you don't like bikes, then get a roadster. *I* like bikes. I could care less about roadsters. So I'll buy a bike. You're happy, I'm happy. NO need for name calling or fighting.

The whole thing comes down to personal preference and finances... as such a bike is a fair option for any mechanical nut (loves cars and bikes).

NO I wouldn't want to carry a male passenger, but I'd rather only have females in a roadster too.

Japan8

And BTW... a slow 400cc bike will still rape any fast car.

ToRX-8orToZ

Yeah, but some of us don't want to end up with our scalps all over the pavement because some moron made a right turn in front of us.

BTW, the comments werent directed at you personaly, just your idea of comparing bikes and cars.... I can be crude and abrupt, but I'm not an a-hole.

Roaddemon

I don't quite get your comparison. What does driving a motorcycle instead of a car have to do with gay? If we talk fun factor , I would take a motorcycle over a car anyday. A roadster can't compare to a bike for all out fun. A Roadster is much more confined than a bike. I think your saying The comparison is out of the norm. One has two wheels and the other 4. Then why do muscle cars always drag race me when they see me on my Honda vtx cruiser? Must be some link between them. I understand this is a car forum, so lets talk cars. One reason I like the rx8 so much is that it reminds me very much of the thrills I get on my bike. The bike is still my first love though.

Ride Free
Ride to live

Buffalo66

It came down to the RX8 and S2000 for me. I dont think its silly to compare them. I am going with the RX-8 because I am 6 foot 2 and more comfortable in it. And its more practical. Those s2000s are a blast though.

DARKMAZ8

why do ppl ask if they'd be happy with one car over another? sheesh

Just test drive the 8. If you like it, buy it.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

I know a particular RX8 left a number of S2000's feeling disappointed in Houston in early April ...

khtm

^ what happened?

klegg

The answer to the original question is....YES! Everyone knows the average trabeant can kick our cars ***...hell my sons mighty might batter powered John deer replica goes faster, and gets better gas milage. :p

124Spider

Why is it that, on this board, people are so frequently trying to compare the RX-8 to the S2000, but on the S2000 board, that almost never happens?

Gee, perhaps because they're such very different cars; not one better than the other, just very, very different (and, just maybe, the S2000 owners generally are not worried about whether their car is better than the RX-8, while the reverse can't seem to be said for some RX-8 owners?).

Let's see;

Similarities: High revving, low torque engines, which do the twisties well.

Differences: four door coupe/roadster; soft/hard suspension; roomy/compact; quiet/noisy; compromise&practical/elemental&impractical.

I can't imagine how anybody can come down to a choice between these two very different cars. If you love convertibles, you don't choose an RX-8 over an S2000. Likewise, if you need or want four seats, you don't choose an S2000 over an RX-8. Etc., etc., etc....

In my opinion (owning both), they are both fine cars, but intended for very different applications, and bought, generally, by very different drivers (our RX-8 is my wife's daily driver; she really does not like my S2000 much. The S2000 is my daily driver, which I would always choose over the RX-8 if room is not an issue).

Different strokes for different folks, but these two cars are _very_ different strokes.

p.s.--I'm also 6'2", and fit just fine in the S2000; there's no room to wiggle, but there's not supposed to be. Plus, I have more head room in the S2000 (though more leg room in the RX-8).

BlueEyes

I would also like to know more about this situation

DARKMAZ8

^^^^^yeah me too

klegg

what year is your s 2000..Is it original, or whrn they redid the dash/engine powerband?

124Spider

2004, the first year of the new engine. The new engine is more powerful, has more torque, and a much flatter torque curve than the earlier engine, making it a much easier daily driver. The price for that improvement is an 8000rpm redline (because it's the same block, stroked).

Socr8tes

I think you may be reading a little too much into this comparison. Why only compare cars with the exact same suspension or noise characteristics for example? These things are not scrutinized so much by some. For instance, when I was searching for a new car my only priorities were that it was midrange sports car and within my price range. I researched and test drove everything I could think of that fit that criteria, S2000 included. I just happened to like to overall package of the RX-8 best. The fact that it had 4 seats and 4 doors definitely was not a requirement for me but more of a bonus. If I had liked the S2000 more, the convertible top would have been a bonus. So yes, the S2000 and RX-8 are very different in some respects but both have a similar feel and soul and are therefore subject to comparison. Not everybody has such restrictive requirements; I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked at both.

-S