Test drove an S2000 today (RX8 more fun for sure)
08-03-2006, 09:06 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VikingDJ
^^^^^ Your very complaints are exactly what the S2K is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a pure drivers car. None of that gadget stuff, just a simple interior, meant for pure enthusiast driving. I agre with you, but with my 06, I got DSC, 8 speaker sound system with roll bad speakers, nicer seats and overall a noticibly better upgrade over my 01 no doubt.
Being a former rx8 owner and also a former 01 S2K and current 06 S2K owner, I don't entirely agree with some statements above, but then again it is subjective. Handling: S2K definitely. overall power and acceleration: Slight notch to the S2K. It's simply a more raw car, that offers all it's power and torque in the higher rpm range, which is exactly what it's intended to do. Naturally people like a smoother, more daily driver friendly, and in the opinion of many inclduing myself, more flashy looks. I actually like the tame, spohisticaed look of this roadster. The 06 S2K is a lot more friendly then my 01 was.
It is more smooth, but believe me, it's more powerful then an RX8. Something's not right there, because the 06 RX8 rates 232hp, and the S2K 237hp, and eiven the 200lb weight difference, there's no way this car should be this much fast then the RX8. I suppose the S2K numbers are dead on. Eithre way, I love both cars equally, but the RX8 couldn't give me something out of a raw fun weekend car like the S2k could, and a convretible top, that just seals the deal. This car is more tossable, and IMO much more controlled. It's just not as friendly in daily driver. IN the end, it's all personal preference.
Two things no can argue on the S2K vs RX8. Reliability and MPG. Sorry folks, no way the RX8 can touch this car in those categories. I'm pulling off 22mpg city with hard driving, and almost 28mpg highway on a regular basis.
Being a former rx8 owner and also a former 01 S2K and current 06 S2K owner, I don't entirely agree with some statements above, but then again it is subjective. Handling: S2K definitely. overall power and acceleration: Slight notch to the S2K. It's simply a more raw car, that offers all it's power and torque in the higher rpm range, which is exactly what it's intended to do. Naturally people like a smoother, more daily driver friendly, and in the opinion of many inclduing myself, more flashy looks. I actually like the tame, spohisticaed look of this roadster. The 06 S2K is a lot more friendly then my 01 was.
It is more smooth, but believe me, it's more powerful then an RX8. Something's not right there, because the 06 RX8 rates 232hp, and the S2K 237hp, and eiven the 200lb weight difference, there's no way this car should be this much fast then the RX8. I suppose the S2K numbers are dead on. Eithre way, I love both cars equally, but the RX8 couldn't give me something out of a raw fun weekend car like the S2k could, and a convretible top, that just seals the deal. This car is more tossable, and IMO much more controlled. It's just not as friendly in daily driver. IN the end, it's all personal preference.
Two things no can argue on the S2K vs RX8. Reliability and MPG. Sorry folks, no way the RX8 can touch this car in those categories. I'm pulling off 22mpg city with hard driving, and almost 28mpg highway on a regular basis.
I'm going to have to flat out argue with this handling issue. Anybody can say anything they want subjectively about what they think feels better in the seat of their pants. However, you can't argue with handling objectively. So objective measurements people. You can't argue with physics. The engine in the 8 has a much lower center of gravity then the S2000, which is the beauty of the rotary's design. Also the carbon fiber driveshaft gives it the nearly 50:50 weight distribution, and less inertial yaw rates. Because of these attributes the 8 handles better.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-03-2006 at 09:21 PM.
08-03-2006, 10:09 PM
#27
Scuderia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buckeye Country
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PerformRX-8
Plus I just love staring at a speedometer that goes up to 10,000 RPM!!!!!!!
08-03-2006, 10:17 PM
#28
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
I'm going to have to flat out argue with this handling issue. Anybody can say anything they want subjectively about what they think feels better in the seat of their pants. However, you can't argue with handling objectively. So objective measurements people. You can't argue with physics. The engine in the 8 has a much lower center of gravity then the S2000, which is the beauty of the rotary's design. Also the carbon fiber driveshaft gives it the nearly 50:50 weight distribution, and less inertial yaw rates. Because of these attributes the 8 handles better.
08-03-2006, 10:33 PM
#30
ROTARY-A-HOLIC
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
I was thinking of how I could put this nicely, but I couldn't come up with anything... You're a moron.
oh and im not kidding!
08-03-2006, 11:02 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll have to test a S2000 one of these days. It's a much quicker car than the 8. But didn't Motortrend or one of those mags pick the 8 over the S2000 and 350z in a shootout?
08-04-2006, 07:20 AM
#32
Scuderia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buckeye Country
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueSky
I'll have to test a S2000 one of these days. It's a much quicker car than the 8. But didn't Motortrend or one of those mags pick the 8 over the S2000 and 350z in a shootout?
08-04-2006, 07:24 AM
#33
Originally Posted by PerformRX-8
Now let see how I can put this nicely....... GO SUCK A DICK AND SWALLOW THECUM AND DIE!!!! oh and im not kidding!
oh and im not kidding!EDIT: I'm not kidding. I'm really glad.
08-04-2006, 07:41 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr. back on topic, I would wait for a model update before considering the S2K. The existing model looks a bit dated IMHO. A good alternative might be the NC miata, which has been selling a lot (only about 700 units less than the solstice overall). It has more power than the previous miatae.
08-04-2006, 07:43 AM
#35
Registered
Originally Posted by therm8
And snap oversteer won't put you in the trees in the 8... , though I hear they've reduced the propensity for that in the later model year S2000s.
, though I hear they've reduced the propensity for that in the later model year S2000s.BRAKING ZONE: rear end lifts giving toe-in that persists into turn in.
TURN IN: Car initially feels planted and tight due to residual toe-in from braking which goes away as the rear end settles down.
APEX: Rear end is very unsettled due to compression on the outer rear tire causing toe out which acts like a steering input pushing the rear end off the line.
Good driver instinct goes like this: "rear end is loose, add in throttle to shift weight and traction to the rear and settle it down" Wrong answer in the s2k.
Now, with throttle on in mid corner, the tire with the most loading and therefore traction is the one that was pulling the rear end off line in the first place. Car goes off at the apex.
This was great for autocross because it helped the car rotate and the speeds were low enough for it to be easily controlled. In high speed corners on the track, it was a recipe for disaster. Experienced driver's destroyed cars because it didn't do what was expected when at the limit.
The problem required replacing parts until 2003, when Honda finally revised the rear suspension. Autocrossers will say the newer s2k's don't handle as well for that reason.
08-04-2006, 01:15 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.....
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I will say this. I loved my RX-8. Shoot I still miss it alot of the time. But there's alot of reasons why I kept the S2K and traded the RX-8 in.
The S2K is a better sports car than the RX-8. It is raw, uninhibited, and pure. It's civil under 5k and above 5k rpm the car comes alive. The RX-8 always felt anemic. It had a more linear powerband and was more daily driver suited than my S2K, but when we're talking sports cars, the S2K is the obvious choice. I didn't need creature comforts. It's a roadster...just the way I like it....if I need luxury I have other vehicles to accomplish that.
However, if I could only have one car, the RX-8 was a very good blend of style, comfort, and sport all in one package. But let's not have illusions of grandeur guys, the RX-8 is not a better sports car than an S2K.
For a year I had 2 sports cars in the stable, and here's a "copy-paste" of my old post where I compared them.
Let's also not forget that the RX-8 is very competitive in B stock where the S2K continues to be a class leader in A stock.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I will say this. I loved my RX-8. Shoot I still miss it alot of the time. But there's alot of reasons why I kept the S2K and traded the RX-8 in.
The S2K is a better sports car than the RX-8. It is raw, uninhibited, and pure. It's civil under 5k and above 5k rpm the car comes alive. The RX-8 always felt anemic. It had a more linear powerband and was more daily driver suited than my S2K, but when we're talking sports cars, the S2K is the obvious choice. I didn't need creature comforts. It's a roadster...just the way I like it....if I need luxury I have other vehicles to accomplish that.
However, if I could only have one car, the RX-8 was a very good blend of style, comfort, and sport all in one package. But let's not have illusions of grandeur guys, the RX-8 is not a better sports car than an S2K.
For a year I had 2 sports cars in the stable, and here's a "copy-paste" of my old post where I compared them.
Exterior:
S2K:
What's not to love? I followed these cars since I was a junior in hs and it was just a concept back in like 96 or 97. I remember reading in SCC that the exterior was co-designed by BMW, but I could be mistaken. The HID headlights are equal to that of the 8. The new LED tails are much more attractive than the older models' tails were. The new 10 spoke wheels are handsome, and there are quite a few nice touches all around the car. It really reminds me of the old lotus, MG, and Triumph roadsters of the 60's. There's no doubt in my mind that this car will still look classic in 20 or even 50 years. Definitely a keeper.
RX-8:
The car on the outside is unlike any car I've seen. It's definitely not an FD, but it's a different kind of animal. From each angle you get something different, and it's really a love-hate relationship with the freestyle doors. From some angles it looks like a poor man's Aston Martin (I realized this when someone asked me if it was an Aston) and from others it looks like a blown up S2K with back seats and a hard top.
Interior:
S2K:
This car's interior is SPARTAN. I mean this is truly a minimalists' car. I didn't realize there was no glove box until I got home. Oh well. No cup holders either. The dash seems cramped compared to that of the 8. The gauges are kinda cool, but for some reason remind me of the 1980's. The steering wheel doesn't tilt either. Don't get me wrong, the seats are excellent, superior to that of the 8, but there are a few ergonomics issues I have with the car. I don't like the stereo controls to the left of the steering wheel, nor do I like the cruise control buttons. But these are to be expected of a dedicated roadster. **I used to own a Triumph spitfire and this car brings back so many memories.
RX-8:
This car's interior is another world when compared to the S2K. You can actually recline the seats back all the way and nap if you want to. The stereo is much better as is the ergonomics. The stereo controls located on the steering wheel seem like something from a luxury type car, as well as the cruise control buttons. I like the fact that you can turn the cruise control on and off from a button located close to the accel/decel buttons rather than reaching behind the wheel for it. The blue glow in the dash with the ability to change the italics from white to orange are far superior to the S2K, as well as the tunnel gauges themselves. I'd be willing to bet the RX-8 has the best interior in its class (we also looked at the G35C).
Acceleration/Powerplant:
You have no idea how similar this car is to the RX-8 in terms of acceleration. They both have to be revved to 5K to make decent power. The difference, believe it or not, is that the RX-8 for some reason revs faster. The S2K is no slouch, but the 8 seems to rev and rev, so smoothly that it needs a shift beeper at 9K RPM to remind you to change gears, because you wouldn't even realize it based on sound. The engine is just so quiet. These two cars accelerate so similarly that you literally have to look at the numbers on paper to determine who's faster to 60, which is the S2K obviously with the weight advantage. The S2K's engine roars and sounds beautiful at a high RPM, and if you're a guy with alot of testosterone you'll like the sound better than the George Jetson car sounding rotary. I'd say the acceleration goes to the S2K, but the sound/smoothness of the RX-8 is hard to resist.
Handling:
On paper over at motortrend, these two cars handle very similarly. However, numbers on paper versus actually driving the car are two different things. Obviously the S2K has a stiffer, firmer ride. This translates to flatter cornering and less body roll. The RX-8's ride is more civil, and in hard cornering body roll is slightly apparent. Don't get me wrong, the RX-8 is definitely a good handler and according to various mags barely shy of S2K numbers, but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better. I feel like I can push the S2K harder and harder without issue, where I've gotten the RX-8's *** to break loose on occasion if I turn DSC/TCS off. Too bad the S2K doesn't have the electronic nannies for inclement weather, but I'll get over it. The winner of this particular aspect is clearly the S2K, but I really wonder what a firmer suspension setup (maybe mazdaspeed) on the RX-8 would do in this comparison.
Steering:
This was a really hard one for me. I remember driving the S2K back in 2000 when it came out, and being very impressed by its steering response. However, since then I've driven many cars, and the two that always stood out in my mind were the miata and the RX-8. Now, getting back in the S2K, it seems wierd. I REALLY REALLY want to say the S2K is more responsive, but I just can't. The RX-8 steering response is spot on. For a RWD production car, nothing can touch it other than the miata under 50K. The S2K's response is great, but the RX-8 is simply amazing. The steering gives more feedback and gives the car a point and shoot feel. I haven't driven the EVO yet, but I've heard it's even better.
Braking:
The S2K flies. It really MOVES. The RX-8 does too, but that thing stops on a freaking dime. I mean the brakes on the damn thing are pretty big. I've owned several Hondas and braking has never been Honda's strength. The S2K brakes great, but it seems to fade a little more. No biggie though, most of you know that this is easily remedied.
Overall Performance:
The S2K slightly edges out the RX-8 in acceleration and handling, but the RX-8 edges out the S2K in steering response and braking. The gearboxes on these two cars are too evenly matched to call out a winner. The S2K has an acclaimed gearbox, but not many people know how great the Mazda's is. The S2K gearbox seems smoother in places that the RX-8 seems rough, and the RX-8 seems smooth in shifts that the S2K seems finicky about. The two cars though are so similar it's uncanny. No wonder I love them both. The S2K is a hard edged, no BS, top down, in your face roadster, and the RX-8 is its more civil, comfortable, accomodating counterpart. Fuel consumption on the S2K seems a little disappointing. It could be that it needs to be broken in. I was expecting better than the 8, but it seems very similar. I do suspect that the S2K has a smaller tank though.
S2K:
What's not to love? I followed these cars since I was a junior in hs and it was just a concept back in like 96 or 97. I remember reading in SCC that the exterior was co-designed by BMW, but I could be mistaken. The HID headlights are equal to that of the 8. The new LED tails are much more attractive than the older models' tails were. The new 10 spoke wheels are handsome, and there are quite a few nice touches all around the car. It really reminds me of the old lotus, MG, and Triumph roadsters of the 60's. There's no doubt in my mind that this car will still look classic in 20 or even 50 years. Definitely a keeper.
RX-8:
The car on the outside is unlike any car I've seen. It's definitely not an FD, but it's a different kind of animal. From each angle you get something different, and it's really a love-hate relationship with the freestyle doors. From some angles it looks like a poor man's Aston Martin (I realized this when someone asked me if it was an Aston) and from others it looks like a blown up S2K with back seats and a hard top.
Interior:
S2K:
This car's interior is SPARTAN. I mean this is truly a minimalists' car. I didn't realize there was no glove box until I got home. Oh well. No cup holders either. The dash seems cramped compared to that of the 8. The gauges are kinda cool, but for some reason remind me of the 1980's. The steering wheel doesn't tilt either. Don't get me wrong, the seats are excellent, superior to that of the 8, but there are a few ergonomics issues I have with the car. I don't like the stereo controls to the left of the steering wheel, nor do I like the cruise control buttons. But these are to be expected of a dedicated roadster. **I used to own a Triumph spitfire and this car brings back so many memories.
RX-8:
This car's interior is another world when compared to the S2K. You can actually recline the seats back all the way and nap if you want to. The stereo is much better as is the ergonomics. The stereo controls located on the steering wheel seem like something from a luxury type car, as well as the cruise control buttons. I like the fact that you can turn the cruise control on and off from a button located close to the accel/decel buttons rather than reaching behind the wheel for it. The blue glow in the dash with the ability to change the italics from white to orange are far superior to the S2K, as well as the tunnel gauges themselves. I'd be willing to bet the RX-8 has the best interior in its class (we also looked at the G35C).
Acceleration/Powerplant:
You have no idea how similar this car is to the RX-8 in terms of acceleration. They both have to be revved to 5K to make decent power. The difference, believe it or not, is that the RX-8 for some reason revs faster. The S2K is no slouch, but the 8 seems to rev and rev, so smoothly that it needs a shift beeper at 9K RPM to remind you to change gears, because you wouldn't even realize it based on sound. The engine is just so quiet. These two cars accelerate so similarly that you literally have to look at the numbers on paper to determine who's faster to 60, which is the S2K obviously with the weight advantage. The S2K's engine roars and sounds beautiful at a high RPM, and if you're a guy with alot of testosterone you'll like the sound better than the George Jetson car sounding rotary. I'd say the acceleration goes to the S2K, but the sound/smoothness of the RX-8 is hard to resist.
Handling:
On paper over at motortrend, these two cars handle very similarly. However, numbers on paper versus actually driving the car are two different things. Obviously the S2K has a stiffer, firmer ride. This translates to flatter cornering and less body roll. The RX-8's ride is more civil, and in hard cornering body roll is slightly apparent. Don't get me wrong, the RX-8 is definitely a good handler and according to various mags barely shy of S2K numbers, but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better. I feel like I can push the S2K harder and harder without issue, where I've gotten the RX-8's *** to break loose on occasion if I turn DSC/TCS off. Too bad the S2K doesn't have the electronic nannies for inclement weather, but I'll get over it. The winner of this particular aspect is clearly the S2K, but I really wonder what a firmer suspension setup (maybe mazdaspeed) on the RX-8 would do in this comparison.
Steering:
This was a really hard one for me. I remember driving the S2K back in 2000 when it came out, and being very impressed by its steering response. However, since then I've driven many cars, and the two that always stood out in my mind were the miata and the RX-8. Now, getting back in the S2K, it seems wierd. I REALLY REALLY want to say the S2K is more responsive, but I just can't. The RX-8 steering response is spot on. For a RWD production car, nothing can touch it other than the miata under 50K. The S2K's response is great, but the RX-8 is simply amazing. The steering gives more feedback and gives the car a point and shoot feel. I haven't driven the EVO yet, but I've heard it's even better.
Braking:
The S2K flies. It really MOVES. The RX-8 does too, but that thing stops on a freaking dime. I mean the brakes on the damn thing are pretty big. I've owned several Hondas and braking has never been Honda's strength. The S2K brakes great, but it seems to fade a little more. No biggie though, most of you know that this is easily remedied.
Overall Performance:
The S2K slightly edges out the RX-8 in acceleration and handling, but the RX-8 edges out the S2K in steering response and braking. The gearboxes on these two cars are too evenly matched to call out a winner. The S2K has an acclaimed gearbox, but not many people know how great the Mazda's is. The S2K gearbox seems smoother in places that the RX-8 seems rough, and the RX-8 seems smooth in shifts that the S2K seems finicky about. The two cars though are so similar it's uncanny. No wonder I love them both. The S2K is a hard edged, no BS, top down, in your face roadster, and the RX-8 is its more civil, comfortable, accomodating counterpart. Fuel consumption on the S2K seems a little disappointing. It could be that it needs to be broken in. I was expecting better than the 8, but it seems very similar. I do suspect that the S2K has a smaller tank though.
Last edited by shaolin; 08-04-2006 at 01:54 PM.
08-04-2006, 01:16 PM
#37
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
I'm going to have to flat out argue with this handling issue. Anybody can say anything they want subjectively about what they think feels better in the seat of their pants. However, you can't argue with handling objectively. So objective measurements people. You can't argue with physics. The engine in the 8 has a much lower center of gravity then the S2000, which is the beauty of the rotary's design. Also the carbon fiber driveshaft gives it the nearly 50:50 weight distribution, and less inertial yaw rates. Because of these attributes the 8 handles better.
08-04-2006, 01:28 PM
#38
Originally Posted by shaolin
The S2K is a better sports car than the RX-8. It is raw, uninhibited, and pure. It's civil under 5k and above 5k rpm the car comes alive. The RX-8 always felt anemic. It had a more linear powerband and was more daily driver suited than my S2K
but when we're talking sports cars, the S2K is the obvious choice. I didn't need creature comforts. It's a roadster...just the way I like it....if I need luxury I have other vehicles to accomplish that.
But let's not have illusions of grandeur guys, the RX-8 is not a better sports car than an S2K.
08-04-2006, 01:31 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay guys anytime I see someone argue 50:50 weight distribution their credibility goes out the window. There's a reason why world class super cars that are RWD always have a rear biased weight distribution.
50:50 is good, but it's only a starting point. You also fail to realize that the S2000 has a 49/51 weight ditribution. 1% is not making up much ground here, and from an engineering standpoint for a RWD configuration the rear bias is an advantage.
The 993 gen 911 from Porsche is considered to be one of the greatest cars of all time, and to most Porsche-files the pinnacle of the 911 line. The car has 38/62 weight distribution with a rear engined configuration. The RX-8 doesn't hold a candle to this car in no way, shape, or form.
Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations.
I love the rotary, and its design helps to make the car more balanced, but its not making any miracles happen. So the statement about the engine location is a moot point. It's not going to make up much ground.
In no way am I putting the RX-8 down guys...but let's not kid ourselves here...the RX-8 and S2K are not the same kind of cars. The S2K is a better SPORTS CAR. The RX-8 is a great sport coupe that can masquerade as a sedan and enjoy track days as well, albeit not in the same class as more hard nosed cars like the S2K.
50:50 is good, but it's only a starting point. You also fail to realize that the S2000 has a 49/51 weight ditribution. 1% is not making up much ground here, and from an engineering standpoint for a RWD configuration the rear bias is an advantage.
The 993 gen 911 from Porsche is considered to be one of the greatest cars of all time, and to most Porsche-files the pinnacle of the 911 line. The car has 38/62 weight distribution with a rear engined configuration. The RX-8 doesn't hold a candle to this car in no way, shape, or form.
Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations.
I love the rotary, and its design helps to make the car more balanced, but its not making any miracles happen. So the statement about the engine location is a moot point. It's not going to make up much ground.
In no way am I putting the RX-8 down guys...but let's not kid ourselves here...the RX-8 and S2K are not the same kind of cars. The S2K is a better SPORTS CAR. The RX-8 is a great sport coupe that can masquerade as a sedan and enjoy track days as well, albeit not in the same class as more hard nosed cars like the S2K.
08-04-2006, 01:43 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mysql101
I dare say that most daily drivers have non linear power bands. In fact, far as powerbands go, the S2K is about as close the RX-8as it can get
Not trying to be critical here, this is an honest question - can someone explain to me why a single minded "true" sports car would come with a soft top? Sure it's cool to have, but it doesn't seem like it does anything more than make the frame less rigid, and add more weight (due to trying to increase the remaining parts of the car to make up for the loss of the roof).
I don't think the two are night and day as you seem to be suggesting. The two cars are made for different markets. The suspension on the RX-8 tends to be better suited for touring than racing, but that's easy to remidy. Need for power? Also easily fixed.
Not trying to be critical here, this is an honest question - can someone explain to me why a single minded "true" sports car would come with a soft top? Sure it's cool to have, but it doesn't seem like it does anything more than make the frame less rigid, and add more weight (due to trying to increase the remaining parts of the car to make up for the loss of the roof).
I don't think the two are night and day as you seem to be suggesting. The two cars are made for different markets. The suspension on the RX-8 tends to be better suited for touring than racing, but that's easy to remidy. Need for power? Also easily fixed.
The reasons behind this are purely speculative but what people have come to accept is that the Boxster was designed from ground up (like the S2K) to be a convertible. Generally, when you have automakers who take the short route and just chop the top of a car and put a motorized rag on it, that's when chassis stability is most noticeably diminished. A good example would be with the solara.
However, we have no technical or real world data of what a hard topped S2K would do. But what I do trust is numbers and race results. The S2K has continued to be a class leader in A stock. The RX-8 is competitive, but not quite class leading in B stock. These are two different classes.
The cars as you say are not "night and day" and I never suggested that. But I did own both cars at the same time for a year, and both saw track days. It's on the track that the subtle differences suddenly become not so subtle. The S2K is plain and simple, a better track car. How Honda has accomplished this with a ragtop, I don't know I'm not the designer, but track results have stared me in the face time and time again.
HOWEVER, the RX-8 is a better all around car. It provides more practicality, so you can have your cake and eat it too. If I could only have one car, and had to choose between the two, you could bet your *** I'd take the RX-8. But the S2K is more of a toy for me at this point and that's why I traded the RX-8 in.
08-05-2006, 09:54 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueEyes
This is the worst psuedo physics reasoning I have ever heard. Unfortunately, handling is a little more complicated that yaw rates and cg location. Back to grade 12 for you sir.
Quote from shaolin: "Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations."
Don't get me wrong Porches are good but they are not the end all be all in handling either.
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-05-2006 at 03:56 PM.
08-05-2006, 01:49 PM
#42
2005 Black RX-8 GT 6M
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose Area
Posts: 6,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sjsmervine
I owned the S2000 before replacing it my my 2006 8. Something I didn't know when i got the Honda is that there is a serious theft issue with that car's seats. I had my roof slashed and seats stolen TWICE before the insurance company totaled it. The seats are very saught after by losers that want to pimp out thier Civics and Accords with the seats in the S2000. Buyer beware of that car!
Speaking of the S2000...I find the car styling aging poorly, inside and out. I've never driven it so I can't really comment on the driving performance. I think the lack of side airbags for a MSRP of $34K is terrible. The 350Z convertible manages to have side airbags.
I had a 1994 Acura Integra GS-R and that thing had a rev limit of 8200RPM. There was definite kick once you got past 6000K, but boy was it a noisy and raucous ride in the upper regions. Below that, the car felt rather pedestrian and forget about any semblance of torque. Turn on the A/C and it was a slug. I figure the S2000 is somewhat similar.
Last edited by CarAndDriver; 08-05-2006 at 01:58 PM.
08-05-2006, 02:01 PM
#43
Herrroooo Rarrra
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Quote from shaolin:
"Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations."
Don't get me wrong Porches are good but they are not the end all be all in handling either.
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
"Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations."
Don't get me wrong Porches are good but they are not the end all be all in handling either.
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
What chu talkin bout Willis?
Is he still arguing that the RX8 is a better perfmance car than the S2000?
08-05-2006, 03:52 PM
#44
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
Nuff said.
(third paragraph down, Front/Rear weight Bias )
08-05-2006, 07:54 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Quote from shaolin: "Don't buy the hype guys. 50/50 is a marketing ploy and it's a statement used by people that don't understand chassis dynamics and their applications in different situations."
Don't get me wrong Porches are good but they are not the end all be all in handling either.
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
Don't get me wrong Porches are good but they are not the end all be all in handling either.
As far as CG goes it is the most fundamental part of balance. The more balanced a chassis the less swing out and the greater steering and braking on the front. Front biased cars tend to under steer heavily while rear biased cars tend to over steer heavily. Both of these types have a high polar moment of inertia, which is an engineering measure of the resistance of a rotating object to change direction.. These cars are usually altered to alleviate these tendencies, but those alterations cannot affect the responsiveness. Cars designed and built for performance responsiveness are typically mid-engine configuration which creates a low polar moment of inertia. Weight bias also has a large impact upon braking efficiency and traction. Front engine cars have most of the braking resistance carried by the front brakes. Although the greater weight is on the rear wheels of rear engine cars they still rely on the front brakes for controlled braking. The front brakes must be dominant in all cars or the car will tend to lose control on hard braking efforts. Since rear engine cars already have this tendency in turns great care must be taken to get the braking bias forward so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive situation.
Nuff said.
Yeah and as everyone else said...plagiarism sucks...not only that but that entire paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
08-05-2006, 10:43 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from shaolin: "not only that but that entire paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion at hand."
Quote from shaolin: "but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better"
Dude read the thread before posting, i.e. this discussion is about objective measurements of handling not your subjective seat of your pants BS ("but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better")
Quote from shaolin: "but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better"
Dude read the thread before posting, i.e. this discussion is about objective measurements of handling not your subjective seat of your pants BS ("but the overall feel of the S2K in corners is better")
08-06-2006, 03:56 AM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay then do you care to enilghten us on the suspension geometry and chassis dynamics of the two cars respectively? further, would you like to explain why the rx-8 consistently turns out slower times than the s2k and why it runs in b stock and the s2k continues to lead a stock?
please enlighten us with some technical data which makes the rx-8 superior on the track.
enjoy your trip to lala land and don't forget to invite the rest of the rx-8 fanboi committee to keep you company.
please enlighten us with some technical data which makes the rx-8 superior on the track.
enjoy your trip to lala land and don't forget to invite the rest of the rx-8 fanboi committee to keep you company.
08-06-2006, 09:12 AM
#48
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the whole thread. Wow, some of you guys get hot about technichal stuff. Both are nice cars that have their high and low points. Both need to be revved for any real power. I have driven an S2K (not owned like Shaolin) and I prefer (personal taste) the RX8 over the S2k. The S2k is a little more powerful, but not that much. I like the whole look and feel of the RX8 inside and out much better.
08-06-2006, 09:40 AM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from shaolin: "would you like to explain why the rx-8 consistently turns out slower times than the s2k and why it runs in b stock and the s2k continues to lead a stock? "
Would you care to enlighten us with this data? Where is it?
Skidpad results have shown similar results for both cars between .88-.93-4g depending on source. However, the s2k simply gets outclassed by the 8 in braking.
Quote from shaolin: "okay then do you care to enilghten us on the suspension geometry and chassis dynamics of the two cars respectively?"
See my above posts. The 8 has a lower yaw moment than the s2k.
Would you care to enlighten us with this data? Where is it?
Skidpad results have shown similar results for both cars between .88-.93-4g depending on source. However, the s2k simply gets outclassed by the 8 in braking.
Quote from shaolin: "okay then do you care to enilghten us on the suspension geometry and chassis dynamics of the two cars respectively?"
See my above posts. The 8 has a lower yaw moment than the s2k.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 10:38 AM.
08-06-2006, 11:07 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Quote from shaolin: "would you like to explain why the rx-8 consistently turns out slower times than the s2k and why it runs in b stock and the s2k continues to lead a stock? "
Would you care to enlighten us with this data? Where is it?
Skidpad results have shown similar results for both cars between .88-.93-4g depending on source. However, the s2k simply gets outclassed by the 8 in braking.
Quote from shaolin: "okay then do you care to enilghten us on the suspension geometry and chassis dynamics of the two cars respectively?"
See my above posts. The 8 has a lower yaw moment than the s2k.
Would you care to enlighten us with this data? Where is it?
Skidpad results have shown similar results for both cars between .88-.93-4g depending on source. However, the s2k simply gets outclassed by the 8 in braking.
Quote from shaolin: "okay then do you care to enilghten us on the suspension geometry and chassis dynamics of the two cars respectively?"
See my above posts. The 8 has a lower yaw moment than the s2k.
http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results...onship/as.html
Honda S2000 on the leaders' board 10 times.
Local Results for B-stock San Francisco:
http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results...p/bs.htmlMazda RX-8 on the leaders' board 5 times.
And the championship results:
http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results...p/round08.html
These are pretty reflective of different SCCA chapters all across the country. San Francisco/Bay Area is a pretty diverse community so I figured I'd use it here as a prime example.
Mag racers love to use skidpad and slalom numbers to support their claims. The fact of the matter is that skidpad numbers are more reflective of stock tire performance than anything else, and slalom speeds vary so vastly that they are 99% driver specific as well as dependent on tires. I don't trust anything from Car and Driver, Motortrend, Automobile Magazine, EVO, etc. These magazines are nothing more than subjective opinions of automotive press where they simply state how they like driving each car respectively, but they are fun to read. Magazines I do trust are SCCA publications like Grassroots magazine.
As for your comment about braking, go read my comparison. I clearly gave the nod to the RX-8. But brakes don't make the car buddy.
As for your statement about "lower yaw moment" other than it being a term that you read somewhere and decided to use for your own will, you still fail to provide conclusive evidence that the RX-8 has a lower yaw moment than the S2K. I have seen none, not from you or anyone else on that subject. The results seem to say otherwise, as I have graciously provided for you. The fact alone that the S2K has been bumped up to A stock last year and the RX-8 remaining in B-stock should signal which is the better track car, regardless of your yaw moment argument there's no question as to what class each car runs in and how competitive they are in those classes respectively.
As it's been pointed out, how a car handles has alot more factors than weight distribution and yaw moments/ inertia.
Now, we can always argue that we could make an RX-8 into a better track car, but wait a second that would put it into the modified classes where it isn't even the least bit competitive. Stock vs stock the results are in. As I said, I rarely trust mag data when it comes to these sort of things. What I do trust is race results. See the above.
In the end both are great cars. The RX-8 like I've said over and over again is the best car for someone who needs some comfort, style, utility, and sport. The S2K is for the weekend and club racers who don't need the utility/practicality. Which car is better is totally subjective, and as I've said if I could only have one or the other the RX-8 would be my choice...but when we're talking racing, the results are in....the S2K is the better car. Any other forum on the internet would readily echo this sentiment, but here at RX8club.com it's hard to get a few sentimental owners to accept these facts. I'm beginning to wonder with your post count of 4, what name you usually post under since you seem to be a "fanboi" and might be too afraid to do it under your real name.
Last edited by shaolin; 08-06-2006 at 11:34 AM.