Test drove an S2000 today (RX8 more fun for sure)
08-07-2006, 11:49 AM
#76
1935 lbs. FTW!
The OP must be insane, the S2000 has 25% better power and handling. It's a convertible with a better 6 speed transmission and the steering ratio is much faster. I love driving my s2000 way more than the RX8, in fact the RX8 seems more like my daily driver civic to me.
The best stock RX8 1/4 mile I've seen is mid 14's at 95 mph, the best s2000 stock times are high 13's @ 100 mph. By the way I've yet to see a RX8 dyno 200 rwhp stock, the 238 horsepower is WAY overrated. 240 hp flywheel rated S2000's actually dyno 200 rwhp+ pair that with 200 pound less weight and you see the results.
The best stock RX8 1/4 mile I've seen is mid 14's at 95 mph, the best s2000 stock times are high 13's @ 100 mph. By the way I've yet to see a RX8 dyno 200 rwhp stock, the 238 horsepower is WAY overrated. 240 hp flywheel rated S2000's actually dyno 200 rwhp+ pair that with 200 pound less weight and you see the results.
Last edited by CosmosMpower; 08-07-2006 at 11:54 AM.
08-07-2006, 12:00 PM
#77
1935 lbs. FTW!
Originally Posted by ArthurY
1) I cannot stand of the noisy S2K engine. When I depressed the accelerator, the noise of the engine sounded like it was ready to explode. It was not the same buttery smooth Honda engine I was used to. It had a rough sound and the convertible did not help much.
2)The S2K is a pure 2-seater. There's not a chance that a youngster can sit in the passenger seat due to the killer air-bag. And, there are no back-seats.
3)When I revved the RX-8, the sound of the Renesis was pure music to my ears. It had a positive feedback sound that literally beckoned me to press the accelerator more.
It was that simple.
Other pointers included the super powerful brakes of the RX-8, whose stopping distances from 60-0 MPH is in the same class as most of the other sports cars whose prices are, at least, 3-6 times higher. I am talking the true sports-car class standard, like the Corvettes and Porsche 911. Yes, that's how good the brakes are for the upgraded brakes.
2. You can install an airbag override switch in the S to turn off the passenger side airbag, I have one in mine.
3. The RX8 takes something like 109 feet from 60-0 but I think the S is 111 or 112 and it doesn't need 12.7" rotors to do it.
08-07-2006, 12:19 PM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP must be insane, the S2000 has 25% better power and handling.
It's a convertible with a better 6 speed transmission
08-07-2006, 12:24 PM
#79
1935 lbs. FTW!
Originally Posted by anbjornk
It has a bit more power, but it does NOT handle 25% better. That would actually be pretty much....
I've heard that the S2k and 8 has the same transmission.. Is this true?
I've heard that the S2k and 8 has the same transmission.. Is this true?
The RX8 and S2000 do not have the same transmission at all
08-07-2006, 01:07 PM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you boil it all down to nutz and bolts the S2000 is just a boring looking car, just like every other honda and toyota. If you have no style get an s2000.
If the s2000 barely outdoes an 8 on performance honda didn't do that good of a job or mazda did a really good job. I'd rather have a car someone did a good job on but if you would rather pay more for less.....
If the s2000 barely outdoes an 8 on performance honda didn't do that good of a job or mazda did a really good job. I'd rather have a car someone did a good job on but if you would rather pay more for less.....
08-07-2006, 01:18 PM
#81
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CosmosMpower
The average difference between rx8 and s2000 rwhp is about 30, take that and consider 15% driveline loss and it's a 35 flywheel horsepower difference. The RX8 should be rated 205-210 flywheel hp tops while the S2000 actually makes the 240 flywheel horsepower.
The RX8 and S2000 do not have the same transmission at all
The RX8 and S2000 do not have the same transmission at all
Your numbers are off bud. But regardless, just think, without getting into 8 dyno issues, if a S2000 had 30 more rear wheel horsepower, and we all know it weights 200 fewer pounds, wouldn't it be that much MUCH faster? The only direct comparo I've seen showed a S2000 do a 5.8 0-60/14.2 quarter vs. a 6.0 0-60/14.5 quarter. Braking from 100mph was 338ft. for the S2000 vs. 318ft. for the 8. Slalom was identical, skidpad was only .03g better for the S2000. Hardly the dominating sportscar you make it out to be.
Listen, most here believe the S2000 is nice, and I even said its a better "sportcar." Meanwhile you come around here and call the 8 a "civic"
...little insecure with your car aren't ya buddy?
08-07-2006, 01:32 PM
#82
1935 lbs. FTW!
Originally Posted by 9291150
A 2000 fanboi on a RX8 site, wonderfull.
Your numbers are off bud. But regardless, just think, without getting into 8 dyno issues, if a S2000 had 30 more rear wheel horsepower, and we all know it weights 200 fewer pounds, wouldn't it be that much MUCH faster? The only direct comparo I've seen showed a S2000 do a 5.8 0-60/14.2 quarter vs. a 6.0 0-60/14.5 quarter. Braking from 100mph was 338ft. for the S2000 vs. 318ft. for the 8. Slalom was identical, skidpad was only .03g better for the S2000. Hardly the dominating sportscar you make it out to be.
Listen, most here believe the S2000 is nice, and I even said its a better "sportcar." Meanwhile you come around here and call the 8 a "civic"
...little insecure with your car aren't ya buddy?
Your numbers are off bud. But regardless, just think, without getting into 8 dyno issues, if a S2000 had 30 more rear wheel horsepower, and we all know it weights 200 fewer pounds, wouldn't it be that much MUCH faster? The only direct comparo I've seen showed a S2000 do a 5.8 0-60/14.2 quarter vs. a 6.0 0-60/14.5 quarter. Braking from 100mph was 338ft. for the S2000 vs. 318ft. for the 8. Slalom was identical, skidpad was only .03g better for the S2000. Hardly the dominating sportscar you make it out to be.
Listen, most here believe the S2000 is nice, and I even said its a better "sportcar." Meanwhile you come around here and call the 8 a "civic"
...little insecure with your car aren't ya buddy?
Like I said the RX8 rarely traps mid 90's in the 1/4 and the S2000 CONSISTENTLY traps 100 mph, 5mph is a huge difference. If you want to look at 0-60 (which is a funtion of how hard someone is willing to launch the car) the S2000 runs consistent 5.5's with a good driver and the 8 isn't even in the high 5's. The only performance number that the RX8 wins in is braking by 2 feet from 60.
As far as looks the S2000 looks much cleaner, it doesn't have crazy looking bulging fenders, ugly altezza tailights and a large mouth bass front bumper.
By the way I have a 05 Winning Blue RX8 6spd sport ******** so go your lastest motortrend magazine and smack yourself in the head for me will you
Last edited by CosmosMpower; 08-07-2006 at 01:49 PM.
lol
08-07-2006, 05:28 PM
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbodisel I'm tired of your personal attacks. I have yet to see an intelligent substantiated argument from you. all you have are claims with no proof.
and I'm the "quack" I provide proof beyond doubt. rotational mass such as camshafts and crankshafts, there angles and degrees of rotation play a large role in centrifugal force at the center of gravity. If you can't accept that I don't know what else to tell you.
and your speculation goes pretty far when you say every rx-8 driver in solo ii across the country "messed up." for crying out loud an rx-8 driver won the b-stock championship...but his times were still behind the average s2k times. you quack, if you read the technical articles I posted on each car respectively, you'd see that their center of gravity is essentially the same because of near identical setups.
I'm finished entertaining your speculation, conjecture, and personal insults. Your arguments have no real world data, other than you saying "it is because you say so." this is the most absurd argument I've ever seen by any and every stretch of the imagination. you think you're so smart with your claims on knowledge of physics, and provide no qualitative or quantitative analyses on the topic at hand. not once have I seen an intelligent substantiated response from you and when you try, we get a blatantly plagiarized paragraph from another website. all your credibility went out the window, and you continue to call scca non reputable...your arguments are so absurd you sound like a sniveling child. I can only post the truth so many times. if you want to continue to wave unsubstantiated claim and conjecture in our faces while we have facts and figures staring you down well be my guest. just invite the rest of the fanbois to your little circle jerk. Until I see facts and figures from you from a reputble source, I will not entertain your unfounded ranting and raving.
and I'm the "quack" I provide proof beyond doubt. rotational mass such as camshafts and crankshafts, there angles and degrees of rotation play a large role in centrifugal force at the center of gravity. If you can't accept that I don't know what else to tell you.
and your speculation goes pretty far when you say every rx-8 driver in solo ii across the country "messed up." for crying out loud an rx-8 driver won the b-stock championship...but his times were still behind the average s2k times. you quack, if you read the technical articles I posted on each car respectively, you'd see that their center of gravity is essentially the same because of near identical setups.
I'm finished entertaining your speculation, conjecture, and personal insults. Your arguments have no real world data, other than you saying "it is because you say so." this is the most absurd argument I've ever seen by any and every stretch of the imagination. you think you're so smart with your claims on knowledge of physics, and provide no qualitative or quantitative analyses on the topic at hand. not once have I seen an intelligent substantiated response from you and when you try, we get a blatantly plagiarized paragraph from another website. all your credibility went out the window, and you continue to call scca non reputable...your arguments are so absurd you sound like a sniveling child. I can only post the truth so many times. if you want to continue to wave unsubstantiated claim and conjecture in our faces while we have facts and figures staring you down well be my guest. just invite the rest of the fanbois to your little circle jerk. Until I see facts and figures from you from a reputble source, I will not entertain your unfounded ranting and raving.
08-07-2006, 06:11 PM
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. No the CG is not the same. What the hell is wrong with you man you contradict yourself once again. Now you're saying the s2k has 50:50 balance. Quote from shaolin: "you'd see that their center of gravity is essentially the same"
Quote from shaolin: "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."
2. You provide no proof. You provide track times of drivers but no information on the population sampling. You say scca is the end all be all authority?
3. You are a complete and udder moron if you believe a 4 cylinder engine has a lower yaw moment than a rotary. THIS IS ELEMENTARY and I've explained it ad nauseum. I guarantee you will not find anyone else on here or anywhere else for that matter agreeing with you on this.
Quote from shaolin: "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."
2. You provide no proof. You provide track times of drivers but no information on the population sampling. You say scca is the end all be all authority?
3. You are a complete and udder moron if you believe a 4 cylinder engine has a lower yaw moment than a rotary. THIS IS ELEMENTARY and I've explained it ad nauseum. I guarantee you will not find anyone else on here or anywhere else for that matter agreeing with you on this.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-07-2006 at 06:36 PM.
08-07-2006, 06:39 PM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still no reputable sources. elementary? why? because you say so? I never said either was superior only that they can both be made to be equally balanced. I said neither ws better only different.
and if you read I was not talking about weight distribution, rather I was speaking of the entire driveline setup being identical. both located between the front and rear axles.
once again reading comprehension owns you. I never said scca was the ultimate authority but a national trend of track times sure is a lot more credible than an rx-8 fanboy.
still no concrete fact from you. I'm waiting...
and if you read I was not talking about weight distribution, rather I was speaking of the entire driveline setup being identical. both located between the front and rear axles.
once again reading comprehension owns you. I never said scca was the ultimate authority but a national trend of track times sure is a lot more credible than an rx-8 fanboy.
still no concrete fact from you. I'm waiting...
08-07-2006, 07:12 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a figure of speech back to English class for you.
Quote from shaolin: "I was speaking of the entire driveline setup being identical"
Interesting, I didn't realize the s2k had a carbon-fiber driveshaft as well. What are you going to say next buddy? A carbon-fiber driveshaft has a higher polar yaw moment, perhaps?
My argument still holds. I have seen no proof from you either.
Quote from shaolin: "I was speaking of the entire driveline setup being identical"
Interesting, I didn't realize the s2k had a carbon-fiber driveshaft as well. What are you going to say next buddy? A carbon-fiber driveshaft has a higher polar yaw moment, perhaps?
My argument still holds. I have seen no proof from you either.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-07-2006 at 07:24 PM.
08-07-2006, 07:35 PM
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well then use the figure of speech correctly. its spelled "utter"...back to school for you hahaha
the carbon fiber driveshaft is a weight saving item and used to transfer power to the wheels with mimimal power loss.
the carbon fiber driveshaft is a weight saving item and used to transfer power to the wheels with mimimal power loss.
08-07-2006, 07:40 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really are a f''n idiot and don't understand inertia and rotaional motion.
Quote from shaolin: "the carbon fiber driveshaft is a weight saving item and used to transfer power to the wheels with mimimal power loss." Duh, weight loss is a given, but the main purpose is to lower the yaw moment. Dude, haven't you been punished enough? Each and every time I have pummeled you to a pulp on this subject.
Quote from shaolin: "the carbon fiber driveshaft is a weight saving item and used to transfer power to the wheels with mimimal power loss." Duh, weight loss is a given, but the main purpose is to lower the yaw moment. Dude, haven't you been punished enough? Each and every time I have pummeled you to a pulp on this subject.
08-07-2006, 07:48 PM
#98
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so you say...proof? the driveshaft would be located in the same place regardless of what its made of. where's your proof on this matter? yaw moment is not the aim of using a carbon fiber driveshaft.
still waiting for evidence...hahaha
I have track results and you have heresay...lets see the proof...
still waiting for evidence...hahaha
I have track results and you have heresay...lets see the proof...
08-07-2006, 08:03 PM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lighter than steel or aluminum.
Three times torsional strength of steel.
Torsional spring rate allows better tire hook-up.
Torsional spring rate allows smoother shifting.
Less shock load to the differential.
Eliminates or dampens high speed vibrations.
Reduces transmission and differential breakage.
Characteristics can be varied by changing the wind, angles or diameter.
PST offers both steel and 7075 Billet Aluminum yokes.
In drag racing applications - a better 60 Ft. time.
ET's have been lowered in some cases by as much as .120.
In stock car racing better control out of corners is the result of the torsional spring rate.
In road racing smoother shifting and better durability of transmission and differential have been reported.
Tested on Cobra's at 180 MPH on Dyno with no vibrations.
A much greater safety factor - carbon fiber will return to a fiber and not create shrapnel under the car, as would aluminum or steel shafts.
these are the purposes as stated by pst a reputable carbonfiber driveshaft manufacturer. no where is yaw moment mentioned...it only provides better power transfer with mimial friction, drive train loss, vibration, and better reponse. yaw moment being a benefit of this component is another truthless statement that you've pulled from your ***.
Three times torsional strength of steel.
Torsional spring rate allows better tire hook-up.
Torsional spring rate allows smoother shifting.
Less shock load to the differential.
Eliminates or dampens high speed vibrations.
Reduces transmission and differential breakage.
Characteristics can be varied by changing the wind, angles or diameter.
PST offers both steel and 7075 Billet Aluminum yokes.
In drag racing applications - a better 60 Ft. time.
ET's have been lowered in some cases by as much as .120.
In stock car racing better control out of corners is the result of the torsional spring rate.
In road racing smoother shifting and better durability of transmission and differential have been reported.
Tested on Cobra's at 180 MPH on Dyno with no vibrations.
A much greater safety factor - carbon fiber will return to a fiber and not create shrapnel under the car, as would aluminum or steel shafts.
these are the purposes as stated by pst a reputable carbonfiber driveshaft manufacturer. no where is yaw moment mentioned...it only provides better power transfer with mimial friction, drive train loss, vibration, and better reponse. yaw moment being a benefit of this component is another truthless statement that you've pulled from your ***.