Notices
RX-8 Discussion General discussion about the RX-8 that doesn't fit in one of the specialty forums.

Traded my RX-8 in on a S2000

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 09-29-2007, 05:10 PM
  #26  
Scuderia
iTrader: (6)
 
RA-Eight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buckeye Country
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Congratulations! The S is a good choice.
RA-Eight is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:28 PM
  #27  
Registered User
 
kalix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 562 area code
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nice trade

nice trade. i was actually thinking of trading my 8 for one, but after test driving two at two different dealerships, i couldn't really tell the power difference between my 8 n the s2k. i have a manual, so maybe you can tell the difference since u had the AT. the rotary is soo much smoother, and less engine noise in the 8. good choice nonetheless, better than a z.
kalix is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:36 PM
  #28  
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
jones75254's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by velociti
ha. clever girl. in the past 5 years i've gotten every girl i've wanted, including a model who is a brunette version of your "s2000". but hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

before this gets any worse though, i'm pretty curious how the 2.2l s2k compares to the 8. reading magazine articles doesn't do it for me. i've driven the 2.0l version, but not the newer one. is the engine as flexible (relatively) as the 8? or is it as peaky as the old one? if i could put the renesis in the s2000 chassis, id be a happy man.
Oh brother Im sure you have Poindexter. Go rearrange your pocket protector.
jones75254 is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:37 PM
  #29  
Downhill Touge FTW!!
 
faboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Buena Park
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nice choice...i enjoy driving the s2k....

its a good choice...welcome to the topless club
faboo is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:41 PM
  #30  
Banned
 
4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
God I hate convertibles. But have fun anyways.
4me2 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 07:53 AM
  #31  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
No they don't, plenty of publications and owners have run high 13's and trapped around 100mph with S2K's, that's not close to an RX-8.
From Sport Compact Car:
Fortunately, the S2000 now accelerates quicker. It pulls to 100 mph in 15.10 seconds, which is 0.2 seconds quicker than before. And there's also an improvement in roll-on acceleration, the kind of performance you feel on the street, because it accelerates 0.18 seconds quicker to 70 mph from 50 mph. Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.

And a 2004 test in Motor Trend (RX-8 came in first. Again.) TEST DATA
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html




The shoebox brigade saunters home again, frustrated in it's ability to win converts to cloth upholstered, plastic appendaged , tastelessly styled and immature looking automobiles.

Last edited by MP3Guy; 09-30-2007 at 07:57 AM.
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 12:32 PM
  #32  
Destroying Threads
 
tajabaho1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: (swartsnegga state)
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
dude, you made a great choice man, no joke, I am still wondering what I was thinking......lol, good luck with your s2k man, mod her up and give her a cruise near the beach, lovely
tajabaho1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:02 PM
  #33  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MP3Guy
From Sport Compact Car:
Fortunately, the S2000 now accelerates quicker. It pulls to 100 mph in 15.10 seconds, which is 0.2 seconds quicker than before. And there's also an improvement in roll-on acceleration, the kind of performance you feel on the street, because it accelerates 0.18 seconds quicker to 70 mph from 50 mph. Before the clutch went, we also measured a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.4 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 14.4 seconds at 97.2 mph, which are also quicker.

And a 2004 test in Motor Trend (RX-8 came in first. Again.) TEST DATA
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html




The shoebox brigade saunters home again, frustrated in it's ability to win converts to cloth upholstered, plastic appendaged , tastelessly styled and immature looking automobiles.
Nice selective test results there Sparky...

R&T 3-05 0-60: 5.4 1/4: 13.9@100
C&D 7-04 5.5 14.0@99
MT 2-00 5.4 13.8 @100

Hell, even the results from MT you posted show the S2000 is clearly faster. You fail miserably.

Last edited by Ike; 09-30-2007 at 09:05 PM.
Ike is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:10 PM
  #34  
Banned
 
4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Freak, there is so much more to a car, than how fast it is. The 8 is a great looking, great handling 4 seat sports car. Not everyone are immature punks that just want to speed around, trying to look cool.
4me2 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:17 PM
  #35  
Destroying Threads
 
tajabaho1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: (swartsnegga state)
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
4me2 and ike are going at it again I see
tajabaho1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:18 PM
  #36  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 4me2
Freak, there is so much more to a car, than how fast it is. The 8 is a great looking, great handling 4 seat sports car. Not everyone are immature punks that just want to speed around, trying to look cool.
Thanks you Captian Obvious

I point out incorrect information and suddenly you and your fanboi buddies are in here taking pot shots at me and my car. Grow the **** up!
Ike is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:21 PM
  #37  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
Nice selective test results there Sparky...

R&T 3-05 0-60: 5.4 1/4: 13.9@100
C&D 7-04 5.5 14.0@99
MT 2-00 5.4 13.8 @100

Hell, even the results from MT you posted show the S2000 is clearly faster. You fail miserably.
The C&D figures are for the 2008 CR version, so go scratch your ***, and don't call me a liar.
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ecs-page3.html

Motor Trend got 5.8 sec 0-60 and the quarter in 14.2
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rformance.html

R&T did manage to squeeze out the times you quoted in a comparison test done in 2005.

But who cares? Most of us don't share your adolescent fixations about cars, and prefer to enjoy them for reasons you can't fathom.

Run along now. The other children miss you.
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:25 PM
  #38  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
Thanks you Captian Obvious

I point out incorrect information and suddenly you and your fanboi buddies are in here taking pot shots at me and my car. Grow the **** up!

Look who's talking! A friggin troll whose been baiting RX-8 owners for nearly five years on this forum telling other people to "grow the **** up." Are you ******* kidding me pal?

If we wanted to own your noisy little shitbox, we would buy one. It's not as if they cost more, or anyone here lacks the ability to own one.

We drive what we like, and apparently, due to some odd pathology of yours, you have a great deal of difficulty handling that. so you have nothing better to do than come here with your horseshit. No one here needs lessons from you on the subject of automobiles.

Go see a shrink.
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:26 PM
  #39  
Banned
 
4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^lol
4me2 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:29 PM
  #40  
Destroying Threads
 
tajabaho1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: (swartsnegga state)
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
wow, ike got pwned in this thread

honestly, don't you guys just get tired of doing this crap? I mean seriously.........
tajabaho1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:30 PM
  #41  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MP3Guy
The C&D figures are for the 2008 CR version, so go scratch your ***, and don't call me a liar.
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ecs-page3.html

Motor Trend got 5.8 sec 0-60 and the quarter in 14.2
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rformance.html

R&T did manage to squeeze out the times you quoted in a comparison test done in 2005.

But who cares? Most of us don't share your adolescent fixations about cars, and prefer to enjoy them for reasons you can't fathom.

Run along now. The other children miss you.
You're not a liar, but you're certainly not right. See those numbers next to the magazine name, those stand for a month and year...

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...nda-s2000.html

Someone said something incorrect, I pointed it out. You bursted into a fanboi rage looking for any posible way to prove me wrong, you failed miserably. Get over it and move on.

Last edited by Ike; 09-30-2007 at 09:38 PM.
Ike is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:39 PM
  #42  
Destroying Threads
 
tajabaho1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: (swartsnegga state)
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
No they don't, plenty of publications and owners have run high 13's and trapped around 100mph with S2K's, that's not close to an RX-8.
this is where you're wrong ike, they are, case and point pretty much on top of each other, the +/- .5-1 second is probably based more on driver, road condition and maintainance condition man

besides, I used to own an s2k, I still don't know why I did the trade, my mom was pwning my *** because my car was a "selfish" car 2 seater no space blah blah, if it wasn't for that I'd still be in s2ki.com....I have ran rx8s and lost, I have ran rx8s and won, in my AT rx8, I have ran s2ks and won, and I have lost too
mostly depends on the driver for that 1 second which translate to about half a cars lenght, so I think it is fitting for him to say, they are infact right on top of each other......
tajabaho1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:42 PM
  #43  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tajabaho1
this is where you're wrong ike, they are, case and point pretty much on top of each other, the +/- .5-1 second is probably based more on driver, road condition and maintainance condition man

besides, I used to own an s2k, I still don't know why I did the trade, my mom was pwning my *** because my car was a "selfish" car 2 seater no space blah blah, if it wasn't for that I'd still be in s2ki.com....I have ran rx8s and lost, I have ran rx8s and won, in my AT rx8, I have ran s2ks and won, and I have lost too
mostly depends on the driver for that 1 second which translate to about half a cars lenght, so I think it is fitting for him to say, they are infact right on top of each other......
This isn't about your delusional street racing fanatasies, but thanks for the input.
Ike is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:47 PM
  #44  
Destroying Threads
 
tajabaho1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: (swartsnegga state)
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
sure ike sure, confirmations are on here, somewhere

and your attitude is definitly not helping, I hope therapy (evo forum) is working out for you, normally it cures the need for power and torque, but side effect includes cockiness, god complex, and diss-every-other-car syndrome, oh well, doesn't really bother me since I've seen too many evo owners, I understand the pain of the process, so did you choose the highway or the streets yet, personally I think the highway curbs are a less painful way to go
tajabaho1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:57 PM
  #45  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
You're not a liar, but you're certainly not right. See those numbers next to the magazine name, those stand for a month and year...

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...nda-s2000.html

Someone said something incorrect, I pointed it out. You bursted into a fanboi rage looking for any posible way to prove me wrong, you failed miserably. Get over it and move on.
It's not even a matter of "incorrect" especially when there are such variances in trap speeds and ETs. You're not "proving" anything. People with bone stock RX-8s have squeezed out 14.5 sec 1/4 mile times, with the only mod being lower air pressure in the rear tires. And they backed it up with time slips.

Reviewing some of your posts shows what a pathetic creature you are. Full of stupid insults, including accusing others of being trolls. This from a man with over 8600 posts on a forum for a car he doesn't own. Is this caused by owning a car built by a firm that has produced some of the ugliest things to come out of a sheet metal press in history?

Maybe it's time to banish you from RX-8 land, hmmmmm?
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:58 PM
  #46  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tajabaho1
sure ike sure, confirmations are on here, somewhere

and your attitude is definitly not helping, I hope therapy (evo forum) is working out for you, normally it cures the need for power and torque, but side effect includes cockiness, god complex, and diss-every-other-car syndrome, oh well, doesn't really bother me since I've seen too many evo owners, I understand the pain of the process, so did you choose the highway or the streets yet, personally I think the highway curbs are a less painful way to go


It's just our littles resident boy racer- with way too much time on his hands. Won't you be his friend?
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:01 PM
  #47  
Registered
 
MP3Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tajabaho1
this is where you're wrong ike, they are, case and point pretty much on top of each other, the +/- .5-1 second is probably based more on driver, road condition and maintainance condition man

besides, I used to own an s2k, I still don't know why I did the trade, my mom was pwning my *** because my car was a "selfish" car 2 seater no space blah blah, if it wasn't for that I'd still be in s2ki.com....I have ran rx8s and lost, I have ran rx8s and won, in my AT rx8, I have ran s2ks and won, and I have lost too
mostly depends on the driver for that 1 second which translate to about half a cars lenght, so I think it is fitting for him to say, they are infact right on top of each other......

The other issue is that sometimes cars supplied to the automotive press have been a bit "breathed on."
MP3Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:06 PM
  #48  
Registered User
 
alerx-8's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: san antonio
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
this is probably going to stir some **** up.. wtf due u mean atleast u didnt get a Z? why the hell not? its 2 seater, power, and turning.. u guys diss it cause its alot faster compared to the 8 but in where the s2k is similar in power u dont?
alerx-8's is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:06 PM
  #49  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MP3Guy
It's not even a matter of "incorrect" especially when there are such variances in trap speeds and ETs. You're not "proving" anything. People with bone stock RX-8s have squeezed out 14.5 sec 1/4 mile times, with the only mod being lower air pressure in the rear tires. And they backed it up with time slips.

Reviewing some of your posts shows what a pathetic creature you are. Full of stupid insults, including accusing others of being trolls. This from a man with over 8600 posts on a forum for a car he doesn't own. Is this caused by owning a car built by a firm that has produced some of the ugliest things to come out of a sheet metal press in history?

Maybe it's time to banish you from RX-8 land, hmmmmm?
I was responding to this before you started having your little tantrum...

"The numbers indicate that they're within a gnat's *** of each other in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, anything from even to .2/.3 respectively, depending on the magazine."

I pointed out and proved that they're not that close, nothing more, nothing less.


The only person trolling in this thread is YOU. Grip reality, grow up, and move on.
Ike is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:13 PM
  #50  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MP3Guy
The other issue is that sometimes cars supplied to the automotive press have been a bit "breathed on."
Get a grip... ONE person has run numbers close to mag times on this entire forum, ONE. Several S2K owners have run high 13s and many more have trapped 100mph. If anything has been "breathed" on it's the RX-8's mag times that you should be skeptical of.

Before anyone else has a hissy fit please notice that I'm not insulting the RX-8 in any way.
Ike is offline  


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Traded my RX-8 in on a S2000



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.