Honda S2000 VS Mazda RX8

  • Thread starter rollazn
  • 117 comments
  • 8,282 views

Honda S2000 or Mazda RX8

  • Honda S2000

    Votes: 51 63.0%
  • Mazda RX8

    Votes: 30 37.0%

  • Total voters
    81
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
A Porsche 911 GT2 has a Mac strut front end. You don't consider that a real suspension?

i said that i still consider some cars with macpherson only on the front, but i dont like macpherson struts at all four corners. i still dont like the way the macpherson struts are designed though, no matter what car its on, but i do think its ok for light weight economy cars, just not for performance. companies use macpherson struts because it gives more room for the cars design, and it costs less.
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
I don't doubt you, but I would like to see some of those numbers.

Sure. I'll pull out some old mag tests when I get home.

Keep this in mind. The SCCA classifies the RX-8 in the same class as the S2000, 350Z, BMW M3 (E36) and Porsche Boxster and 968 for Solo II events. The SEB guys know a lot about cars and don't make many mistakes when it comes to putting cars with similar handling performance together. There's not a yawning gap between cars when they are classed together. Sure, some cars end up being "the one to have" for a given class, but i assure you no one takes it for granted.

And don't think I'm downplaying the S2000 here. It is a superb car and an excellent value. One of my fondest car memories is driving one in a group S2000 back road run with my best friend leading in my M3. I actually spend a lot of time defending the S against the dumb "it-makes-no-torque" arguments that people who know less about cars than they think do invariably make against it.

That being said, I think the total performance difference between the RX-8 and S2000 is actually very small, with the edge going to the S due to it being ~200 lbs. lighter. "Blowing the doors off" is usually a phrase I reserve for what C5 Vettes do to ricer-Civics.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Sure. I'll pull out some old mag tests when I get home.

Keep this in mind. The SCCA classifies the RX-8 in the same class as the S2000, 350Z, BMW M3 (E36) and Porsche Boxster and 968 for Solo II events. The SEB guys know a lot about cars and don't make many mistakes when it comes to putting cars with similar handling performance together. There's not a yawning gap between cars when they are classed together. Sure, some cars end up being "the one to have" for a given class, but i assure you no one takes it for granted.

And don't think I'm downplaying the S2000 here. It is a superb car and an excellent value. One of my fondest car memories is driving one in a group S2000 back road run with my best friend leading in my M3. I actually spend a lot of time defending the S against the dumb "it-makes-no-torque" arguments that people who know less about cars than they think do invariably make against it.

That being said, I think the total performance difference between the RX-8 and S2000 is actually very small, with the edge going to the S due to it being ~200 lbs. lighter. "Blowing the doors off" is usually a phrase I reserve for what C5 Vettes do to ricer-Civics.


///M-Spec

Then I will retract that and replace it with "I think the S2000 is quicker". (:
 
Here we go, LoudMusic;

Car and Driver, Road Test Digest 10/03

RX-8: .88g
S2000: .88g

Road and Track Test Summary 01/04

RX-8: .90
S2000: .91

As you can see, the RX and S2k generate nearly identical amounts of mechanical grip. As stated before, I believe the S will behave better in the transitions, being more firmly sprung and dampened.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by OoNismoO
i said that i still consider some cars with macpherson only on the front, but i dont like macpherson struts at all four corners. i still dont like the way the macpherson struts are designed though, no matter what car its on, but i do think its ok for light weight economy cars, just not for performance. companies use macpherson struts because it gives more room for the cars design, and it costs less.

A strut type rear suspension is commonly called a Chapman strut. Not many cars today use Chapmans at the rear.... in fact, I can only recall the Lotus Elan (the old one) using it.

The only big advantage unequal length A-arms have over a well designed MacPherson strut is favorable geometry over a wide range of ride heights. However, street cars tend to be non-adjustable by nature, so as long as the Mac strut is designed with a narrow ride-height range in mind, this isn't really a big disadvantage.

A-arm front suspensions tend to also be a little shorter than a Mac strut, which is nessesarily taller. But once again, street cars tend to be tall anyway for packaging reasons.

Finally, MacPherson struts do not create much negative camber under loading, while A-arms can create a useful amount under load. Therefore, most performance oriented Mac strut cars always benefit from a certain degree of static negative camber.

Cars that use MacPherson struts usually have a semi-trailing arm derived rear end. For street cars, this is a fine compromise between performance and packaging. Lots of cars have this combination... from Datsun 510s and 240Zs to M3s and 911s. The Evo and WRX STi also uses a strut front end. So does the R34 Skyline GT-R.

Almost all BMWs use a MacPherson strut front end with a complex multi-link semi-trailing arm in the rear called a Z-axle. All Porsches use Mac struts with a similar setup in the rear. The Evo and STi invert the strut, but are based on the same principles. The Skyline adds additional links, but is also a strut type design.

So you're saying the M3, 911, Evo, STi and GT-R are not really designed for performance?


///M-Spec
 
honda S2000, look slightly better, convertible and better on track. But maybe RX-8 if i had a kid or 2 or a lazy m8 who wants a lift all the time
 
My lady and I decided we could get enough lugage for a two week vacation into the trunk of an S2000, so it should do nicely. However, it's a rougher ride than the RX-8 so that definitely plays into it for a vacation car. Perhaps I'll have the roadster and she'll have the sedan. But she wants a Z4 so we'll have to figure something out later (:
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
My lady and I decided we could get enough lugage for a two week vacation into the trunk of an S2000, so it should do nicely.

Only if you're vacationing at a nudist colony :odd: That trunk is about big enough for a pack of gum...

Originally posted by LoudMusic
But she wants a Z4 so we'll have to figure something out later (:

Good for her. Tell her she needs to spec the Sports package and to stay away from SMG. Auto if she has to, but otherwise, 6 speed all the way.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Here we go, LoudMusic;

Car and Driver, Road Test Digest 10/03

RX-8: .88g
S2000: .88g

Road and Track Test Summary 01/04

RX-8: .90
S2000: .91

As you can see, the RX and S2k generate nearly identical amounts of mechanical grip. As stated before, I believe the S will behave better in the transitions, being more firmly sprung and dampened.


///M-Spec

there are more ways to measure handling, but even that doesnt tell the whole story.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Only if you're vacationing at a nudist colony :odd: That trunk is about big enough for a pack of gum...



Good for her. Tell her she needs to spec the Sports package and to stay away from SMG. Auto if she has to, but otherwise, 6 speed all the way.


///M-Spec

Nah dude, travel lite. And it's not like you have to have 14 different outfits. If you're on the go then a couple pairs of pants and four or five shirts will do. There is such a thing as a laundry mat (: And the trunk isn't as small as everyone makes it out to be. Shoot, I could fit a human body in there if I had to! ... forget I said that.

And yes, 3.0 six-speed with the big packages. I think it came to something around $56,000 last time I checked. Good thing she's a smart girl with lots of money in her future. I still have to finish teaching her to drive a clutch though.

She's requested a Mini Cooper S for her masters graduation present. The BMW roadster will come a few years later ... with her money.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
A strut type rear suspension is commonly called a Chapman strut. Not many cars today use Chapmans at the rear.... in fact, I can only recall the Lotus Elan (the old one) using it.

The only big advantage unequal length A-arms have over a well designed MacPherson strut is favorable geometry over a wide range of ride heights. However, street cars tend to be non-adjustable by nature, so as long as the Mac strut is designed with a narrow ride-height range in mind, this isn't really a big disadvantage.

A-arm front suspensions tend to also be a little shorter than a Mac strut, which is nessesarily taller. But once again, street cars tend to be tall anyway for packaging reasons.

Finally, MacPherson struts do not create much negative camber under loading, while A-arms can create a useful amount under load. Therefore, most performance oriented Mac strut cars always benefit from a certain degree of static negative camber.

Cars that use MacPherson struts usually have a semi-trailing arm derived rear end. For street cars, this is a fine compromise between performance and packaging. Lots of cars have this combination... from Datsun 510s and 240Zs to M3s and 911s. The Evo and WRX STi also uses a strut front end. So does the R34 Skyline GT-R.

Almost all BMWs use a MacPherson strut front end with a complex multi-link semi-trailing arm in the rear called a Z-axle. All Porsches use Mac struts with a similar setup in the rear. The Evo and STi invert the strut, but are based on the same principles. The Skyline adds additional links, but is also a strut type design.

So you're saying the M3, 911, Evo, STi and GT-R are not really designed for performance?


///M-Spec

i know about the chapman struts, the mr2 turbo has it. the reason why double wishbone is favorable for performance is because when you corner, the wheel tilts in slightly for better grip, since all the weight transfers to the outside tires. the evo, and the skyline does not have a strut type design for its rear suspension, strut type means when the strut is solidly bolted on to the hubs without a pivoting joint. the double wishbone is also more adjustable over strut type, so you can improve on its handling even more on its already better setup. while some companies will improve on the strut type suspension, and do a good job of using it, its still a downgrade from double wishbone type suspensions. therefore i still dont like the way the strut type suspensions are designed, but that doesnt mean i dont like cars with strut type suspensions, ill still consider them te be good cars.
 
How do you figure I'm rationalizing my way into the Mazda?

RWD is necessary - the WRX and Evo don't offer it - but a 6-CD player, spoiler, and heated mirrors are irrelevant. Of course, the WRX and Evo offer those things, and I said the RX-8 didn't. Meanwhile, leather seats are necessary, which the RX-8 does offer and the WRX and Evo, again, happen to miss out. Rear seat room, which the WRX and Evo easily beat the RX-8 in (hell, the RX-8 even seats one less) also doesn't matter, but the 'weight advantage' (another category the RX-8 happens to win slightly) does matter even though the Evo and WRX are much quicker despite their weight.

It seems as if your tastes have not found a good car, but the perfect car! No compromise required here - it's got everything necessary and misses out on nothing. It seems.

The Mach 1 is out. Its essentially a GT with an '02 Cobra powertrain. I have seat time in the old Cobras, and the RX has it beat for chassis dynamics.

Actually, it seems to me that you're right - except that it's got the RX-8 beat in every single other category. Price, power, quarter mile, value, warranty, cargo room, front passenger room, and spec. It hasn't got it in fuel economy or rear passenger room, but I wouldn't imagine those matter hugely.

I'd definately give the GTO a try if I can get one for 30 grand. I might love it. But I'm not holding my breath --3800 lb GMs are not well known for good handling.

Same as above except more refined, more power, and more spec. The GTO's handling is in the same class as the RX-8. It's about $1000 more expensive, though.
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
Nah dude, travel lite. And it's not like you have to have 14 different outfits.

::sigh:: I miss the days when I could do that, I really do. My wife packs for trips like we're headed for a nuclear fallout shelter and won't see the sun for 30 years.

I also miss the days when I didn't really consider rear seats an issue when shopping for a car.

Enjoy your S! When are you getting it again?


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by OoNismoO
there are more ways to measure handling, but even that doesnt tell the whole story.

Please don't take my posts out of context. The skidpad numbers were a direct request from LoudMusic. I've gone to great lengths to describe how the RX-8 measures up to the S in terms of handling without getting into the magazine racing.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by OoNismoO
while some companies will improve on the strut type suspension, and do a good job of using it, its still a downgrade from double wishbone type suspensions.

A street car is always a series of compromises. People say they want a racing car for the road: they don't. For the most part, I feel MacPherson struts do a good job. I wouldn't design a race car around one, but if offers very efficient compromises for the road.

It just strikes me as odd that you make a generalization about a design, then conceed there are numerous exceptions. But, we can agree to disagree.


///M-Spec
 
In line with a comment about 'you know you play too much GT3 when ...' was '... you use GT3 to test drive cars for purchase in the real world'.

I visited GT3Times.com and checked laptimes on Midfield with the two S2000 choices and the RX-8. Tuning optional.

1100 Rypien Mazda 2002 RX-8 515 MT FR 12/1/01 2:44 AM Dual Shock 2 1:08.277
1114 Nelsy Honda 2000 S2000 Type V 551 AT FR 10/3/03 12:31 PM Dual Shock 2 1:08.602
1203 ZZII Honda 1999 S2000 500 AT FR 8/18/01 12:49 PM Dual Shock 2 1:10.155
1240 Netwalker Honda 2000 S2000 Type V 551 AT FR 10/2/03 5:32 PM Dual Shock 2 1:10.780
1253 Johnboy Mazda 2002 RX-8 506 AT FR 5/14/02 6:24 PM Dual Shock 1:11.046
1264 Johnboy Honda 2000 S2000 Type V 546 AT FR 5/3/03 11:04 PM Dual Shock 2 1:11.224
1299 Uriah Honda 1999 S2000 561 AT FR 1/9/02 8:27 AM Logitech GT Force 1:12.218
1399 postmanpetecoluk Honda 1999 S2000 561 MT FR 2/20/02 3:13 PM MadCatz Wheel 1:14.423
1444 feind Honda 1999 S2000 534 AT FR 7/6/02 8:02 AM Dual Shock 2 1:15.993
1550 auc_jr Honda 2000 S2000 Type V 299 AT FR 11/22/01 8:13 PM Dual Shock 2 1:24.786

CAN THIS BE TRUE!?! GT4 shall tell the future with the 2004 models of each car. Inwhich case I believe the S2000 will have a slight performance edge.

But still, the RX-8 doesn't have a drop top. Sure moon roofs are nice, but the air just doesn't whip through your hair the same.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
It seems as if your tastes have not found a good car, but the perfect car! No compromise required here - it's got everything necessary and misses out on nothing. It seems.

Except that I happen to have these tastes for the last 15 years of my life. You missed that part, didn't you?

And nope, it's not perfect. I would have liked the 250 hp Mazda originally promised, rather than the 238 we ended up with. Real world fuel milage, as reported by owners at RX8CLUB.com is unexpectedly bad, so it seems Mazda has some fuel mapping and ignition tuning left to do --either that or install cats that can deal with the higher temps.

I'm 5'11" and my hair brushes against the headliner in the GT version of the car. That's not good. It means when I put my helmet on, I will need to adjust the seat back too far to reach the steering wheel comfortably.

A spare tire should have been a no-cost option, not a dealer markup.

Finally, I would have liked Winning Blue RX-8s to be available with blue and black leather inserts, like the red on black in the Velocity Red cars.

But other than that, it's a pretty close match.


Originally posted by M5Power
Actually, it seems to me that you're right - except that it's got the RX-8 beat in every single other category. Price, power, quarter mile, value, warranty, cargo room, front passenger room, and spec. It hasn't got it in fuel economy or rear passenger room, but I wouldn't imagine those matter hugely.

Every catagory but one that is non-negotiable. Handling. You left that out.


Originally posted by M5Power
The GTO's handling is in the same class as the RX-8. It's about $1000 more expensive, though.

Somehow, I doubt that. But I can wait to drive one before I draw a conclusion.


///M-Spec
 
Also, on that note, something that hasn't been mentioned. If the S2000 was simple a coupe, maybe with a moon roof, it would be significantly lower priced. The 'convertible' tax is astounding. Using a BMW 325Ci coupe and 325Ci convertible as comparisons, there is a $7,200 difference. Nearly as I can tell there are no other mechanical differences.

That would bring the S2000 down to ~ $25,000. Not sure what I'm getting at here, but it's something.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Are street car is always a series of compromises. People say they want a racing car for the road: they don't. For the most part, I feel MacPherson struts do a good job. I wouldn't design a race car around one, but if offers very efficient compromises for the road.

It just strikes me as odd that you make a generalization about a design, then conceed there are numerous exceptions. But, we can agree to disagree.


///M-Spec

i dont know whats so odd about what i said, but you can think what you want.
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
Also, on that note, something that hasn't been mentioned. If the S2000 was simple a coupe, maybe with a moon roof, it would be significantly lower priced. The 'convertible' tax is astounding. Using a BMW 325Ci coupe and 325Ci convertible as comparisons, there is a $7,200 difference. Nearly as I can tell there are no other mechanical differences.

That would bring the S2000 down to ~ $25,000. Not sure what I'm getting at here, but it's something.

Cant you get a hard top s2000 for like 2000 dollar more?
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Please don't take my posts out of context. The skidpad numbers were a direct request from LoudMusic. I've gone to great lengths to describe how the RX-8 measures up to the S in terms of handling without getting into the magazine racing.


///M-Spec

i dont know why you said that, i was just adding to it. you could of just simply agreed or disagreed, we re all here to discuss opinions.
 
Originally posted by rollazn
Cant you get a hard top s2000 for like 2000 dollar more?

You can get a hard top addon for $3000, but it doesn't remove the convertible.

If they made a COUPE version (not a removable hard top) it would be significantly less.
 
oh coupe... well im not into convertibles really but i love the S2000 so if there is a cheaper coupe verison i would kill for that!
 
Wasn't there a hardtop option for the S2k??? I thought at one point Honda was producing them for some reason. . .
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
Yeah, but it won't happen - at least I hope it doesn't (:

Why dont you want it to happen? You rather have the convertible verison?

Originally posted by miata13B
Wasn't there a hardtop option for the S2k??? I thought at one point Honda was producing them for some reason. . .

Yes.. if you read back, we both said honda have an hardtop option for S2000 for around 2000-3000 bucks.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Except that I happen to have these tastes for the last 15 years of my life. You missed that part, didn't you?


Yeah, especially as it wasn't stated. Though I do find it interesting that heated power mirrors and a 6-CD player didn't matter to you in 1988 - they would've mattered to me; I would've tried to secure the patents!

I'm kidding, please don't snap at me. :(

A spare tire should have been a no-cost option, not a dealer markup.

A spare tire?

Incidentally, what do you do if you've got a Honda S2000, and the tyre blows? You can fix it pretty easily if you know what you're doing, but the space-saving temporary tyre goes on the wheel, leaving the blown tyre to go... where, exactly? Assumably it doesn't fit in the temporary tyre's spot under the car (hence the point of the 'space saving tyre'), so the passenger seat? Would it fit? I imagine S2000 owners really wouldn't have to deal with this, but even the 'what if' of this happening makes you wonder.

Not that this has any relevance, but it's a vaguely interesting point. Plus, you brought up the spare tyre.

Finally, I would have liked Winning Blue RX-8s to be available with blue and black leather inserts, like the red on black in the Velocity Red cars.

But other than that, it's a pretty close match.

Oh, I see, you're listing its flaws. Well, my above comment stands. I think

Every catagory but one that is non-negotiable. Handling. You left that out.

It's because everybody's heard so much crap against Mustangs that they automatically assume it handles like ****, so why bring it up? The 1978 Mustang II was ****. The 2003 Mustang Cobra and Mach 1 are good cars. Of course, every twelve-year-old Motor Trend reader knows it "isn't like it used to be." Yeah, well **** off - it's a great car, and the handling of the performance versions is great. The best-kept secrets of the domestic car industry. It's funny, too, because all the "imports rule" jackasses have no idea how much they're missing out.

Somehow, I doubt that. But I can wait to drive one before I draw a conclusion.

I wonder if that has anything to do with a bias against domestic cars...
 
Originally posted by OoNismoO
i dont know why you said that, i was just adding to it.

I said that because your post implied that I tried to make an argument for the RX-8 being as well handling a car as the S2000 based entirely on skidpad numbers. Your post also implied that I don't understand or acknowledge that magazine numbers only tell a small part of the story. If you read all my posts in this thread, you'd realize that this simply isn't true.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Though I do find it interesting that heated power mirrors and a 6-CD player didn't matter to you in 1988

I was really talking about my preference for RWD cars. My first real car was an '86 325e. (don't ask me what my first car actually was, I'm too embarrased to admit it)


Originally posted by M5Power
I'm kidding, please don't snap at me. :( [/B]

Oh, I didn't realize that. That's cool.


Originally posted by M5Power
A spare tire? [/B]

Yep. The RX-8 comes with fix-a-flat goo and roadside assistance instead of a proper spare tire. A space saver spare is an option. What a bunch of crap.

Incidently, the RX-8 has a weird tire size that's tough to shop for. That means limited choices once the OE Bridgestones are gone.

Originally posted by M5Power

Incidentally, what do you do if you've got a Honda S2000, and the tyre blows?[/B]

The S2000 comes with a space saver spare tire mounted on a steel wheel. At least, my buddy's did.


Originally posted by M5Power
It's because everybody's heard so much crap against Mustangs that they automatically assume it handles like ****[/B]

I don't know why you'd assume I don't like Mustangs. I have a great deal of respect for modern pony cars, having run against very fast ESP and SM prepared Mustangs at the autocross. I don't slow down for a New York Minute against the gents in the Mustangs.

I had a brief drive in an '01 Cobra when a friend of mine bought one. We actually traded cars for about an hour. For a 3,600 lb. car, it handled pretty good. Front heavy, no steering feel or feedback to speak of, but otherwise pretty tight.

I was impressed at what a good overall package the car was. He was impressed that his car could do almost everything my M3 did for 10 grand less.


Originally posted by M5Power
I wonder if that has anything to do with a bias against domestic cars... [/B]

I have a bias against domestic cars only in it that they have not built many cars that I cared to own in the past. But I try to never pass judgement (good or bad) on a car until I've had a chance to drive it. I don't automatically presume domestics car crap, but I am predisposed to think GM, Ford and Chrysler am not interested in building the kind of cars that I like to buy.

That being said, if I had the money and didn't have a kid to haul, there'd be an Electron Blue Z06 in my parking spot right now.


///M-Spec
 
Back