With all the inevitable discussion concerning the RX-8's competition (or perceived competition), I really had to grin when I saw 2 ads from local new-car dealers in this morning's rag:

New 2005 Honda S2000 $33,665.00 (one only at this low price)

New 2005 Mazda RX-8 $23,999.00 (one only at this low price)

I concede that the Honda is a very good sports car, but I wonder if it's worth nearly 10 grand more than the 8. Of course, there's always the prestige factor to consider when owning an expensive vehicle...

1.3L

 

Well...considering it's not THAT MUCH faster than the 8 and is very similar in terms of redline range and low torque, I don't think it's worth that either. I too like it but I don’t' love it enough to spend 33K on it...heck, another 10K and I have myself a Vette (which is worth another 10K).

But...it's a 4 seater vs 2 seater, convertible vs fixed roof....so while many say they are in competition with each other...by the looks of it, they don’t look it.

 

I dunno...even for 10k more I there's more prestige in owning an rx8 imo...but at 33k if you're worried about the prestige factor get a 325...honda doesn't compare to bmw in that department.

 

the honda engine will probably last longer.. i was in the same boat and I couldn't justify spending that much more. especially since the convertible in the long term will have much more significant maintenance problems.

 

Well, I'd say it depends on what "bang" is to you... either car could be better depending on what you want...

S2K:
* Slightly faster
* Convertible
* Much Better-Equipped at 33K than a base 8
* Tighter suspension
* Much better gas mileage

RX8:
* Hard top
* Fours seats, four doors
* Larger trunk
* Much cheaper
* Smoother, quieter ride

 

Will the Honda engine really last longer? I've heard that the rotary has a better longevity than the piston engine because of the lack of so many moving parts. Maybe it was maintenance they were talking about, but I was under the impression that if this engine was taken care of, it would last a very long time.

 

call me crazy, but the s2000 is rated at 20/25, i don't really consider that to be much better than 18/24. personally, i think the main reasons people are getting poor gas mileage in their 8s is because 1) they are letting their cars idle for 5 minutes to warm up, and 2) it is so much fun to drive, you just can't help not driving it hard.

i've always heard that the s2000 and rx8 were pretty much the same on suspension.

and exactly how is it much better equiped? looking at the honda website, it seems to be pretty much the same, with the exeption of leather trimmed seats.

 

It's only worth what people are willing to pay... That "one only" Rx-8 is most likely a stripped down auto as well and I bet if you show up it's a demo car and or it's already sold.

 

I think it's funny that anyone would question the reliability of a Honda engine. The thing is going to go 300k miles even if you track it regularly.

As for the Rotary reliabilty--proven in the Gen I RX-7 to go just about forever. It may take more maintenance than a piston engine to get over 200k miles out of it--probably requiring a rebuild between 150 and 200.

 

Well, I guess it was an older model but a friend of mine who owned a 2000/2001 S2K said he was getting nearly 30mpg... remember, it is an I-4 pulling a small car. Either way, I'd expect an 8 to get about 18-19mpg with moderate-to-spirited mixed driving. I think you'd probably get closer to 24 out of the S2K. I think that's a pretty good gap. Personally, when I drive super-conservative I can't do better than 20mpg. I live in warm weather so I don't warm up or anything like that.

I belive the S2K is a stiffer suspension. Handling-wise, they're pretty much equivalent, but the S2K isn't really designed to be as much of a daily driver as the RX-8. It's louder and harsher.

The S2K comes standard with stick and leather, both of which will cost more on the 8. Most people consider leather to be a pretty big deal. On most cars like this, leather and stick are worth $2-3K... seems like a pretty big gap to me.

Either way, yeah, it's close... overall, you just need to decide what you're looking for. Being that the 8 is a smoother 4-seater most people would probably consider it to be more practical than the 2-seater convertible...

 

my mileage comment wasn't really directed at you, basically just referring to the people that comment (complain?) that they are getting 13-14 mpg. i live in a warm climate too, and with a/c running full blast during spirited driving i'm still averaging 18.5mpg, so i'm happy with my fuel economy. but as we see here, there is a pretty decent gap between what people with the same car get mpg-wise. and the numbers that i looked up were for the 2004 (05 data isn't available).

so if your friend is getting 24mpg, good for him. that's a decent amount more than i am, but its hard to make substantial claims based off of 1 person's numbers. there are people here that regularly get in the 21-23mpg, which isn't that far off from 24.

without going to a honda forum and polling all the s2000 owners, i'm just going to base my thoughts off the epa numbers, since they are a controlled variable across all makes and models...or maybe i'm just over thinking it

and i guess that is a good point, handling is comparable between the 2, but the 8 doesn't beat you up driving it (a positive imo).

and ok, i'll give you that the "base" model rx8 is the auto, if we are going off of cheapest=base. but i think the rx8 is divided into 2 lines both of which have base models (AT and MT). so the only difference between the MT and s2k is leather standard. but the MT8 is still cheaper than the s2k with leather. and a fully loaded mt8 is only slightly more than an s2k (going off of msrp prices). and personally, i'd rather have a fully loaded car for ~34k than a base model for ~33k. but that i definately can't generalize to everyone.

so, to me, the only major difference between the 2 is the s2k is a 2seater convertible and the 8 is a 4seater hard top, and i think that is a strong deciding factor between the 2. but again, thats just my opinion.

both are great cars, but imo, the 8 is a much better value, but i guess the 2 are aimed at slightly different markets.

 

Regarding MPG, it's important to keep in mind that those are just EPA estimates; always have been, and probably always will be. I just read an article in yesterday's newspaper stating that the EPA is being called on the carpet for inaccurate (too optimistic) fuel mileage ratings across the board. The EPA is accused of using 20-year old techniques that just don't seem to work well enough with today's cars. The article stated that the EPA gives too much weight to dyno testing and not enough to actual everyday-type driving.

Given that so many folks seem to complain more about coming up short on mileage rather than meeting or exceeding the estimates, I'm inclined to agree.

1.3L

 

I've hit EPA pretty consistently in every car I've owned, so it will be interesting to see what kind of results I get from the 8. I get 23/28 out of my Miata--just like the window sticker says.

 

Anyone can bargin for a car, or the sticker price. Go to Mazda's website and a RX8 with 6 speed, no other options is listed at 27 grand(http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/conf...=RX8&zip=63123). The Shinka edition is listed at 33 grand. As Ike said a car is only worth what people are willing to pay.

 

Why do people compare the S2k to the 8? I would think the MS Miata would be a better comparision for the S2k. I swapped my miata for the 8 because of the practicality of a 4 seater for a family, and would not have considered the S2k an option. Just my 2 cents

 

Anyone that is concerned about MPG should not buy a sports car ... period!

The 8 at that price is only bang for the buck if it is a manual. If it is an A/T it would not be worth it.

 

Wasn't my idea. Some magazine (Motor Trend, Car & Driver, R & T?) did a comparison between the RX-8, S2000 and the 350Z and the RX-8 came out on top. All 3 have significant differences. And simularities.

1.3L

 

I remember reading that review before getting the rx8...rx8 came out on top despite being the slowest of the 3.

 

Ah, this week's "RX-8 vs. S2000" thread on RX8club.com. Why is it that there is never such a thread on S2ki.com? Why is it, also, that people who have never, or almost never, driven the S2000, and who obviously don't value what the S2000 has that the RX-8 doesn't, make absolute statements about what car is "worth" what?

Come on, folks. These are two very, very different cars, in so many ways. Comparing them at all is silly, IMO, but comparing the base RX-8 with an S2000, and pretending that anybody with a brain pays as much as that advertisement is trying to get someone to pay for an S2000, is just silly.

As it happens, I own both, so I actually have driven both a great deal. In reality, the RX-8, equipped similarly to the S2000, is perhaps $5,000 less than the S2000, not $10,000 less.

Why anyone cares about "prestige," rather than what the respective cars do, is beyond me, but whatever.

Ah, gas mileage, for whatever that's worth to someone who can do the math to figure out how much that difference really is, in the context of buying and owning these cars.... For the record, I get 25mpg in commuter driving in my S2000, about 30mpg or a bit over on pure highway driving. That's about 9mpg on both counts better than we get with the RX-8. These are real numbers, over many thousands of miles of driving, keeping careful track. Our RX-8 gets significantly worse gas mileage than our Odyssey minivan, in identical driving.

There is no reason to think that the S2000 engine, driven the same way as an RX-8, would not last essentially forever. It is a Honda, which is better known for reliability and durability than Mazda.

But, in the end, what a car is worth is what someone is willing to pay for it. Different folks value different things. When I was looking for a car a year ago, my requirements were simple--two-seat convertible, with nice looks (by my tastes) and excellent performance. The S2000 is by far the best value out there meeting those criteria, IMO. When my wife was looking for a car a few months later, her criteria also were simple, but very different--four seats, four doors, nice looks, nice performance, and comfortable. Since we had owned three Mazdas in the past, including two rotary engine cars, the RX-8 was an easy choice for her.

 

Gee, after all that I certainly hope you feel better :D

But as I mentioned previously, it was Motor Trend Magazine that established the comparison, not me. So ask them. Or read their online article:

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0403_three/

1.3L

 

It's only the 100th time on this board I've posted the same message, so whatever.

Yes, Motor Trend did a comparison, which was silly (they downgraded the S2000 for things it was not meant to be, which is just as illogical as if they had downgraded the RX-8 for not being a convertible; talk about comparing apples and oranges), but this thread was started with the question of whether the S2000 was "worth it." All I say in these weekly RX-8 vs. S2000 threads on this board is that they are different cars; if you want a two seat roadster, sure it's worth it; if you want a four door coupe, no amount for the S2000 is worth it. Different strokes....

 

Sure there are differences but some folks, unlike you, have learned to look beyond the obvious. You seem to assume that everyone can afford to buy 2 or more cars to fill the position of one. Most folks have to compromise, hence, the comparisons you loath. Glad you can afford not to compromise. Don't criticize those who, for economic reasons, have to buy something that has a little broader utility.

1.3L

 

If I have said anything to criticize someone for buying an RX-8, I apologize, and I would appreciate being shown where I did that.

Since I don't think I did... I don't understand the reference to "looking beyond the obvious." I don't understand where you think I "assumed that everyone can afford to buy 2 or more cars to fill the position of one." or even that I have done that (which I have not, as I made clear--the S2000 is my daily driver; the RX-8 is my wife's). There's nothing wrong with compromise; I did it for 15 years, driving a Toyota Celica, while we had small kids. Again, where did I criticize people "who, for economic reasons, have to buy something that has a little broader utility?" Heck, my wife bought one; why would I criticize the purchase of an RX-8? If we were rich, we certainly would have bought a different car (two different cars, actually); life's full of compromises.

Yeah, I didn't do any of that, of course. What I did criticize is those who make a blanket statement that one car or another "isn't worth it." That's just dumb. It's fine to say it's not worth it to you, for whatever reason; the reason doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, however, that it is worth it to others, obviously, so a blanket statement that it isn't worth it makes no sense.

Before you start making up stupid ways I am supposed to have criticized folks, kindly read my posts, which clearly take issue only with those who insist on comparing, on some sort of absolute basis, two cars designed, built and marketed to largely different audiences, and then state or imply that one of them "isn't worth it."

 

I disagree that the rx8 and s2000 were marketed for completely different audiences. Just about the only difference is that the s2000 is a 2 seater and a convertible...that's pretty much it, other then that they're pretty much the same thing...240hp high revving sports cars in the 30-35k range. If convertible 2 seater places it in a completely different market then why aren't you comparing a 911 convert. with the s2000???

I think it's completely fair to compare these two cars, for SOME people 2 seaters are out of the question...but if you don't care if it's a 2 or 4 seater then these two cars are very similar in almost every category. The majority of people buying an rx8 are not buying it because it's a family car...those two weird doors in the back are not the reason I bought it, they're cool but if they didn't exist I still would of gotten the car.

If you're looking for a sporty car in the range of $25k-35k, there's no reason not to compare an s2000, rx8, 325, 350z, g35 coupe, etc etc....Wether you like it or not all these cars are comparable and some being 2 seaters and others for doesn't make it rediculous to compare.


Pizza hut and Dominos can't be compared because the crust at pizza hut is thicker right? It should be illegal to compare a 330 convertible with a 330Ci too right? One is a convertible after all...must be marketed for a completely different audience.

 

That's a pretty huge difference, isn't it?

Odd question; there are many ways to compare cars, but comparing a car that costs $80,000 with one that costs $30,000 is even odder than compaing a four seat coupe with a roadster.

Of course it's "fair," but it's an odd exercise. Not one S2000 owner in 50 seriously considered an RX-8, and I suspect that the reverse also is true, since the clear majority of RX-8 owners aren't even enthusiasts.

And how many people who might consider either of these cars really "don't care if it's a 2 or 4 seater?"

I would be surprised, very surprised, if the majority of people buying an RX-8 were not heavily influenced by the four doors and extra room and comfort. As I said, different strokes. Neither car is "better" than the other; just different.

Certainly, some people don't care, but the vast majority do.

Well, gee, no two cars are COMPLETELY different. Considering how rarely the RX-8 is mentioned on the S2000 group, certainly few S2000 owners considered it other than those looking only from the point of view of an autocross car, after the S2000 was bumped up to Stock A.

If you think that an RX-8 and an S2000 are as alike as a Pizza Hut pizza and a Dominos pizza, you've never driven an S2000.