Update: I test drove anothe 2005 tonight.

The shifter felt much much better than the last RX-8's I drove. Probably because the one is the previous 8 was beat on by the young (17 year old) owner.

The steering wasn't as tight (not enough weight to the steering feel); I imagine this was because this RX-8 still had winter tires on and the other one had summers.

Only problem with my test drive? There was a huge SNOW STORM! I couldn't even take it past 4kRPMS! I did have fun slipping and sliding all around. Without DSC the car is a blast to drive in the snow.

RX-8 sellers realllllllyyyy seem desperate to sell. I emailed a guy selling his 8 last week and he called me every day begging me to test drive his car. Tonight he called me again and said he would pass by my place so I could test drive it; I told him it was snowing but he said he didn't care and he wants to sell it as soon as possible! LOL

 

^thats good, if the car is good and he's desperate, get some cash and you can bargain the hell out of him

 

an option that can easily be turned off...I'd still keep your eyes open for a GT, reguardless. They extra 60-80lbs is more than worth it in the "posh" factor

and yet this doesn't surprise me, as it coinsides with my aforementioned post. People that rush an 8 purchase only to find it subpar by the average street-racing-joe standard. Expensive mistake, and they very quickly find out that the 8's depriciation almost seems like it compounds daily.

Heck, i'm goin to test drive a MS3 today just to see what all the hustle-bustle's about...and our only MS dealer around here has ONE MS3, and...get this...SIX 8's. They just aren't flying off the shelves.

You could use that to your advantage though... If you decide the 8 is for you, dealers are MORE than aware that the 8's aren't moving. Rebates are through the roof right now, and i wouldn't be too surprised to see an offer for under $5K PLUS recognized as long as your willing to walk and wait for a call.

At any rate, good luck with your search, bro. It's our first sunny day in a week, with a high of 58. Time for a quick wash!

 

You think Gas Mileage is bad in the S2000? I kept mine in VTEC land and still averaged in the mid 20s and got in the 30s on highway trips.

My RX-8 besides never starting averages about 13 - 16 mpg. Some are better than others and it depends on which flash you are on and how you drive it. I try to keep my RX-8 below 6k when shifting but the gas mileage got even worse after the last flash which was supposed engine recall flash.

I am not trying to steer you one way or another but keep in mind that the S2k had a smaller gas tank and goes further on a full tank.

Dean

 

Dean2900,
Why didn't you go back to the S2000 after experiencing gas mileage that was half as bad in the 8? I can't believe the Honda netted you 30+ MPGs on the highway ...the thing's rated at 25, I believe.

 

I always get 30+ miles per gallon on the highway with my S2000, even with the A/C on. It's quite common. I drove the car down to Thunderhill last summer for a couple of track days; averaged 31mpg on the 1400 mile trip (not including the 9mpg I got while driving on the track ).

 

You must've had the cruise set on 60 or below.

What I wouldn't give to have my 8 return 30 mpg on the highway. (freakin' pipedream, right?) Hell, I'd take 25 as long the average speed can be somewhere in the 78ish range.

 

No cruise, and I generally drive at the speed limit (meaning 65 - 70 mph for the vast majority of the time).

 

I have noticed 4 cylinder Hondas seem to be pretty fuel efficient. My old Integra GS-R beat EPA highway going 75+.

I'd be happy if I could get 25MPG on the highway going 75MPH.

 

My guess is that he simply didn't actually *have* an RX-8 to sell you.

 

It netted me over 30 mpg on the highway on two trips. Both times it was raining and I kept it out of VTEC range.

The S2000 and RX-8 are apples to oranges which most people dont get but gas mileage wise, the S2000 is much better no contest.

 

I dont understand why this seems to be such a defensive board. I owned a S2000 for 3 years and a RX-8 for 3 years and I have people on this board telling me I couldnt get 30 mpg on the highway. Come on guys. Why do you tell me I am lying about the 30mpg on the highway?

I could get in the high 20s keeping it between 6k-9k most of the times. That car got amazing gas mileage for the power it produces it the redlines area.

I cannot comment on the 04 and beyond though when they downed the VTEC from 9k to 8k and added more low end torque.

Dean

 

You must of had a an exceptional car. Seriously.

 

I think no matter how you cut it the S2000 is far better mpg wise then the RX. The trade magazines support this view. The best I have gotten with the RX on the highway has been 22 and 18 to 19 is more average. So lets say at best the S gets 30 and it averages around 27, which appears realistic. Your still looking at 8 to 10 mpg better then the RX. I think it is time we accept reality and acknowledge that the rotary is an inefficient engine compared to a piston engine. Now don't get all defensive I love the RX but a brown shoe is a brown shoe. The rotary has other advantages but thermal efficiency is not one of them.

 

It seems to me Mazda is very liberal with the mileage ratings... My girlfriend has a Mazda 3 2.0L which is rated at 8.5L/100km (33mpg) in the city and 6.2L/100km (46mpg) on the highway.

It has a 55L tank, and after driving ~400km the gas light turns on... Repeatedly. And more than half of those 200km are driven on the highway. Doing the math, and even assuming the tank can last until 500km, that's only 11L/100km (21mpg)!!! Worse than the city rating... And no, the car isn't driven hard at all. Rarely go above 4500rpm.

 

Mazda is very liberal on the HP estimates also.

I don't think it would have changed the market if Mazda would have stated the correct HP from the beginning. However, it just looks bad when a car has overstated the horsepower. It will give a car a bad reputation to some people because all they remember is the horsepower not being what was stated.

 

The S2000 and RX-8 are apples to oranges which most people dont get but gas mileage wise, the S2000 is much better no contest.QUOTE:


The two cars are direct competitors as is the Z350 in the sportscar segment. Most people shop all three when looking for a sportscar in this price range. The rx8 has a lower MSRP, lower insurance,runs fine on regular, and more practicle for road trips and dailey driver. These features make up for any extra gas savings on the s2000. I get 22-24 on the highway 17-18 in the the city. I don't think the s2000 has any real overall cost advantage to the rx8. The ragtop feature is nice but so is the backseat and rotary in the 8. The 2 cars are similar in alot of ways as far as engine rpm, handling and power. The rx being alittle heavier with alittle less hp. Both are well balanced get the job done sportscars. They are apples to apples in more ways than not.

 

I think the S2000 is an attractive car (i.e. performance specs, handling, response to mods, looks are ok too), but everytime I pass one on the road it looks like the driver is SO uncomfortable and it looks like they had to be fitted in the car with a shoe horn. I mean the car is so small that it is just not feasible for me to own one. I'm only 5'10" but could not deal with the lack of interior room.

 

Looks like a fun car to me.

 

I'm 6'2" tall, and I fit much, much better in our S2000 than in our RX-8. Fact.

Perhaps my favorite thing about all these "S2000 vs. RX-8" threads on this board (they are exceedingly rare on the S2000 board) is the way RX-8 owners impute their own set of preferences into some kind of absolute value. For instance, stating that the utility of a back seat trumps the fun of a ragtop. Folks, these are utterly different virtues; if you want a four-seater, you aren't even looking at an S2000; if you want a convertible, I hope you're not looking at an RX-8.

 

I'm 5'11'' 200lbs wide shouldered. S2000 is too cramped for me, rx8 is perfect. Far as trumping, depends on the weather for the rag top, and if you travel light. Like I said many people who want a sportscar look at all three. If convertible is a must than obviously the rx8 is out of the picture. I drive a motorcycle so convertibles do not excite me. I chose the rx8 because it suited me better than the s2000. The rx8 is most often compared to the z350. But i've seen it compared to the S2000 on other forums, concerning handling and engine characteristics and on the track. Ragtop excluded, I think you own two of the same kind of car. The Rx8 is just more practicle to own.

 

Well, that's quite an exclusion! During our bad weather (October through May), I actually drive the RX-8 more than the S2000. The RX-8 is far more practical, especially in cold, wet weather. The S2000 is fine in that weather, but I feel slightly more comfortable (from a safety standpoint) driving a larger car, with a hard top.

Both cars are fun, low-torque cars, but they feel completely different. I like the elemental nature of my S2000; for pure driving pleasure, I vastly prefer it. And I'm a convertible guy. For a long drive in decent weather, I would take the S2000 in a heartbeat, over the RX-8, when space isn't an issue (we've owned the RX-8 for over two years, and never, even once, used a full tank of gas on the highway; I've driven as far as 700 miles in one day in my S2000, and enjoyed every mile of it).

But that's really my point--which car is "better" is entirely a function of what is important to the buyer. There's nothing wrong with comparing these two cars (well, other than the fact that someone on this board feels the compulsion to do so with ridiculous frequency), but it is remarkably silly to pronounce one car objectively "better" than the other, based on the subjective preferences of the poster.

 

I'll drink to that.

 

Well said!

 

FYI I bought a 2003 S2000 with 8000 miles on it

I WILL be adding a 2006 RX-8 soon though!