Test drove an S2000 today (RX8 more fun for sure)
#177
Herrroooo Rarrra
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Driver skill is the most important variable. Just for drama imagine some 90 year old lady vs Mario Andretti. You did say "all walks of life" Now can you get that through your thick skull?
#178
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Wrong somebody on here posted the numbers a while back. They put the 8 on a scale and found it would be 50:50 with the spare tire. Do a search.
#179
1935 lbs. FTW!
Originally Posted by 9291150
You mean this comprehensive test actually comparing the two cars in question? This test from a leading publication that actually ran both cars on the same day, same conditions, same testers, etc.?? This test that awarded the 8 first place???
Nah, much better analysis can be derived from some of the geniuses on here.
Nah, much better analysis can be derived from some of the geniuses on here.
#180
Hello, one if my first posts here. As not to inflame the situation but maybe put some discussion into the thread, i have been racing autocross for a few seasons now. The S2k started life in B Stock, but was found to be too fast there if I remember correctly. You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but from all the friends that I have that race the S2k, we found it is easier to set up for Stock than my 8 out of the box while keeping it in stock catagory, and with a few more years under its belt, there is more corporate knowledge of how to drive this car fast and set it up. This is not to say that the 8 is better or worse, just to clarify the racing situation.
#181
Shaloin.......i totally understand you owned both vehicles, and your in SCCA. But IMO you give to much credit to the SCCA results. There just that "results". Just like C&D, R&T,Motortrend...you call it mag racing when somebody brings out stats from these mags, but what are you doing when you praise and swear by the SCCA results? How did SCCA get these results, by drivers who had to drive the vehicles mentioned .Aren't you mag racing too, but your praise is more focused on track results....
I like the S2000 like the next, i like my RX-8, yes the enthusiast at heart who really knows about cars, knows that the S2000 is more of a purist car than the 8, or at least they should know. That comment about the S2000 pulling Consistent mid 5 sec , is a bunch of crap. S2000 owners, car testers, enthusiast alike know the S2000 is one of the hardest cars to launch out there . Anything under a 7.5k rpm launch(like the 8) will net you low to high 6 sec 0-60 runs. Not only is this real, but magazines from all around the world , the ones mentioned above , Sports car international, euro cars, etc all mention in some form or way that the S2000 is a difficult car to launch. From analysing data from these credible sources, i have seen S2000 get as low as a 5.5 as high as 8.xx sec launches when tested for the 0-60 mph run.
And that 5.5 sec run, which i believe C&D got that time, possibly R&T, even said to get that time it was almost borderline "ABUSE". It was no hop in the car rev to 3500 rpm and drop the clutch,punch the gas and off you go to achive that time. So that consistent 5.5 0-60 is bogus!
Then again the S2000 wasn't made for the 1/4 mile lifestyle thats where a good Camaro, Mustang, or GTO comes into the picture.
I like the S2000 like the next, i like my RX-8, yes the enthusiast at heart who really knows about cars, knows that the S2000 is more of a purist car than the 8, or at least they should know. That comment about the S2000 pulling Consistent mid 5 sec , is a bunch of crap. S2000 owners, car testers, enthusiast alike know the S2000 is one of the hardest cars to launch out there . Anything under a 7.5k rpm launch(like the 8) will net you low to high 6 sec 0-60 runs. Not only is this real, but magazines from all around the world , the ones mentioned above , Sports car international, euro cars, etc all mention in some form or way that the S2000 is a difficult car to launch. From analysing data from these credible sources, i have seen S2000 get as low as a 5.5 as high as 8.xx sec launches when tested for the 0-60 mph run.
And that 5.5 sec run, which i believe C&D got that time, possibly R&T, even said to get that time it was almost borderline "ABUSE". It was no hop in the car rev to 3500 rpm and drop the clutch,punch the gas and off you go to achive that time. So that consistent 5.5 0-60 is bogus!
Then again the S2000 wasn't made for the 1/4 mile lifestyle thats where a good Camaro, Mustang, or GTO comes into the picture.
#182
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shaolin
I never proclaimed to be a genius and I never said one caf was better than the other, but I did say that when it comes to comparing handling we need quantitative results and not heresay...matter of fact that article gave the handling nod to the s2k.
the fact that it gave the 8 first place is purely from a subjective point of view. not that I disagree or agree with their placement, but the overall placement was more of their opinion on the cars as a whole. the 8 just does everything well, where the z and the s2k accelled in other areas...
as I said I'm no genius, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that the s2k is a better handling car than an 8...not a better all around car necessarily, just a better handler. that's all...
the fact that it gave the 8 first place is purely from a subjective point of view. not that I disagree or agree with their placement, but the overall placement was more of their opinion on the cars as a whole. the 8 just does everything well, where the z and the s2k accelled in other areas...
as I said I'm no genius, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that the s2k is a better handling car than an 8...not a better all around car necessarily, just a better handler. that's all...
#183
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FRANCES
Hello, one if my first posts here. As not to inflame the situation but maybe put some discussion into the thread, i have been racing autocross for a few seasons now. The S2k started life in B Stock, but was found to be too fast there if I remember correctly. You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but from all the friends that I have that race the S2k, we found it is easier to set up for Stock than my 8 out of the box while keeping it in stock catagory, and with a few more years under its belt, there is more corporate knowledge of how to drive this car fast and set it up. This is not to say that the 8 is better or worse, just to clarify the racing situation.
#184
Your so right. The fastest guy I've seen in a while drives an SRT-4 in D stock and there are prepared cars that can't keep up with his times. But with similar drivers in cars set up for street driving I belief that these cars are very evenly matched. The toe in my buddy uses to go fast in his S2k makes it handle like a runaway shoping cart on the street until we align it.
#185
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Quote from ike: "Handling is not something that can be defined by numbers like weight ditribution, CG, or polar yaw moment, it's something you feel. "
Subjective B.S. Oh hell yeah my F250 "feels" like it corners better than the 8 especially with them stiff shocks no body roll whatsoever.
Quote from ike: "Neither is the RX-8 there sparky, it's closer to 51/49 than it is 50/50. "
Wrong somebody on here posted the numbers a while back. They put the 8 on a scale and found it would be 50:50 with the spare tire. Do a search.
Subjective B.S. Oh hell yeah my F250 "feels" like it corners better than the 8 especially with them stiff shocks no body roll whatsoever.
Quote from ike: "Neither is the RX-8 there sparky, it's closer to 51/49 than it is 50/50. "
Wrong somebody on here posted the numbers a while back. They put the 8 on a scale and found it would be 50:50 with the spare tire. Do a search.
Why would I do a search, it's well known that the RX-8 is closer to 51/49. Some dude putting his car on a scale isn't going to change that fact. You completely missed the point of my "feel" comment.
Since a lower polar yaw moment and 50/50 weight balance means a car will handle better than the RX-8 handles better than an Elise right? How about nearly every Ferrari or Porsche ever made? Omgzorz, teh RX-8 can tame em in teh twistehz!!!!11!
#187
I don't know if someone has already posted this but as soon as the driver buckles in the RX-8's weight is skewed slightly rear-ward, more like 49/51 front/rear. I read this in Car and Driver.
#188
Originally Posted by Ike
Why would I do a search, it's well known that the RX-8 is closer to 51/49. Some dude putting his car on a scale isn't going to change that fact. You completely missed the point of my "feel" comment.
Since a lower polar yaw moment and 50/50 weight balance means a car will handle better than the RX-8 handles better than an Elise right? How about nearly every Ferrari or Porsche ever made? Omgzorz, teh RX-8 can tame em in teh twistehz!!!!11!
Since a lower polar yaw moment and 50/50 weight balance means a car will handle better than the RX-8 handles better than an Elise right? How about nearly every Ferrari or Porsche ever made? Omgzorz, teh RX-8 can tame em in teh twistehz!!!!11!
1. Why are you comparing ferraris, porsches, elise to the 8 and s2k??
2. This thread was never about those other cars, please read the original posters topic before making stupid comments.
#189
Just as a slap in the face to all the s2k fanboi's posting and lurking on this forum the s2k is and always will be a "4 banger" not too glamorous IMHO.
Oh and I don't care how much HP it makes either because it is still just a "4 banger"
Oh and I don't care how much HP it makes either because it is still just a "4 banger"
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-08-2006 at 03:16 PM.
#190
Herrroooo Rarrra
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Just as a slap in the face to all the s2k fanboi's posting and lurking on this forum the s2k is and always will be a "4 banger" not too glamorous IMHO.
Oh and I don't care how much HP it makes either because it is still just a "4 banger"
Oh and I don't care how much HP it makes either because it is still just a "4 banger"
That "4 banger" gets better mileage and will destroy your car in any kind of race 7 days a week.
P.S. You're dumb
#191
Originally Posted by HolyCross05
That "4 banger" gets better mileage and will destroy your car in any kind of race 7 days a week.
P.S. You're dumb
P.S. You're dumb
OOOOOYEEEEEEEAAWWHH!! Looks l hurt someones feelings and struck a chord about a sensitive issue.
1. Nobody cares about mpg for sports/track car.
2. No it wont 7 days a week. There are better 8 times recorded as already discussed.
3. In the end it is still "just a 4-banger" nothing glamorous about it.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-08-2006 at 04:49 PM.
#193
dailydriver2k5 I think you missed the point...when I say the s2k is usually an average of 3 to 5 seconds faster I'm talking solo ii not quarter mile or 0 to 60...please read before posting. by the way scca results ae only being used here because they're more real world than mags...but even mags consistently stack the odds in favor of the s2k...I'm just trying to be more objective in where e get our info.
and turbodiesel your arguments about a 4 banger make you look more ridiculous...the rx-8 has been slower in every "magazine" and average solo ii times behind. the elise/exige have a 4 banger as well...you gonna try to say their engines are laughable?
this coming from a guy who has a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary that struggles to make 200 whp with a work efficiency of 2.6l and a volumetric efficiency arguably a 3.9l that struggles to get 15 mpg with puny comparable output.
I love rotaries by the way, but your arguments continue down the path of absurd.
and turbodiesel your arguments about a 4 banger make you look more ridiculous...the rx-8 has been slower in every "magazine" and average solo ii times behind. the elise/exige have a 4 banger as well...you gonna try to say their engines are laughable?
this coming from a guy who has a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary that struggles to make 200 whp with a work efficiency of 2.6l and a volumetric efficiency arguably a 3.9l that struggles to get 15 mpg with puny comparable output.
I love rotaries by the way, but your arguments continue down the path of absurd.
#194
Originally Posted by shaolin
dailydriver2k5 I think you missed the point...when I say the s2k is usually an average of 3 to 5 seconds faster I'm talking solo ii not quarter mile or 0 to 60...please read before posting. by the way scca results ae only being used here because they're more real world than mags...but even mags consistently stack the odds in favor of the s2k...I'm just trying to be more objective in where e get our info.
and turbodiesel your arguments about a 4 banger make you look more ridiculous...the rx-8 has been slower in every "magazine" and average solo ii times behind. the elise/exige have a 4 banger as well...you gonna try to say their engines are laughable?
this coming from a guy who has a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary that struggles to make 200 whp with a work efficiency of 2.6l and a volumetric efficiency arguably a 3.9l that struggles to get 15 mpg with puny comparable output.
I love rotaries by the way, but your arguments continue down the path of absurd.
and turbodiesel your arguments about a 4 banger make you look more ridiculous...the rx-8 has been slower in every "magazine" and average solo ii times behind. the elise/exige have a 4 banger as well...you gonna try to say their engines are laughable?
this coming from a guy who has a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary that struggles to make 200 whp with a work efficiency of 2.6l and a volumetric efficiency arguably a 3.9l that struggles to get 15 mpg with puny comparable output.
I love rotaries by the way, but your arguments continue down the path of absurd.
OOOOOYEEEOOOWWW!!!
Struck another sensitive s2k fanboi down.
1. You're argument doesn't hold. Sorry my friend but all "4-bangers" are POS and not very glamorous.
2. Say anything you want to about a rotary it is still more glamorous than a "4-banger"
#196
Herrroooo Rarrra
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
OOOOOYEEEEEEEAAWWHH!! Looks l hurt someones feelings and struck a chord about a sensitive issue.
1. Nobody cares about mpg for sports/track car.
2. No it wont 7 days a week. There are better 8 times recorded as already discussed.
3. In the end it is still "just a 4-banger" nothing glamorous about it.
1. Nobody cares about mpg for sports/track car.
2. No it wont 7 days a week. There are better 8 times recorded as already discussed.
3. In the end it is still "just a 4-banger" nothing glamorous about it.
I'm actually an RX-8 owner so no feelings hurt here buddy. I am getting a kick at watching fanbois like you get owned though.
#197
Originally Posted by HolyCross05
I'm actually an RX-8 owner so no feelings hurt here buddy. I am getting a kick at watching fanbois like you get owned though.
#199
Originally Posted by shaolin
probably because they're not fanboys at all...only rx-8 enthusiasts who accept facts about the s2k.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-08-2006 at 05:38 PM.
#200
Herrroooo Rarrra
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbodiesel
Good, then you will accept the fact that the s2k is "just a 4-banger"