alfy28

any one selling popcorn btw?

HolyCross05

$5 says the granny on the S2000 beats Andretti on the 8.

shaolin

And as we all know...we always leave the spare tire in the trunk when doing any type of competitive driving

CosmosMpower

Too bad that test wasn't a fun/driving performance test. S2000 beat the 8 in acceleration, braking, and handling. They did not like the harsher ride quality for a daily driver but the performance bested the 8.

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.

DailyDriver2k5

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.

9291150

Wasn't referring to you, I agree with much of what you've said. The s2k has slightly better handling stats as it should; double wishbones at all 4 corners, stiffer spring rates, lighter weight. It may be a soft top, but it was designed that way from the onset so its plenty stiff. My point is the 4 passenger 8 performs nearly as well overall, better in some areas, without the stiff ride. Both cars a product of proper chassis layout and tuning.

9291150

Good points. A fast driver wanting to place well will usually pick an established car, the s2k has been at it a while. More s2k guys will race them compared to your average RX8 buyer, and I betcha you're more likely to find seasoned drivers sitting in s2k's. So yes, SCCA results are driver dependant. Still, I think the most accomplished drivers should be faster in a s2k than an 8. For the rest of us, hell, I was simply happy when I could beat some vettes and stangs and run consistent times in my old Miata.

FRANCES

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.

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!

Raptor2k

I ran out

BlueSky

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.

turbodiesel

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.

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"

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

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.

alfy28

this thread makes me cry irl. when will the war between the s2k and 8 stop. even makes baby smurf cry.

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.

turbodiesel

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"

turbodiesel

Can somebody tell me why the hell there are so many s2k fanboi's posting and registered on this forum?

I guess as the old saying goes: "If you can't beat'em join'em"

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.

turbodiesel

I don't care what the flip you own. You are still an s2k fanboi. Nuffsaid.

shaolin

probably because they're not fanboys at all...only rx-8 enthusiasts who accept facts about the s2k.

turbodiesel

Good, then they and you will accept the fact that the s2k is "just a 4-banger"

HolyCross05

I'll accept the fact that it's a "4 banger" if you accept that fact that you're dumb and a fanboi. Deal or no deal?