# Track video S2000 vs RX8



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Two decent videos.

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=42747


----------



## elbert (Mar 28, 2002)

Playing armchair quarterback, I don't think the S2k driver was as good as the RX8 driver. At the very least he should learn how to properly heel-and-toe and revmatch...he was using the clutch to match revs :tsk:


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

elbert said:


> At the very least he should learn how to properly heel-and-toe and revmatch...he was using the clutch to match revs :tsk:


I noticed that. I cringed as I hear the revs creep up mid-corner. 

BTW, I got the center cap. Thanks! :thumbup: Too bad it's so damn cold and there are no more autox's. :thumbdwn: :thumbdwn: The RK's are safely stored for the winter. :bigpimp:


----------



## elbert (Mar 28, 2002)

rumratt said:


> BTW, I got the center cap. Thanks! :thumbup: Too bad it's so damn cold and there are no more autox's. :thumbdwn: :thumbdwn: The RK's are safely stored for the winter. :bigpimp:


Good, I would have been sick to my stomach if you didn't get the cap (the total shipping to receive and send it cost as much as the cap itself  ). I'm glad the wheels were adopted by a good home.


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

yeah the rx-8 driver was better, but the s2k was the superior machine. if the s2k driver didn't slow down, the rx-8 would not have passed.

enjoyed watching the flames from the rx-8 exhaust... the rotary trademark. that, and eating oil like it were a box of krispy creams.

great videos... thanks :thumbup:


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

wheel-man said:


> enjoyed watching the flames from the rx-8 exhaust... the rotary trademark. that, and eating oil like it were a box of krispy creams.


They're designed to burn oil. It's how they get their rotor coolin', apex seal lubricatin' on.

Uh, shooting flames is a rotary trademark? 

The S2000 is a superior machine? :rofl:

JohnV 
95 M3 "stock"


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

SoloII///M said:


> Uh, shooting flames is a rotary trademark?
> 
> The S2000 is a superior machine? :rofl:


seems everytime i see a racing rotary, there are flames... maybe a little liscense on my part. 

thinks the rx-8 is better kit for the track? i don't know...


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

wheel-man said:


> seems everytime i see a racing rotary, there are flames... maybe a little liscense on my part.
> 
> thinks the rx-8 is better kit for the track? i don't know...


Lots of race cars do that. Running rich + no cats = flames. 

I guess it depends on how you define "better."

John V


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

wheel-man said:


> that, and eating oil like it were a box of krispy creams.


In approximately 4,500 miles of stop and go traffic, with an occasional autoc here and there , and 1,300 freeway cruising miles, my RX-8 has eaten exactly one quart of oil outside of two oil changes (and it wasn't low at either change). Not everyone is seeing such low levels of oil consumption though. :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> Lots of race cars do that. Running rich + no cats = flames.
> 
> I guess it depends on how you define "better."
> 
> John V


Neither of them were race cars, though. There were a lot of reports of flame throwing with the earlier ECU calibrations. Now, not so much. Some of the aftermarket exhausts are still a bit prone to it.

Better? Hmm... One is better for crusing topless. The other is better everywhere else.


----------



## JamesSpot (Mar 4, 2003)

*Evenly matched cars*

Mazda RX8: 3029 lbs, 238 Hp @ 8500 RPM, 159 ft-lbs T @ 5500 RPM
Honda S2000: 2835 lbs, 240 Hp @ 7800 RPM, 162 ft-lbs T @ 6500 RPM

My feel is that the RX-8 driver was getting all out of his car while the S2000 had more to go. The Honda four cylinder is also a proven engine that would be more reliable in the long run.

For the same money, the Nissan Z car 6 cylinder has 287 Hp @ 6200 RPM and 274 ft-lbs @ 4800 RPM, but in a heavier (3815 lb) car. The average driver would be all over the first two cars with this torque advantage on a track.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JamesSpot said:


> Mazda RX8: 3029 lbs, 238 Hp @ 8500 RPM, 159 ft-lbs T @ 5500 RPM
> Honda S2000: 2835 lbs, 240 Hp @ 7800 RPM, 162 ft-lbs T @ 6500 RPM
> 
> My feel is that the RX-8 driver was getting all out of his car while the S2000 had more to go. The Honda four cylinder is also a proven engine that would be more reliable in the long run.
> ...


A couple of things...

First, the published curb weight of the RX-8 is in error. Mine weighs significantly less than that and all the others that I've heard of are lower than that as well. That said, in autocross trim at least, the S2000 weighs less than the above listed weight as well.

My gut feeling is that the drivers of both cars were leaving a lot of their cars' potentials at home and any conclusions drawn from these videos are suspect at best. The Renesis is a new engine, but the reliability track records of Mazda's NA two rotor street engines has been quite good. The reliability record of the RX-8 drivetrains from the cluth to the dif has been less than stellar thus far in cars that see a lot of drag strip usage, but the S2000s have seen similar issues (and the S2000s frequently break halfshafts as well). S2000s that are tracked and/or autocrossed heavily also have some front suspension durability issues. Mazda reliability in this area? Unknown at this point. Overall, today, I wouldn't feel any safer or more at risk with one than the other.

The 350Z has more power/torque, yes...but not enough to truly compensate for it's massive heft in anything other than a drag race. It also has severe front camber limitations that hold it back from being able to fully exploit its strengths.

Oh, and the "average driver" doesn't know how to drive anyway...


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

JamesSpot said:


> Mazda RX8: 3029 lbs, 238 Hp @ 8500 RPM, 159 ft-lbs T @ 5500 RPM
> Honda S2000: 2835 lbs, 240 Hp @ 7800 RPM, 162 ft-lbs T @ 6500 RPM
> 
> My feel is that the RX-8 driver was getting all out of his car while the S2000 had more to go. The Honda four cylinder is also a proven engine that would be more reliable in the long run.
> ...


As clyde mentioned, your RX-8 curb weight is off. Your S2000 weight is as well, but your 350Z curb weight is WAY off. There was a sub 3100lb (stock) 350Z at Nats this year. I think the number you quoted was a Z Roadster with a dead guy (or two) in the trunk.

Anyway, there's more to the equation than just torque to curb weight or power to curb weight. Suspension geometry plays into it as does handling balance. I think the average driver would be faster in an RX-8 than in an S2000 (stock for stock) because of the unforgiving nature of the S2000's handling at speed. The 350Z is the governor of the state of understeer.

I'm not sure the S2000's reliability is any more proven than the RX-8s. History has shown that NA peripheral exhaust / side intake rotaries easily last over 200k miles with proper maintenance (like any car). The side exhaust ports will only improve the rotary's reliability because the previous weak link was apex seal wear. Mazda made other apex seal improvements for this motor over the earlier designs - namely the apex seals are lighter, so they require less spring tension, and so they will wear out more slowly. The design is certainly less stressed than the 2.0L Honda.

Wow, I love bench racing


----------



## JamesSpot (Mar 4, 2003)

*Concur with Z's weight being high*

Good analysis, gents. I went to all of the manufacturer's web sites to confirm the numbers I posted earlier.

RX-8 and S2000 numbers are correct for 2005 models.

The Z car weighs 3197 (3225 in track form) for the hardtop and 3428 lbs for the convertible. The two dead guys are both my size (6'5 and 194 lbs) in the convertible.

I think that ups the performance advantage of the Z.

I drove all three cars when I was looking at cars this Spring, but not on the track. The Z had serious get up and go, the others needed to be revved. Did find a review that preferred the RX-8 over the Z based upon suspension and day-to-day comfort. The Honda has always been thought of as a purist's sports car.


----------



## TGray5 (Jan 22, 2002)

JamesSpot said:


> Good analysis, gents. I went to all of the manufacturer's web sites to confirm the numbers I posted earlier.
> 
> RX-8 and S2000 numbers are correct for 2005 models.
> 
> ...


Don't know if its coincidence or what, but I've never seen and heard of so many instances of one model of car crashing at DE events as the 350z coupe. :dunno:

The S2k driver was fairly inexperienced with the s2000 it seems. To get the most out of that car, you have to keep it in VTEC as much as possible and he was not. I also noticed a lot of early apexing relative to the RX8...not really an issue at his speeds, but indicative of a lesser experienced driver IMO.


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

JamesSpot said:


> Good analysis, gents. I went to all of the manufacturer's web sites to confirm the numbers I posted earlier.
> 
> RX-8 and S2000 numbers are correct for 2005 models.


Define "correct." You never know what the specs are on the car that was used to measure the official curb weight that appears on a manufacturer's site. I'll take the empirical data anyday.



> I drove all three cars when I was looking at cars this Spring, but not on the track. The Z had serious get up and go, the others needed to be revved. Did find a review that preferred the RX-8 over the Z based upon suspension and day-to-day comfort. The Honda has always been thought of as a purist's sports car.


The Z will win a drag race against the 8, partly because it's got more torque, party because it's easier for the average driver to drive fast (in a straight line). Against the new S2k... it's arguable. On the track, I think the Z's advantage would fade because of the RX-8's handling superiority.

I try not to trust car rag reviews anymore. They have biases that I wouldn't apply to my own evaluations of cars, especially when looking at one specifically for competition or tracking. It all comes down to what you want to do with the car and how it feels to you. To me the Z feels heavy and ponderous - it's work to drive the thing. The 8 is just effortless and fun.


----------



## Hercules (Jul 15, 2002)

Dunno... when I did my second auto-x ever, I wound up beating a 350Z around the course by a good second -- and that guy had been auto-xing for over a year. I think rumratt and Elwood know who I'm talking about, but either that makes me a pretty decent study for autox, makes him a bad driver, or makes the 350Z a car not as able on an autox course.

I dunno which it is :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Hercules said:


> Dunno... when I did my second auto-x ever, I wound up beating a 350Z around the course by a good second -- and that guy had been auto-xing for over a year. I think rumratt and Elwood know who I'm talking about, but either that makes me a pretty decent study for autox, makes him a bad driver, or makes the 350Z a car not as able on an autox course.
> 
> I dunno which it is :dunno:


 I wouldn't read anything into that at all.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Hercules said:


> I wound up beating a 350Z around the course by a good second


With or without your cones? :eeps:


----------



## bim530mer (Nov 1, 2004)

*can you explain*



elbert said:


> Playing armchair quarterback, I don't think the S2k driver was as good as the RX8 driver. At the very least he should learn how to properly heel-and-toe and revmatch...he was using the clutch to match revs :tsk:


Can you explain to me what you meant by: heel-and-toe and revmatch ?


----------

