YACT: would the RX-8 drives/feels like a S2000?

[andylawcc]

both cars are Front Engine - Rear Wheel Drive, roughly 2800lb pounds, and simlar horsepower output with ultra-high-reving and poor torque.

 

[TechnoKid]

Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

 

[KingNothing]

Would the original poster uses/writes correct grammar?

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

So was the RX-7... and so is the RX-8

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: boyRacer

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

So was the RX-7... and so is the RX-8

most sports car are this way..so are the F-bodies and Viper and Vette..they all have the engine well behind hte front axle.

 

[andylawcc]

no one else has any input?

 

[MazerRackham]

You are ignoring a huge aspect of how a car "feels," and that is the suspension and suspension tuning.

I have not driven either car, but I would imagine that the S2000 would probably be superior, since from what I've read the RX-8 is technically not supposed to be a true sports car.

Are you considering between these cars for purchase, or are you just trying to settle a dispute over the two?

 

[NeoPTLD]

My cheap shot guess is the rotary engine in an RX-8 gives a smoother power and a ride than the 4 cylinder engine in a S2000.

 

[Kelvrick]

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb and say... Rx 8 is better then the s2000. I've seen them keep up with M3's at the track.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm gonna have to go out on a limb and say... Rx 8 is better then the s2000. I've seen them keep up with M3's at the track.

i've seen S2000's do it too.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm gonna have to go out on a limb and say... Rx 8 is better then the s2000. I've seen them keep up with M3's at the track.

i've seen S2000's do it too.

Maybe its just better for the RX8 since it has rear seats, wasn't meant to replace the RX-7, and is a good deal less money.

Mazda = teh handling foo.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

I thought a mid-engined car had the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle.

 

[LongCoolMother]

seems like nobody has a clear answer. how much is the rx8 anyway? id love an rx8, but if the price is like the s2k, id take the s2k (looks and convertible) heh.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
seems like nobody has a clear answer. how much is the rx8 anyway? id love an rx8, but if the price is like the s2k, id take the s2k (looks and convertible) heh.

RX-8s are around $30,000 and far better looking than any Honda.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
seems like nobody has a clear answer. how much is the rx8 anyway? id love an rx8, but if the price is like the s2k, id take the s2k (looks and convertible) heh.

RX-8s are around $30,000 and far better looking than any Honda.

28 around me nad you should be able to get it for a couple less after the "new" factor dies down a bit.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

I thought a mid-engined car had the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle.

Traditionally, you're right, a mid engined car was defined as having an engine between the driver and the rear axle. However, recently, it's been redefined to also include an engine that is mounted between the driver and the front axle (that's AFTER the front axle, not before). Unfortunately, these "front-mid engined" vehicles do not have ideal weight distributions. They tend to be closer to 50f/50r than the more ideal 42f/58r.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

I thought a mid-engined car had the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle.

Traditionally, you're right, a mid engined car was defined as having an engine between the driver and the rear axle. However, recently, it's been redefined to also include an engine that is mounted between the driver and the front axle (that's AFTER the front axle, not before). Unfortunately, these "front-mid engined" vehicles do not have ideal weight distributions. They tend to be closer to 50f/50r than the more ideal 42f/58r.

Never heard that one before. 42/58 may be ideal for one specific car, in one specific case. Typically more weight on the rear is good for higher horsepower cars, to prevent wheelspin. But if you knew much about the S2000, you'd know that wheelspin and oversteer aren't exactly it's dominating characteristics. So no, 42/58 is not the "ideal" weight distribution: for all around usage 50/50 is ideal.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Technically since the engine on the S2000 is mounted before the front axle, it's a mid engine...

I thought a mid-engined car had the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle.

Traditionally, you're right, a mid engined car was defined as having an engine between the driver and the rear axle. However, recently, it's been redefined to also include an engine that is mounted between the driver and the front axle (that's AFTER the front axle, not before). Unfortunately, these "front-mid engined" vehicles do not have ideal weight distributions. They tend to be closer to 50f/50r than the more ideal 42f/58r.

Never heard that one before. 42/58 may be ideal for one specific car, in one specific case. Typically more weight on the rear is good for higher horsepower cars, to prevent wheelspin. But if you knew much about the S2000, you'd know that wheelspin and oversteer aren't exactly it's dominating characteristics. So no, 42/58 is not the "ideal" weight distribution: for all around usage 50/50 is ideal.

42/58 is the fastest way around the pretty much any course, given a RWD or AWD vehicle. The more pure the racecar, the closer to this ideal they will all come (ie. F1).

When you brake, weight transfers forward, giving you close to 50/50, so that your rear tires/brakes are doing way WAY more work than in a normally 50/50 car.

During acceleration, you have more weight on the driving wheels (rear wheels), giving you additional traction for launch. It also lowers the polar moment.

For cornering, 42/58 is decidedly more difficult to handle, but allows you to get on the throttle earlier (as well as brake later). As you probably already know, races are won and lost on the straights.

So all in all, 50/50 is only ideal in marketing speak, not real performance.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

mid engine means when the engine is placed between the front and rear axles. it can be anywhere between the front and rear axles.

rear engine is behind the rear axle...ala Porsche 911 & Beetle.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
You are ignoring a huge aspect of how a car "feels," and that is the suspension and suspension tuning.

Are you considering between these cars for purchase, or are you just trying to settle a dispute over the two?

yeah, I just wanna know which one is better, that's all. For knowledge sake.
I certainly am not going to buy one anytime soon.