FR-S vs S2000

[R8]

Originally Posted by termigni

But calling 18/25MPG horrible on a sports car that screams 9000rpm is just wrong.

Now the RX8s get HORRIBLE MPG. Go check it out on RX8club.com. :happy0180:

My RX-8 was rated at 18/24 mpg. I average 21 mpg in enthusiastic commuting, 24 on trips. And it'll go to 9,500 rpm before the computer says "enough!"

[ZDan]

I average 26-28mpg commuting (whether via highway or enthusiastically backroading it) and get 31 on all-highway trips in my '01 S2000.

RX-8 gets FAR worse real-world mileage vs. an S2000 with reasonable toe settings (for some ridonkulous reason a lot of S2kers insist on running 0.67 degrees total rear toe, killing tires, handling, and mileage all in one fell swoop!).

I just did a BIG trip from Pawtucket RI to ATL on Sunday in my 500+hp LS2 FD RX-7. 1079 miles in 15:30 with three stops (only two for gas), averaging 27mpg(!). Did 435 miles on the first tank (15.9gal fill) and 466 miles on the second (17.3gal fill).
I wonder what the 13B-TT would have gotten?! Or the RX-8's Renesis.

Rotaries are great for burning a TON of fuel while making only modest power. I love 'em, but they aren't exactly a suitable powerplant for a real-world daily-driven car. And I'm still a little butt-hurt over my perfectly-maintained, never-tracked, only once autoXed '90 RX-7 blowing 2 apex seals at its 2nd autoX run with 105k miles on the clock. And not a single rotor-head was remotely surprised...

[R8]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I average 26-28mpg commuting (whether via highway or enthusiastically backroading it) and get 31 on all-highway trips in my '01 S2000.

RX-8 gets FAR worse real-world mileage vs. an S2000 with reasonable toe settings (for some ridonkulous reason a lot of S2kers insist on running 0.67 degrees total rear toe, killing tires, handling, and mileage all in one fell swoop!).

I just did a BIG trip from Pawtucket RI to ATL on Sunday in my 500+hp LS2 FD RX-7. 1079 miles in 15:30 with three stops (only two for gas), averaging 27mpg(!). Did 435 miles on the first tank (15.9gal fill) and 466 miles on the second (17.3gal fill).
I wonder what the 13B-TT would have gotten?! Or the RX-8's Renesis.

Rotaries are great for burning a TON of fuel while making only modest power. I love 'em, but they aren't exactly a suitable powerplant for a real-world daily-driven car. And I'm still a little butt-hurt over my perfectly-maintained, never-tracked, only once autoXed '90 RX-7 blowing 2 apex seals at its 2nd autoX run with 105k miles on the clock. And not a single rotor-head was remotely surprised...

Sure, no arguments here, the S2000 is more efficient for sure than the RX-8. And yes, I think most of us have learned to accept the engine is an expendable item like plugs/coils/wires, lol. The RX-8's renesis generally doesn't "blow apex seals" though, it just loses compression (carbon) and gets weaker quicker than a typical piston engine.

I'm just saying that if "calling 18/25MPG horrible on a sports car that screams 9000rpm is just wrong," then the RX-8 mpg's aren't "horrible"

I love the S2000 though! Almost bought one, but that rock-hard suspension was kinda nasty to my aging bones

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by brianc

I'm probably going to get bashed for this but we've already drag raced an AP1 vs a 2013 6MT FR-S. Not even comparable. S2000 won everytime.

Of course! I wouldn't think any reasonable person would expect otherwise. 12.7 lb/hp beats the hell out of 14.7 lb/hp, natch...

They are both slow on the street. They are both torqueless until you take it up to high revs.

For me, on the street, the two are equal, perhaps with a slight nod to the FR-S/BRZ. I practically *never* VTEC on the street, generally keep it below 5000rpm. At the track, never below 6000, but on the street I don't see any need to drive like an ass for no good reason (can't reasonably push the envelope anyway, so what's the point).

In this mode, the FR-S/BRZ is at least *equivalent* to the S2000 in terms of how fast it feels.

The S2000 actually seems quicker because the gears seem shorter.

Basically, you can continue to wind out the S2000 when you have to upshift the FR-S. But again, if you're not going to be taking advantage of the tremendous rpm range of the S on the street, the two feel very similar!

Stock for stock though. I feel like the FR-S has much better suspension. When they are both modified. Different story.

IMO, the FR-S suspension felt as good as, *maybe* slightly more taut/controlled, than the suspension in my '01 S2000 with 148k miles on it. Which is a compliment!

If I didn't feel like the S still had some good miles in it, and if my wife didn't need a new car before me (I just got the V8 FD last year), I'd be getting an FR-S right about now to replace the S2000 without looking back. It feels that good.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by R8

I'm just saying that if "calling 18/25MPG horrible on a sports car that screams 9000rpm is just wrong," then the RX-8 mpg's aren't "horrible"

I love the S2000 though! Almost bought one, but that rock-hard suspension was kinda nasty to my aging bones

I love the RX-8! Except for the mileage... I preferred +2 seats and fixed roof, and was this close >< to buying a purple/tan leather special edition one when I got the S. In the end, it was the fuel mileage that killed it for me (then had a 100+ mile round-trip commute), and I got the S2k instead.

Seriously, the RX-8 with an F20C or F22C S2000 engine would have been BRILLIANT all around! Or why not the MS3 engine? The rotary is cool and all, but it's irrelevant when you can get the same power from the same-weight piston engine and get 30-40% better mileage doing it.

IMO, it woulda made more sense to make a rotary Miata than to use it in a semi-practical 2+2 fixed-roof RX-8.

[R8]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Or why not the MS3 engine?

Well supposedly just as the Boxer's shape made the Twin's chassis possible, the tiny rotary also made the RX-8's chassis and handling possible. Stuff in a piston engine, and it'd become more nose-heavy and probably no longer be a mid-engine car.

IMO, it woulda made more sense to make a rotary Miata than to use it in a semi-practical 2+2 fixed-roof RX-8.

I totally agree! A smaller (less power) rotary in a lighter car (Miata) would be more efficient too!

Alas, little screamer engines like in the S2000, older Civic Si's and RX-8 are probably gone forever in the "green" age we're moving into.

[eriktherod]

Ahhh, speaking of insane power to weight makes me want to do my K20 CRX project...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by R8

Well supposedly just as the Boxer's shape made the Twin's chassis possible, the tiny rotary also made the RX-8's chassis and handling possible. Stuff in a piston engine, and it'd become more nose-heavy and probably no longer be a mid-engine car.

Warning: Good-naturedly intended rant follows!

Enough with calling standard, classic FR sports cars "front mid-engine" (inevitably truncated to "mid-engine")! Pure marketing and/or wishful thinking by those who want to think their car is more "exotic".

Engine is in front of passenger compartment? It's a front-engine car, period.

While my S2000 meets the arbitrary technical definition of "front mid-engine" (usually something like "the entire engine is behind front wheel centerline"), its handling characteristics are very much in the line of other classic FRONT-engine/rear-drive cars like my 240Z and RX-7, which technically don't meet that arbitrary definition while they all have about the same weight distribution, within a couple of % (w/ driver and ~1/2 tank, 48/52 S2000, 49/51 240Z, 50/50 LS2 RX-7).

An Elise/Exige or Porsche Boxster handle *fundamentally differently* from classic FR cars (even those that some insist on calling "front mid-engine" or, worse, even more misleadingly, "mid-engine")! Mainly due to the driver sitting much further forward relative to the c.g and wheels, much less relative weight on the steered wheels, and also due to relatively lower polar moment. THESE are mid-engined cars. The RX-8, S2000, etc. etc. etc. are FRONT-engine cars. To call them mid-engine is pure marketing/wishful thinking.

I totally agree! A smaller (less power) rotary in a lighter car (Miata) would be more efficient too!

Alas, little screamer engines like in the S2000, older Civic Si's and RX-8 are probably gone forever in the "green" age we're moving into.

I'm all for moving into a greener age, but honestly think that we would do a lot better by going the smaller/lighter/cheaper route. A 2400-lb Civic with a fairly serious 1.6 liter screamer engine would do as well or better vs. the current 2900 lb. pig with the 200hp 2.0. Not to mention the RIDICULOUS number of giant trucks/SUVs on the road, making gasoline more scarce and expensive for all of us (while emitting CO2 at an alarming rate). Sick to death of oversized/overweight lane-hogging/view-blocking/gas-guzzling behemoths on the road, and lack of small/lightweight choices at the dealerships.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by R8

I totally agree! A smaller (less power) rotary in a lighter car (Miata) would be more efficient too!

Alas, little screamer engines like in the S2000, older Civic Si's and RX-8 are probably gone forever in the "green" age we're moving into.

You know, that's an interesting thought. A single rotor 0.65L Renesis would only be down a little bit on power compared to the crap Miata engine anyways (lol) and be lighter than a bike engine or something. Gas mileage would be up like 50% overall probably, with acceleration penalty of course. 30mpg max is sorta crappy from a tiny engine, but it's a lot better than the SUV like gas mileage the RX8 gets.

I think the green age won't directly kill screamer engines, but it'll make them inaccessible to most people. I don't know how much it costs for the OEM to really increase the revs vs. forced induction, but forced induction lets you have more reserve power which makes people happy :/ If you cut displacement and then add FI, it makes more sense to crank boost up rather than have more rpm on tap. Speaking of fuel economy, the only reason the S2000's fuel economy sucks is the gearing. The engine's BSFC map looks basically just like any other port injected engine without stuff like cooled EGR. The aerodynamics also suck actually, but gearing relative to engine size is by far the biggest determining factor for cruise mpg. Stop and go driving is determined by weight and driving technique (displacement comes into play if you idle a lot).

If they let the FA20 rev higher (in a hotted up version), better get one of these cars before they stop making them...

I like how this S2000 thread is going on topic.

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Marrk

I wish the FR-S was a better car.

I could say the same thing about every car, ever made...haha...

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by sho220

I could say the same thing about every car, ever made...haha...

And your point is . . . ?

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Marrk

And your point is . . . ?

No car is perfect. Sorry for the confusion...I thought that statement was pretty clear...

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by sho220

No car is perfect. Sorry for the confusion...I thought that statement was pretty clear...

"No car is perfect." That's a profound statement and, importantly, it really helps to advance the discussion at hand. We are lucky to have you on the forum.

Good luck in all that you do and thanks for sharing.

[track_warrior]

Ive driven both, in stock form the s2000 will be faster around a race track. But the FR-S is so much more fun and has a better chassis.