[ZDan]

Originally Posted by spin9k

engine weight: 'Is it lightweight? Not as much as one would think.." ok, "The unmodified 13B-MSP Renesis Engine has a weight of 122 kg (247 lbs), including all standard attachments (except airbox), but without engine fluids (such as coolant, oil, etc.)." Let's have some comparisons... you start ... s2000? BRZ? anyone?

Unless I've had them on my scales myself, I'm suspicious of reported engine weights. Especially for rotaries! My FD was weighed before the engine swap at 2780 lb. After the 6.0 LS2 V8 installation, 2800 lb. I know that the turbo FD engine has a lot more weight associated with it, but still...

Suffice to say, the 2+2 FRS/BRZ weighs ~300 lb. less, I don't think its 2-liter boxer 4 is much heavier than the Renesis.

Thou I'd dare say that the high-reving experience is a whole lot more tolerable with a RENESIS than a F20C/F22C,

??? Totally tolerable, enjoyable even with the F20C.

So quiet Mazda uses a buzzer to remind you to shift at 8500 rpm! 4000 rpm, 7000 rpm, 9500 rpm sound about the same - electric motor like. No impending catastrophic blender noises. s2000? Toybaru? You tell me....

I'm telling you, an F20C screaming up to 9000 rpm is a delight! I also have enjoyed driving the RX-8 up to 9k. Fun! I love both. I bought the S2000 primarily for the 25-30% better fuel economy (also because the S2000 is simply lighter-weight and faster).

BUT!!! Don't feel left out - Just Google "Honda s2000 engine failure" for 99,700 results .... ummmmm

I don't have the statistics, but I would gladly bet money on the RX-8 having more engine failures per vehicle-miles travelled vs. the F20C/F22C.

"Rotaries are neat, but the RX-8 would have been better served..." Well, neat yes, but an RX-8 without the rotary, not too sure. With the engine COMPLETELY BEHIND the front axle centerline, and very low to the ground, it would be hard to have another engine do the same.

That's one advantage of the flat-4 that Toyobaru didn't take full advantage of: it's quite short lengthwise. Not that I'd swap that into an RX-8. Honestly that's probably part of the FR-S/BRZ weight advantage. Instead of having a longer wheelbase like the RX-8, they concentrated more on keeping the car as small as possible. That's great for weight, but not so much for distribution.
The RX-8 has a MUCH longer wheelbase (106" vs. 101" for the FR-S). That's a large part of how they were able to fit the engine fully behind the front wheels. Great weight distribution, but heavier.

The S2000, however, has a MUCH shorter wheelbase at 94.5", still fits its inline-4 entirely behind front wheel centerline, weighs ~2750-2800 lb., has 49/51 weight distribution (*better* than 50/50). Benefit of a 2-seat configuration.

And oh yes, that small engine footprint allows for the holy grail of suspension, the double-A arm,

You should inform the designers of the MANY MANY non-rotary cars that use double wishbones front and rear (including the S2000) that they can't do that as they're non-rotary engines don't allow it!
Or are you commenting on the FR-S/BRZ flat-4 configuration? I can see how its width down low might make double-wishbones a little more difficult, but surely not impossible. IMO the strut solution was more for keeping cost and weight down.

and a near 100% shock/spring leverage ratio.

??? Does the RX-8 really have 1:1 wheel rate:spring rate? Don't really see that as either a major real benefit or unique to a rotary engine configuration.

The FR-S/BRZ does well in this regard, don't really know about the s2000 engine placement thou.

Actually, FR-S/BRZ aren't anything special in terms of engine setback. It is set much further aft vs. the Impreza/WRX, but those cars have most of the engine forward of the front wheels. See above regarding wheelbase, size/weight, f/r balance tradeoffs. S2000 has the engine set WAY back. 49/51 f/r distribution.

his is not to say s2000s are neat too - and fast - and handle very very well from those I've seen on track. :happy0180:. It's all good, and remember, in the case of our cars, we are talking about decade old designs vs the FR-S/BRZ. Ahead of the times...or what?

There is nothing new under the sun. None of the basics have changed over decades. Every once in a rare while a manufacturer decides to actually build a car thats:
1. rwd/irs
2. relatively lightweight
3. relatively inexpensive

Glad to see the formula being applied again!