I really really want a S2000, but I am having a hard time understanding some numbers. I know what Torque and Horsepower is and how it is calculated. I am comparing the S2000 and RX8. Now here is the problem that I dont understand.

The 2004 RX8 generates 238HP @ 8500 rpms and generates 159 ft/lbs @ 5500 rpms
The 2004 S2K generates 240HP at 7200 rpms and generates 161 ft/lbs @ 6500 rpms

What does this mean? How does the fact that you hit your max torque for the RX8 so early change the performance over the S2K; if so, how? Can some one give me a Mechanical Engineers expination of what this means in performance of the two cars.

Thanks,

 

I'm only a freshman in college majoring in Mechanical Engineering, so I can't give you the reason why s2k is better than the rx8. I'm still in the learning stage.

 

Oh yeah, s2000 is a lighter car and has better handling, from what I heard. s2000 is more reliable, f the rotaries that the rx8s offer.

 

Don't dyno runs show the s2000 (04) puting down 265 hp or something? oh and increase in torque?

 

dude. I'm no engineer and I'm sure that if you're not either, then you don't want to hear THIER explination. But I'll tell you like this.

Each engine is a little different so don't try to compare torque and hp #'s between engines. But the here's the basics.

Torque is what helps your vehichle get moving. let me give you an example. think about a slow moving machine with clock like gears and a guy tied on a conveyer belt that's about to get crushed. the gears can be moving very very slowly (hp) but the power at which they move is very very high (torque). So for the superhero to come in and stop those slow moving gears takes a lot if power.

So if you think about a car. The torque will get the car moving, but the hp will decide how fast the car will go. idealy you'd like to see a car with equal hp and torque #'s. Like 400 and 400 in the C6 vette. The RX-8 and S2000 are both high revving cars that have lower torque, which equals to slower starts and less tire spin. This also explains why when you're in cars like a ford tarus, the car jumps for a few seconds, then flats out after 50 MPH. The car has a lot of torque, but no hp. I hope that that makes sense.

 

In addition to what everyone else says, you should look at the numbers the two cars are putting down in the real world to the rear wheels.

RX-8's are putting down probably 30 or 40 less WHP than 04 S2000's.

It apprears that the RX-8 isn't even making the downgraded HP numbers Mazda claims it does.

Also, the greater weight of the RX-8 will amplify the power differences between the two in the real world.

 

If you don't want a convertible, or you need a back seat, then the RX8 is a nice car...

But the 2004 S2000 is better handling, a convertible, and faster. Much faster.

 

rx8 hp figure is overrated, very typical of mazda.

 

Maybe instead of worrying over figures and projected values of what could be possible just go out and test drive each one. Which ever one feels right to you, you go with.

Dan

 

The RX-8's are not very quick. Typical 0-60 times are in the mid 6's and 1/4 mile is high 14's. Very unimpressive for what Mazda is considering its flagship sports car. Hopefully the next generation RX-7 will have a bit more to offer. Mazda originally said the RX-8 would have 250hp and now they said it's more like 238. They did the same thing with the Miata in 2001 when they said it was going to have 155hp. People were dynoing them only to find out they weren't putting down any more hp than the previous 140hp version. Mazda offered to either buy their cars back or gave them a $500 gift card.

I'm not at all crazy about the RX-8. I don't know what to think of it really. I like the front end and the rear end, but everything in the middle just has to go. Mainly the back seat and suicide doors. It's also abit "monster truck" looking with those big wheels. It supposedly handles really well though.

You cannot compare the RX-8 to the S2000 though. Two totally different style cars. One is a touring coupe with a backseat and the other one is a roadster. Besides that, the rotaries are not very efficient engines. They don't get very good gas mileage either. I'd be willing to bet Mazda lost a lot of power when they installed all the emissions crap in order to pass US Federal emissions standards.

Kris