Why is the Rx8 so much cheaper than S2k?
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 36,017
Likes: 226
From: Queen City, NC
Originally Posted by esp,Dec 10 2007, 11:53 PM
One thing I have noticed while looking for a new car is that Rx8s are considerably less expensive than an S2k. I'm thinking its because there are so many on the road, maybe its reliability... Opinions?
The top-level msrp is $31k for an RX-8, for an S2000 its $34k, so there's already a $3k difference. If you look at used 2004 S2000s and RX-8s, there's still about a $3k difference in value, so its all about the same.
Since new S2000s go for about $3-4k under msrp, and I imagine RX-8s do as well, I'd say RX-8s are just less expensive cars all around.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: O'Fallon Mo
Why? The interior is nicer, its quieter, it seats four people, it has traction control, and tire pressure sensors, etc etc etc, its actually more car than an S2000, but the S2000 is a convertible. The RX-8 is a very nice car, and the interior is certainly nicer than an S2000s.
Saki GT why don't you just go trade in your S2000 for the RX-8 is you love it so much. You don't buy a sports car for luxury and space.Here are some specs on the RX-8 5.9 0-60 14.5 quarter mile, 3029-3053 lbs. http://www.modernracer.com/mazdarx8.html
And a comparison with the S2000 on the same site. http://www.modernracer.com/history/h...00history.html and if you click on stats to the side top right it goes into specs 0-60 5.5 14.2 quarter, 2835 lbs
The numbers aren't a huge difference but the RX-8 IMO is one of the ugliest cars ever made. That makes all the difference in the world to me.
Saki GT why don't you just go trade in your S2000 for the RX-8 is you love it so much. You don't buy a sports car for luxury and space.Here are some specs on the RX-8 5.9 0-60 14.5 quarter mile, 3029-3053 lbs. http://www.modernracer.com/mazdarx8.html
And a comparison with the S2000 on the same site. http://www.modernracer.com/history/h...00history.html and if you click on stats to the side top right it goes into specs 0-60 5.5 14.2 quarter, 2835 lbs
The numbers aren't a huge difference but the RX-8 IMO is one of the ugliest cars ever made. That makes all the difference in the world to me.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 36,017
Likes: 226
From: Queen City, NC
Originally Posted by Diz,Dec 11 2007, 01:37 PM
Saki GT why don't you just go trade in your S2000 for the RX-8 is you love it so much.
The RX-8 is great, but its not a convertible, which is what I want. If I wanted an S2000 that could seat four and had a hard top, I'd get an RX-8 though.
The numbers aren't a huge difference but the RX-8 IMO is one of the ugliest cars ever made. That makes all the difference in the world to me.
There's nothing wrong with not liking an RX-8 or thinking its not as good as an S2000, as long as you have valid reasons. Half the posts here are so baseless they're pointless.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: O'Fallon Mo
I don't wear panties i'm a guy just making a point....It's not that I am misinformed I deal with cars on a daily basis, so I am well informed about most of the market. I'm sure the RX-8 handles wonderfully, and i'm sure its fun to drive, but like I said earlier it's still ugly.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: O'Fallon Mo
To add one more thing to it. I love the FC and FD RX-7, IMO a couple of the sexiest cars ever made. So when this RX-8 deal came out I was extremely disappointed. It was ugly, and had no turbo. So I may be biased towards it.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0
From: Redmond, Washington, USA
These types of "discussions" always show the uglier side of some narrow-minded "enthusiasts." It's just as bad on the RX-8 group; just the other way around.
"Ugly" is in the eyes of the beholder (well, except for the AMC Pacer, which was ugly by any standards). It is more of a reflection on the poster than it is on the car when some idiot calls the RX-8 "ugly." You can reasonably say, "I don't like its looks." But to pronounce it "ugly" as if you're the ultimate arbiter of automotive beauty is both arrogant and ultimately stupid.
The real market price of the RX-8 is heavily affected by two things: (i) It's a rotary, which instantly consigns it to a niche market; most people won't consider a rotary, just because they're different, and (ii) they do get simply gruesome gas mileage. There is also the so-called "flooding" issue, for which Mazda should be whacked.
But any real car enthusiast would be impressed by the ability of Mazda to pack so much fun/performance into a four-door coupe, for that price. All things being equal, I prefer the S2000, but when the weather is really icky, and/or when I need to carry a lot of stuff or more than one passenger, the RX-8 really comes into its own.
Oh, and there's no more reason to think that an RX-8 engine, properly maintained, would fail before 100,000 miles than to think the same for the S2000 engine.
"Ugly" is in the eyes of the beholder (well, except for the AMC Pacer, which was ugly by any standards). It is more of a reflection on the poster than it is on the car when some idiot calls the RX-8 "ugly." You can reasonably say, "I don't like its looks." But to pronounce it "ugly" as if you're the ultimate arbiter of automotive beauty is both arrogant and ultimately stupid.
The real market price of the RX-8 is heavily affected by two things: (i) It's a rotary, which instantly consigns it to a niche market; most people won't consider a rotary, just because they're different, and (ii) they do get simply gruesome gas mileage. There is also the so-called "flooding" issue, for which Mazda should be whacked.
But any real car enthusiast would be impressed by the ability of Mazda to pack so much fun/performance into a four-door coupe, for that price. All things being equal, I prefer the S2000, but when the weather is really icky, and/or when I need to carry a lot of stuff or more than one passenger, the RX-8 really comes into its own.
Oh, and there's no more reason to think that an RX-8 engine, properly maintained, would fail before 100,000 miles than to think the same for the S2000 engine.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 636
The car is cheaper out the box than an S2000, a couple of people I know got them otd for under 27K with all kinds of options.
Plus you have the lower power recall, engine recall, crazy gas mileage for less power (yeah yeah, mpg doesnt matter on a sportscar, but it gets worse mileage than the more powerful ms3), and sorta funky styling... but to each their own. The one shining thing about the car is the superb driving experience which works for Porsche when they're selling cars with premiums but not for Mazda... but the badge has nothing to do with that right?
Plus you have the lower power recall, engine recall, crazy gas mileage for less power (yeah yeah, mpg doesnt matter on a sportscar, but it gets worse mileage than the more powerful ms3), and sorta funky styling... but to each their own. The one shining thing about the car is the superb driving experience which works for Porsche when they're selling cars with premiums but not for Mazda... but the badge has nothing to do with that right?