Why is the Rx8 so much cheaper than S2k?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by AyJay,Dec 10 2007, 08:30 PM
The Rx-8 is cheap because it's not that competitive in the sports car market. It will get crushed at both the track and the drag strip by cars like the S2k, Z, 06-07 WRX, etc.
Actually, RX8 is the car closest in spirit and performance numbers to S2000 in the market today. Both emphasis on handling over power, high-rev low-torque motors. It is a good deal despite that the general public don't like it. I think it is a good alternative to a MX5 or S2000 as a track-days car because of the roof.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,259
Likes: 0
From: Annapolis MD
My friend had one and I thought it was pretty nice. However you can't start it up and then shut it down with out it warming up. If you do you have to toe it to the dealership and have them get it going again. Not sure why.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0
From: Redmond, Washington, USA
Originally Posted by Revenge,Dec 11 2007, 02:48 PM
My friend had one and I thought it was pretty nice. However you can't start it up and then shut it down with out it warming up. If you do you have to toe it to the dealership and have them get it going again. Not sure why.
The cause is simple--a large part of the combustion chamber seal is oil. The rotary runs very, very rich when cold (as opposed to merely very rich the rest of the time). So, if you start it up, back out of your garage, and shut it down, and leave it for a while, the rich mixture in the combustion chamber will dissolve the seal, and the engine won't start the next time you try.
A huge design defect, IMO, and a baffling one, since earlier models didn't have the issue (at least, our old RX-2 and RX-3 didn't).
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,863
Likes: 125
From: Pawtucket, RI
I love the RX-8. I almost bought one over the S2000. I really didn't need or even want a convertible, and would have preferred 2+2 practicality as well.
I love the simplicity and light weight of a rotary engine, but the fuel mileage is just unacceptable, and long-term reliability is questionable.
20mpg max would be somewhat acceptable if the car was capable of 105-in-the-1/4 acceleration. At 95mph, fergit it.
I owned a '90 convertible RX-7 for a while ('til it blew a couple of apex seals at 103k miles). I loved that car, but it was pretty slow. And the much-quicker (but not nearly as loved!) '95 Z28 convertible that replaced it got 10% BETTER gas mileage over my commute!
The RX-8, with the 263hp MS3 engine, would be SWEET! I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Kinda sad, but part of what makes the car so cool, the rotary engine, just makes the car too compromised in terms of power (too little), fuel economy (unbelievably thirsty), and reliability (suspect).
Anyway, limited demand has made the RX-8 a screaming deal. You can get them for many thousands under sticker. It's a shame, but they're distressed merchandise.
I love the simplicity and light weight of a rotary engine, but the fuel mileage is just unacceptable, and long-term reliability is questionable.
20mpg max would be somewhat acceptable if the car was capable of 105-in-the-1/4 acceleration. At 95mph, fergit it.
I owned a '90 convertible RX-7 for a while ('til it blew a couple of apex seals at 103k miles). I loved that car, but it was pretty slow. And the much-quicker (but not nearly as loved!) '95 Z28 convertible that replaced it got 10% BETTER gas mileage over my commute!
The RX-8, with the 263hp MS3 engine, would be SWEET! I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Kinda sad, but part of what makes the car so cool, the rotary engine, just makes the car too compromised in terms of power (too little), fuel economy (unbelievably thirsty), and reliability (suspect).
Anyway, limited demand has made the RX-8 a screaming deal. You can get them for many thousands under sticker. It's a shame, but they're distressed merchandise.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 814
Likes: 16
From: San Francisco/San Jose
Mazda is working on a new 16X engine with larger displacement that will feature increased horsepower/torque. I'm guessing 270-300hp maybe?
It will feature direct injection so fuel efficiency will be improved somewhat....but I'm not expecting it to be very fuel efficient anyways.
It will feature direct injection so fuel efficiency will be improved somewhat....but I'm not expecting it to be very fuel efficient anyways.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Elistan,Dec 11 2007, 12:41 PM
MSRP:
RX-8 Sport - $27,070
RX-8 Touring - $30,170
RX-8 Grand Touring - $31,750
RX-8 GT automatic - $32,450
S2000 - $34,300
S2000 CR - $36,300
S2000 CR w/ AC+radio - $37,300
So the price difference ranges from $1,850 up to $10,230.
Perhaps Mazda souces less expensive hardware (switches, knobs, sensors, seats, etc.) Perhaps they use less aluminum. Perhaps they share more parts with other Mazda vehicles. Perhaps they use less hands-on labor during assembly. Perhaps they have less margin when selling to dealers. Perhaps the rotory engine uses fewer parts.
I have my doubts that Mazda said "Well, it burns more oil that the S2000, therefore we must price it two grand less."
That's a perfectly valid answer to why somebody might not LIKE the RX-8, but it says nothing about why it costs less. (Unless we're talking about used market price, rather than MSRP?)
RX-8 Sport - $27,070
RX-8 Touring - $30,170
RX-8 Grand Touring - $31,750
RX-8 GT automatic - $32,450
S2000 - $34,300
S2000 CR - $36,300
S2000 CR w/ AC+radio - $37,300
So the price difference ranges from $1,850 up to $10,230.
Perhaps Mazda souces less expensive hardware (switches, knobs, sensors, seats, etc.) Perhaps they use less aluminum. Perhaps they share more parts with other Mazda vehicles. Perhaps they use less hands-on labor during assembly. Perhaps they have less margin when selling to dealers. Perhaps the rotory engine uses fewer parts.
I have my doubts that Mazda said "Well, it burns more oil that the S2000, therefore we must price it two grand less."
That's a perfectly valid answer to why somebody might not LIKE the RX-8, but it says nothing about why it costs less. (Unless we're talking about used market price, rather than MSRP?)
You can get a "loaded" S2k in Cali for 27,5 today. That makes them identical in cost.You also forgot to mention the infamous downrating of the HP numbers for that car.
Nothing wrong with the rotary, as evidenced by the previous generation. Mazda just chose to cut every possible corner on the engine for this version and they struggled with emissions, and now mileage.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
I bought an RX-8 before my S2000. It handled very well and power was OK. Brakes were amazing. It just took way too much fuel to make the power that it does. With that kind of fuel consumption you should be getting way more horses. I have to say though that I thought of going back just because it has four seats and I have two kids. The S2000 however is the better "purpose built" car. If a car compromises power, it better be fuel efficient.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 814
Likes: 16
From: San Francisco/San Jose
Originally Posted by INTJ,Dec 11 2007, 04:32 PM
You can get a "loaded" S2k in Cali for 27,5 today. That makes them identical in cost.You also forgot to mention the infamous downrating of the HP numbers for that car.
Nothing wrong with the rotary, as evidenced by the previous generation. Mazda just chose to cut every possible corner on the engine for this version and they struggled with emissions, and now mileage.
Seriously, I am in the market for another S after mines got rear ended!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Wow what a bunch of fanbooiiis. I test drove a RX8 and I thought it was a decent ride. I think its funny when people say how much faster the S2000 is than the RX8. A couple of tenths in the 1/4 mile big F'n deal