R&T - 12 FUN cars

[SCA]

In no specific order.

1. MINI Cooper S

2. Dodge SRT-4

3. Scion xB

4. Lotus Elise

5. Ford Mustang GT

6. Subaru Impreza WRX STi

7. Porsche Boxster S

8. BMW M3

9. Chevrolet Corvette

10. Dodge Viper SRT-10

11. Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

12. Porsche 911 Carrera S

[Roadstergal]

This must be a strange new meaning for the word "fun" that I am unfamiliar with.

[Doug]

looks about right to me

[SCA]

I agree somewhat. I would like to own any of the following:

Porsche Carrera S

MINI Cooper S

Subaru WRX STi

Lotus Elise

Chevrolet Corvette

[Plaz]

This must be a strange new meaning for the word "fun" that I am unfamiliar with.

Maybe it's a new synonym for "poseur."

:)

[JST]

In no specific order.

1. MINI Cooper S

2. Dodge SRT-4

3. Scion xB

4. Lotus Elise

5. Ford Mustang GT

6. Subaru Impreza WRX STi

7. Porsche Boxster S

8. BMW M3

9. Chevrolet Corvette

10. Dodge Viper SRT-10

11. Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

12. Porsche 911 Carrera S

I'd drive any or all of the above, with the exception of the xB, which looks like a rolling Porta-John.

[dan]

3 of top 8 here

(well, currently-- 2 of top 4)

:flame:

[dan]

This must be a strange new meaning for the word "fun" that I am unfamiliar with.

so name 12 FUN cars

[Roadstergal]

This must be a strange new meaning for the word "fun" that I am unfamiliar with.

Maybe it's a new synonym for "poseur."

:)

:lol:

so name 12 FUN cars

Before you get too flamy, I'd put the Elise and Cooper on the list - we're talking fun for a test-drive, or fun to actually own and maintain and drive in all conditions?

[Optimus Prime]

Only the Benz and M3 have enough interior room to have "fun" in... :banana:

[dan]

Before you get to flamy, I'd put the Elise and Cooper on the list - we're talking fun for a test-drive, or fun to actually own and maintain and drive in all conditions?

make 2 lists :dunno:

[Roadstergal]

Only the Benz and M3 have enough interior room to have "fun" in... :banana:

When I read the list, I was wondering if "fun" meant "comfy"...

[hockeynut]

I wouldn't put the Scion or the Mustang on that list.

I'd add the Miata and the CTS-V.

[John V]

In no specific order.

1. MINI Cooper S

2. Dodge SRT-4

3. Scion xB

4. Lotus Elise

5. Ford Mustang GT

6. Subaru Impreza WRX STi

7. Porsche Boxster S

8. BMW M3

9. Chevrolet Corvette

10. Dodge Viper SRT-10

11. Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

12. Porsche 911 Carrera S

Delete the xB and put the Miata on there.

Delete the M3 and put the RX-8 on.

Delete the STi and put the S2000 on.

[FC]

Good list. I'd only consider owning:

1. MINI Cooper S

4. Lotus Elise

7. Porsche Boxster S

8. BMW M3

9. Chevrolet Corvette

11. Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

12. Porsche 911 Carrera S

But yeah, it's missing (assuming a 100K ceiling) the EVO, RX-8, Miata, S2000, and if an M3 is there, ugly as it may be, the Z4 should be there. Maybe even the SLK350. And if an E55 is there, then an M5 and CTS-V should also be in there.

[bren]

Delete the xB and put the Miata on there.

Delete the M3 and put the RX-8 on.

Delete the STi and put the S2000 on.
SRT-4 and Mustang over M3 and STi :?

[John V]

Delete the xB and put the Miata on there.

Delete the M3 and put the RX-8 on.

Delete the STi and put the S2000 on.
SRT-4 and Mustang over M3 and STi :?

Haven't we been over this? The E46 M3 is not fun. Not in stock form.

The STi is fun... but isn't in my top 12.

Never driven an SRT-4. It might be entertaining.

I haven't driven the Mustang either. But you're probably right, the STi should stay and the Mustang should probably go, just based on curb weight.

[Optimus Prime]

cars are fun?

[clyde]

I haven't driven the Mustang either. But you're probably right, the STi should stay and the Mustang should probably go, just based on curb weight.

Having driven both in stock form, in a word, no. Mustang belongs, STi does not. Of course, I only drove a slushie Mustang...I suppose the stick could be less fun. :speechle:

M3...everyone knows my feelings about it. That the RX8 and Miata aren't on that list and the M3 is only proves that it must be R&T and they're on the take (See other thread)

[TD]

Good list. I'd only consider owning:

1. MINI Cooper S

4. Lotus Elise

7. Porsche Boxster S

8. BMW M3

9. Chevrolet Corvette

11. Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG

12. Porsche 911 Carrera S

But yeah, it's missing (assuming a 100K ceiling) the EVO, RX-8, Miata, S2000, and if an M3 is there, ugly as it may be, the Z4 should be there. Maybe even the SLK350. And if an E55 is there, then an M5 and CTS-V should also be in there.

The Z4 is the single most boring "sports car" I've ever driven. As I've said before, it felt like a 2-seat, topless version of my 330i. Yawn.

[FC]

The Z4 is the single most boring "sports car" I've ever driven. As I've said before, it felt like a 2-seat, topless version of my 330i. Yawn.

I didn't care for the 2.5 Z4 I drove either. But many consider it to be fun.

[SCA]

Delete the xB and put the Miata on there.

Delete the M3 and put the RX-8 on.

Delete the STi and put the S2000 on.



Agree 100%

Disagree 100% I have never driven an RX-8 though

Disagree 100% I have driven an STi :yikes:, but I have never driven an S2000,

[ff]

If the MINI wasn't so "cute", would it still be fun to drive? The car I own now is waaaaaaaay more fun to drive than the MCS, and it's not even on the list.

[SCA]

If the MINI wasn't so "cute", would it still be fun to drive? The car I own now is waaaaaaaay more fun to drive than the MCS, and it's not even on the list.

I just drove a 2005 MCS a few weeks ago. Nice improvement over the previous years. I wouldn't spend that kind of money for one, especially knowing the new model is coming...BMW designed engine with a turbo. :thumbup: Plus the high possiblity of AWD as an option.

[ff]

I just drove a 2005 MCS a few weeks ago. Nice improvement over the previous years. I wouldn't spend that kind of money for one, especially knowing the new model is coming...BMW designed engine with a turbo. :thumbup: Plus the high possiblity of AWD as an option.

I wouldn't consider the car again without RWD. Or AWD with a heavy rear bias. FWD on this car is such a detriment.

The gearing also needs to be shortened big time. This car lacks so heavily in torque output, and has such tall gearing, that rolling 2nd gear starts are just t-bone accidents waiting to happen. The MCS is such a disappointment IMO.

[Rob]

:dunno:

I loved the MINI without the supercharger. I thought it was a blast to drive. I wouldn't chose it over the V (obviously), but I don't have anything bad to say about it except it didn't have any power on the highway. On the twisties, the lack of power didn't matter b/c the car handled like a go kart and was an absolute blast.

[Fair!]

M3...everyone knows my feelings about it. That the RX8 and Miata aren't on that list and the M3 is only proves that it must be R&T and they're on the take (See other thread)
HA! It's a conspiracy, man! :eeps:

Have driven severalof those cars... my admittedly biased views:

The new, great looking (retro is cool again?!) 300hp 5-spd Mustang GT is a heck of a lotta fun for $25K (loaded!). They are making 192,000 of them this year (more cars than many manufacturers make across all model lines!) and selling every one, and some are still fetching over sticker. GM: why did you leave this segment wide open? I like it and I hate pony cars, after my 18 year love-hate-never-again relationship owning 12 different late model Mustangs and F-bodies. It's hard to ignore the GT, even with the $30K GTO sporting 400hp, cause the GT looks SO DAMN COOL (for a mustang) and is SO DAMN CHEAP. 3500 pounds, no back seat room, but it LOOKS and SOUNDS and GOES pretty dang right for $25K. Fun, oh yes. Would I compete in one? Not on your life. :)

RX8... I like so many aspects of this car. LOOKS and FEEL and DRIVING are awesome. POWER SUCKS BALLS. The 238hp rotary has to be BEAT on like a $2 whore to get it to move. A recent Pro Solo in Utah claimed one of these... 1500 miles on the odo and the tranny shit gears all over the track. Apparently the high altitude was unkind to the peaky, tiny rotary and 8500 rpm launches (!?) were the only thing that made it move from a stand-still. Two nationally competitive drivers and several ruins later... KAAAA....BOOM! Trailer meat. THIS CAR NEEDS AN LS1! :thumbup:

300hp WRX STi... HATE the looks (wings and scoops and pink stickers, oh my). HATE the excessive doo-dads and buttons and dials (intercooler sprayer = gimmick; cockpit adjustable headlights? 3 way adjustable diffs that really only need one setting? come on!). LOVE the brakes. Decent feel for a glorified FWD car. I drove one and raced a friend's 2004 (350hp) GTO from a roll... ouch, you can't beat V8 power. These launch very well... the rest is not so intense. Decent speed for the weight/power/cost, I guess. INTERIOR SUCKS but they had to cut corners somewhere. Our roommate has one, races it 6+ events per month for the past 4 months. So far the only things falling off (ack!) are all of the cheap, JDM aftermarket suspension bits he keeps putting on it. SUBIE!!!!! The fanatic fanboys are WAY too much, tho.

Scion xB or xA or xC or xWhatever? Come the hell on! :rolleyes:

2.4L Honda S2000... now that it's less of a buzzboomb it's probably even more fun to drive, and has better street manners. The weight still seems a bit high (2850-ish) for a $32K Miata, though. Wheres the beef? VTEC POWAH!!! :)

Dodge NEON SRT-4... a Neon? Thankfully this entire model line is not long for this earth. A tarted up Neon is still a crappy rental fleet reject underneath and through and through. Cheap, cheap cheap, no matter the hp numbers. Makes the next most expensive car on this list, the 2005 Mustang, look like a Maybach.

Mini Cooper S - total chick car. Underpowered for the segment. Too many options can baloon the price. But chicks and gay men dig it.

Eslise - haven't driven yet but seen them race. WOW... damn, they're little! I was lapping at Nurbergring late last year (in a rental Opel, so not quite thrilling) and there were 3-4 of them running around there. Quick! Fun? Probably. Daily driver? Not a chance.

911, Boxter, others: obviously fun cars, wet sumps and moonroofs notwithstanding. :) Even the lard ass E46 M3, which looks SO good, is somewhat fun to drive as long as you have an iron clad warranty and don't mind abusing it. So the crankshafts fall out... details... :? E55 is one hot sedan.

[Jason C]

I'd have to disagree on your assesment of the Mini. I could never dismiss a car that handled well as a chick car, even if it went slow in a straight line. Also, for a while, the MCS only came with a clutch pedal and H-gate, not exactly your standard chick-car material.

Now, something like the Lexus RX SUV - that is one of the ultimate chick cars in our area. I've never seen one that wasn't driven by a yuppified latte-swilling cell-phone dialing no turn signals slow-to-merge white/asian suburban rich mommy.

[Roadstergal]

the MCS only came with a clutch pedal and H-gate, not exactly your standard chick-car material.

Standard is the only car this chick will drive.

[dan]

Eslise - haven't driven yet but seen them race. WOW... damn, they're little! I was lapping at Nurbergring late last year (in a rental Opel, so not quite thrilling) and there were 3-4 of them running around there. Quick! Fun? Probably. Daily driver? Not a chance.


Mine's a daily driver.

I'm in N. Dallas, too :eeps:

[Plaz]

Eslise - haven't driven yet but seen them race. WOW... damn, they're little! I was lapping at Nurbergring late last year (in a rental Opel, so not quite thrilling) and there were 3-4 of them running around there. Quick! Fun? Probably. Daily driver? Not a chance.


Mine's a daily driver.

I'm in N. Dallas, too :eeps:

But do you actually drive daily?

[Optimus Prime]

the MCS only came with a clutch pedal and H-gate, not exactly your standard chick-car material.

Standard is the only car this chick will drive. :thumbup:

[Fair!]

Mine's (Elise) a daily driver.

I'm in N. Dallas, too :eeps:
Holy Smokes, Batman! Do you drive it in traffic? I can't imagine taking a little "under an SUV" elise into tollway or 635 or Hwy 75 traffic in N Dallas... yikes. Little more protection than a motorcycle. ;)

And the heat man.... the heat. It was 106'F today... :?

Still, my wife adored the looks of the Elise, she even had the 1:18th die cast model on her desk and we were in line for a test drive before they came out. Then she drove the C5 Z06 and saw the C6 (with virtually the same price tag, new)... Elise delivery to N.America was delayed... the rest is history.

After seeing how small the Elise's were last autumn, which were everywhere in Germany, she was happy with her choice. Being 6'3" and not relishing climbing in/out of the itsy bitsy Lotus with the canvas top on, or bumping shoulders with passengers, I am too. Still wish she'd have gone for my "let's get a used C5 Z06!" idea instead... :(

[dan]

But do you actually drive daily?

not quite

I just got home from driving it though :P

[nate]

But do you actually drive daily?

not quite

I just got home from driving it though :P

I saw a yellow Elise a few days ago, cute car.

I don't think that I would want to drive it amongst the widespread behemoth SUVs and semis in South Oklahoma though...

At least you can see under them :dunno:

[lemming]

elise -> daily driver for someone who works from the house.

:)


freaking ringer of an answer.

i dunno. the CTS-v doesn't really belong on that list if "tossable" is part of being a fun car. it's precisely what the e39m5 and the e60m5 are: big, heavy bruisers that go really well in straight lines and decently well on the curves for big cars.

i can see how the STi is on the list. i'll be an STi defender. any other vehicle under $35k on that list that can lap the nurburgring on OEM street tires in 7:59? that's right. NONE. so, however you feel about it, it belongs on the list, especially if the soon to be dated looking mustang is on the list. let me be one of the drumbeaters to say what you guys always say about the subie: the interior of the mustang stinks. the weight of it stinks. the shifter is mediocre at best and its brakes stink. so, if it is on the "fun" list, then the STi belongs. give me a break.

i'd argue that both porsches are too composed and expensive to be "fun" --same for the corvette. it's too refined and too competent to be fun. you have strain your ears to hear the engine, the ride is plush and you have to be a 16 year old to get it out of control. it's not "fun". it's fast is what it is.

the E55 does not belong for the same reason the CTS-V does not belong, but only doubly so because it is an automatic. that's ridiculous. the scion is too slow to be fun.

[dan]

I'd still drive it to work every day if I had to go to an office.

I drive it on Central all the time--no big deal :dunno:

[FC]

i'd argue that both porsches are too composed and expensive to be "fun" --same for the corvette. it's too refined and too competent to be fun. you have strain your ears to hear the engine, the ride is plush and you have to be a 16 year old to get it out of control. it's not "fun". it's fast is what it is.

The base Boxster was plenty loud and "unrefined" compared to my 330i, which while "unfun" in this forum is still consiodered a great sports sedan. As far as losing it, you can disable PSM with the touch of a button.

Even stuka's vaunted 996TT was unirversally coined "an appliance for speed" due to its composure. When asked, stuka simply said that PSM is just too damn good - and car rags always test with it on. But with PSM off the TT is a handful. I would expect all P-cars to behave similarly.

[lemming]

the 964 (car i've driven on hot laps) is a handful --marginally. the 993 is 'slightly' a handful (all you have to do is be smooth). the 996 is a complete yawn.

i fully expect the 997 to be the same yawn, but slightly better as they added more feel and edginess back (read: less understeer) into the chassis.

heck, you can even spin a miata......if you're a moron.

[TeamNobodySpecial]

RX8... I like so many aspects of this car. LOOKS and FEEL and DRIVING are awesome. POWER SUCKS BALLS. The 238hp rotary has to be BEAT on like a $2 whore to get it to move. A recent Pro Solo in Utah claimed one of these... 1500 miles on the odo and the tranny shit gears all over the track. Apparently the high altitude was unkind to the peaky, tiny rotary and 8500 rpm launches (!?) were the only thing that made it move from a stand-still. Two nationally competitive drivers and several ruins later... KAAAA....BOOM! Trailer meat. THIS CAR NEEDS AN LS1! :thumbup: .


well that was my RX-8 and frankly, you don't know you @ss from a hole in the ground.

I'm willing to leave it at that, the ignorance displayed in your post is a personal problem. :rolleyes:

[rumatt]

well that was my RX-8

Whoa. Whoops. Sorry to hear it.

(seriously... not being a d!ck)

[FC]

the 964 (car i've driven on hot laps) is a handful --marginally. the 993 is 'slightly' a handful (all you have to do is be smooth). the 996 is a complete yawn.

i fully expect the 997 to be the same yawn, but slightly better as they added more feel and edginess back (read: less understeer) into the chassis.

heck, you can even spin a miata......if you're a moron.

Understood. But that once again brings up the issue of what "fun" is. Is it track work? Autox? Spirited street driving? Tossability?

[lemming]

the 964 (car i've driven on hot laps) is a handful --marginally. the 993 is 'slightly' a handful (all you have to do is be smooth). the 996 is a complete yawn.

i fully expect the 997 to be the same yawn, but slightly better as they added more feel and edginess back (read: less understeer) into the chassis.

heck, you can even spin a miata......if you're a moron.

Understood. But that once again brings up the issue of what "fun" is. Is it track work? Autox? Spirited street driving? Tossability?

if we nix anything that is an automatic, we free up one spot. then nix anything that weighs over 3500 pounds (c'mon, how can a car that weighs that much be "fun"? i call that work, brother).

then we free up some more spots.

then recompile the list with the short list of wait-list cars.

[Fair!]

well that was my RX-8 and frankly, you don't know you @ss from a hole in the ground.

I'm willing to leave it at that, the ignorance displayed in your post is a personal problem. :rolleyes:
Doh! Sorry... I am relaying second or third hand info... on what I thought happened. Want to share the scoop?

Damn this internet! :oops:

Did the transmission not pop? What did I get wrong? I do like the RX8 for a lot of reasons... but I am not a huge fan of the rotary and hearing about drivetrain failures (if they are true?) scares me and many others away.

[Rob]

If the mustang belongs, how can the CTS-V not? Assuming price is not an issue. I think the V is a lot of fun. It's a different kind of fun than the MINI, but it's still fun. The MINI was go kart fun. The V is sideways fun and throttle steering fun. Kicking the tail out and four wheel power slides with throttle steering ability are WAY fun, imo. Weight doesn't matter so much if you have enough power to deal with it.

So who gets to define what "fun" is? Maybe the authors really, really enjoyed automatic drag strip driving in the luxury and "sleeperness" of the E55. Yeah, I am having trouble swallowing that one too. But I don't think you get to cut off the "fun" list at some arbitrary weight. You say 3500 lbs, Rgal maybe says 2000 lbs.

I say if the car can make me laugh out loud in the canyons, it makes my list.

[ff]

I say if the car can make me laugh out loud in the canyons, it makes my list.

What he said. ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

[Roadstergal]

heck, you can even spin a miata......if you're a moron.

Or if you're used to cars that understeer (most of them). A Miata with a decent alignment is perfectly neutral; on my (recently my) car, even the slightest lift will whip you around. Of course, if you're puttering around the corners and expecting power to make up for it in the straights, you'll never get close to that traction edge.

But I'll tell one of the Proformance instructors that you think she's a moron. When was the last time anyone paid you to teach them to drive?

[Fair!]

Spinning in a near stock Miata - yes, it is pretty hard to do. These things telegraph way, way in advance. Spinning a FWD car is downright embarrassing. :lol:

My 3rd grade English teacher "got paid" to teach, and she shouldn't spell. Getting "paid" is not a good enough criteria for determining performance or skill. True?

"Instructors" ... my opinion of most "instructors" at D.E.'s and other non-pro-level or non-competition events is pretty low, from extensive experience with them. Usually these (generally unpaid) instructors are the people that show up the most often, not necessarily the best drivers or teachers... and almost all of them wear funny hats, which makes them suspect... but that's another rant. :bigpimp:

Still, even hack instructors at D.E.s usually do a good service just by getting people to understand the most basic of lines, braking zones and flags/safety rules. Just don't treat everything they say about set-up and driving as gospel.

Exception 1: Most of the EVO school instructors are multi-time national champions and know what they're doing.

Exception 2: Most instructors at paid driving schools such as the "Skip Barber/Bondurant (http://www.bondurant.com/)" level are actually experienced, professional racers just working between races to pay for their other, chosen career... and generally very talented.

[Jason C]

Lemming is right about teh Turbo being too expensive to be "fun."

And yet you want a brand-new F-car. :lol:

If you could get that, a Z06 is just beater money then, no?

And I agree with the rest of the above, I'd like a car with somewhat lower performance/limits if it were only street-driven.

[lemming]

heck, you can even spin a miata......if you're a moron.

Or if you're used to cars that understeer (most of them). A Miata with a decent alignment is perfectly neutral; on my (recently my) car, even the slightest lift will whip you around. Of course, if you're puttering around the corners and expecting power to make up for it in the straights, you'll never get close to that traction edge.

But I'll tell one of the Proformance instructors that you think she's a moron. When was the last time anyone paid you to teach them to drive?

You know, comments from you don't even bother me anymore. I am not insecure at all and i'm not compensating for anything. I can drive whatever car i want, pay for it in cash, and drive it at the track whenever i have time.

In my humble experience, which would appear to be more tracktime than yours, i have only seen real knuckehead morons spin miatas. is it possible? anything is possible. i've seen bondurant instructors spin rustangs on demo rides because they got too close to the limit and lost it.

is that moronic, too? yeah. it is. half of being good is knowing where the limit is and staying right there. no one said it was easy. and no, i've never seen any instructor that i ever paid money to spin unless he had a brake failure.

maybe your instructor should give her/his money back?

[Plaz]

and almost all of them wear funny hats, which makes them suspect... but that's another rant. :bigpimp:

I'm with you on that one, for sure.

http://news.softpedia.com/images//news2/Pope-Benedict-s-call-for-unity-2.jpg

[Roadstergal]

I am not insecure at all and i'm not compensating for anything.

I can drive whatever car i want, pay for it in cash

Yeah. Right.


is that moronic, too? yeah. it is. half of being good is knowing where the limit is and staying right there.

So only morons spin cars?

[Roadstergal]

Spinning in a near stock Miata - yes, it is pretty hard to do.

Define "near stock." This one is set up to Spec Miata stiffness with considerably more power. Still not enough to get out of its own way, of course. In the wet on a three-pavement-transition course.

[Roadstergal]

You know, comments from you don't even bother me anymore.

With comments like your moron one, nobody with more than half a brain would listen. Luckily for you, people with half a brain are plentiful online.

[dan]

I am not insecure at all and i'm not compensating for anything.

I can drive whatever car i want, pay for it in cash

Yeah. Right.


that made me chuckle too. :)

[lemming]

I am not insecure at all and i'm not compensating for anything.

I can drive whatever car i want, pay for it in cash

Yeah. Right.


that made me chuckle too. :)

like i alluded to, you just make me laugh. glad we keep each other company.

:)

that goes for you, too, aty.

:)

[John V]

Delete the xB and put the Miata on there.

Delete the M3 and put the RX-8 on.

Delete the STi and put the S2000 on.



Agree 100%

Disagree 100% I have never driven an RX-8 though

Disagree 100% I have driven an STi :yikes:, but I have never driven an S2000,

Different strokes.

When you drive an RX-8 (as in actually DRIVE one) give me a call. :P

The STi is way too ponderous, the power delivery sucks and the suspension is just horrible. I guess for me, AWD != fun.

Fair:

Mark's RX-8 broke not because of the launches, but because of a weak second gear. A common problem for STREET driven RX-8s that are shifted quickly. I've become very careful on the 1-2 shift. :eeps:

The S2000 is actually a 2.2L, and the actual weight is closer to 2700lb.

The GTO I drove about a year ago was about as un-fun as a car could be. It felt even heavier than its already portly 3800lb, the clutch was out of a U-haul and the brakes were from an early 80's Cavalier. Nice interior, though!

I don't think there exists a car that is more fun to drive than the Elise. I recall giggling during my first autocross run in my brother's car. I should add that my brother is a poseur, because his car has the sport package and the touring package. :lol:

[Fair!]

Fair:

Mark's RX-8 broke not because of the launches, but because of a weak second gear. A common problem for STREET driven RX-8s that are shifted quickly. I've become very careful on the 1-2 shift. :eeps:
I dunno... I heard the car went through higher than normal RPM launches (from the higher altitude and decreased performance of the RX8's N.A. engine?) and sticky R compounds with two drivers running closely together... can you honestly say these factors (if true) didn't have any negative effect on the failure? It's just a "weak 2nd gear"... :?

Again, if I am wrong on the circumstances surrounding this RX8's transmission explosion, please correct me. Someone with a cryptic user name here (was it Sipe himself?) made a snide comment earlier about how I was an idiot and had my facts wrong on this incident but has never corrected what I wrote (even after I asked him/her to). I admittedly got the poop on the pooped tranny from another racer that was at the event, but it was from someone I know and trust.

Transmissions shouldn't just "fail" at an autocross, or on the street for that matter. Stock manual trannys can fail at drag strips on modded engines with real drag slicks, sure... but on R compound DOT tires at an autocross? Maybe from a badly missed shift (seen that) or from violent axle hop (seen that on 4th gen F-bodies), but just normal solo2 racing use? If so, that should scare people away form these cars.

The S2000 is actually a 2.2L, and the actual weight is closer to 2700lb.
Doh! You're right. I went off of memory... I just looked it up: the 2.0L S2000 increased displacement to 2.2L for MY2004 (not 2.4L). I stand corrected.

But the weights... I have always seen weights over 2800 pounds for the S2000.

Curb Weight: 2835 lbs. at Edmunds.com (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/honda/s2000/100454267/specs.html).

This was a sore point for many a Honda Fanboy back when the S2000 debuted in the 2000 model year... the pre-released numbers of 2400-2500 pound curbs weight were missed, and 2850 was closer to the final weight. I won a few bets on the specs and performance of this car - it was a classic internet argument back then.

Maybe there is some magic way of dropping 100-150 pounds for competition use - racing wheels and no spare? - but I doubt all of the car mags are wrong on this particular spec (one of the few they can usually test accurately).

[dan]

Someone with a cryptic user name here (was it Sipe himself?) made a snide comment earlier

yep, sounds like sipe

:speechle:

[ff]

We haven't heard from Sipe in ages... in fact, I can't remember the last time he's posted here.

[dan]

:?

[clyde]

I dunno... I heard the car went through higher than normal RPM launches (from the higher altitude and decreased performance of the RX8's N.A. engine?) and sticky R compounds with two drivers running closely together... can you honestly say these factors (if true) didn't have any negative effect on the failure? It's just a "weak 2nd gear"... :?

Again, if I am wrong on the circumstances surrounding this RX8's transmission explosion, please correct me. Someone with a cryptic user name here (was it Sipe himself?) made a snide comment earlier about how I was an idiot and had my facts wrong on this incident but has never corrected what I wrote (even after I asked him/her to). I admittedly got the poop on the pooped tranny from another racer that was at the event, but it was from someone I know and trust.

Transmissions shouldn't just "fail" at an autocross, or on the street for that matter. Stock manual trannys can fail at drag strips on modded engines with real drag slicks, sure... but on R compound DOT tires at an autocross? Maybe from a badly missed shift (seen that) or from violent axle hop (seen that on 4th gen F-bodies), but just normal solo2 racing use? If so, that should scare people away form these cars.

I would keep in mind a couple things... The first is something that I'm sure you know...a ProSolo start isn't the same as a regular autocross start. The RX-8 does have some wheel hop problems. There have been enough reported second gear failures with the same results in cars that don't appear to be driven much harder than my mother would drive one that I would consider it a known issue, even if Mazda refuses to admit it.

Your point about being scared away is well taken, but OTOH, replacing the transmissions in these cars isn't terribly expensive with used ones from wreckers going for little over $1k and brand new ones can be had for about twice that if you know where to look (which is about the same as a factory rebuilt unit from the same source :?)

The S2000 is actually a 2.2L, and the actual weight is closer to 2700lb.
Doh! You're right. I went off of memory... I just looked it up: the 2.0L S2000 increased displacement to 2.2L for MY2004 (not 2.4L). I stand corrected.

But the weights... I have always seen weights over 2800 pounds for the S2000.

Curb Weight: 2835 lbs. at Edmunds.com (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/honda/s2000/100454267/specs.html).

This was a sore point for many a Honda Fanboy back when the S2000 debuted in the 2000 model year... the pre-released numbers of 2400-2500 pound curbs weight were missed, and 2850 was closer to the final weight. I won a few bets on the specs and performance of this car - it was a classic internet argument back then.

Maybe there is some magic way of dropping 100-150 pounds for competition use - racing wheels and no spare? - but I doubt all of the car mags are wrong on this particular spec (one of the few they can usually test accurately).

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=235671&hl=

Recorded weights at impound at the Solo II Nationals last year. Whether the scale was accurate or not isn't a debate worth having, IMO.

FWIW, a car just like mine was on the scale right after mine this weekend.

Mine: 2910
His: 2851

Differences between the cars:

Mine: 2004, Nav, Sport, OE wheels, OE front bar, Borla XR-1 w/ 2 small sections of pipe, magnets (numbers/sponsors/contingency), miniDVcam/bulletcam/wiring/tape, GTech, notes to self for both of the car's drivers (and V710s with slightly less wear?)

His: 2005, Base, SSR Comps, Burns SS, custom front bar, vinyl/plain stickers (numbers/sponsors/contingency), nose bra/mask (and 710s with slightly more wear?)

We were *probably* within a gallon or two of having the same amount of gas with mine *probably* having a little more. I might be able to figure it out better later if the other owner fills up beofre driving or running the car again.

[John V]

Again, if I am wrong on the circumstances surrounding this RX8's transmission explosion, please correct me.

OK. You're wrong. :P

It appears that the tranny will withstand hard first gear launches all day long, but the quick shifts to second are a big problem. Clyde's has ground for me a couple times going into second when trying to shift easy, but still shifting at high RPM. Apparently that is a precursor. :oops:

I imagine Mark was banging off some hard 1-2 shifts. He said the tranny lunched right after one of those shifts.

But the weights... I have always seen weights over 2800 pounds for the S2000.


Check clyde's post. Most S2k's with light exhaust and light wheels are in the low 2700's. Stock exhaust and stock wheel cars are in the mid to high 2700's.

JV

[Fair!]

fair enough... I stand corrected on the exact specifics for the RX8 trans failure incident (1st gear? 2nd gear? still scary). I also realized it was a prosolo where it failed, which isn't your typical solo2... I should have mentioned that.

Also corrected about "race" weights of '00-03 S2000's. Must be a good bit of weight in the stock S2000 wheels, exhaust, spare, etc.? "They gots JDM wheels, yo!" :rolleyes: hehe....
Known areas of major weight savings in the S2000 are exhaust (up to 40+ lbs.), wheels (20 lbs.), aluminum-bodied shocks (up to 10 lbs.), running low gas / fluids.

The huge weight differences between the two 350Zs and the two Z4s show how much weight can be taken out of those cars with removal of the exhaust, judicious lightening, and making the right option choices.
I wonder how many of those entries had lightweight "race" batteries, too, as this can reduce 25-30+ pounds alone. It's good to be able to get the weight out legally, tho. :thumbup:

The 2835-2850 pound numbers are probably more indicative of dead stock '00-03 S2000s... and the 2004 seems a tick heavier, as Clyde's data points (2) show. Point is... I wasn't completely wrong. :)

JDM for Life! :lol:

[John V]

Also corrected about "race" weights of '00-03 S2000's. Must be a good bit of weight in the stock S2000 wheels, exhaust, spare, etc.? "They gots JDM wheels, yo!" :rolleyes: hehe.... I wonder how many of those entries had lightweight "race" batteries, too, as this can reduce 25-30+ pounds alone. It's good to be able to get the weight out legally, tho. :thumbup:



Read the thread. Light wheels are good for 20lb, light exhaust is good for 40lb.

Actually I wasn't quite right - the average for the bone-stock 00-03 cars appears to be 2760lb. The average for the cars modded with light exhaust and wheels is right around 2700. Light battery is not legal in stock.

What is really shocking is how light the Hammond / Hohl 350Z is. With no muffler but stock wheels their stripper 350Z is at around 3050lb. That is very light for a car with that much power.

JV

[lemming]

okay. "fun" is subjective guys.

you fellas have taken it far too much into the realm of numbers and quantifiable entities.

the points are well taken. the consensus should be that the rx8 is fun to drive. we're not talking about keeping it for life or the only car for the rest of your life, but is it fun to drive?

the answer has got to be a resounding "yeah". i'm a huge torque fan and have driven the car on multiple occasions now. i still think that it's fun to drive --that is what we're discussing, right?

[JST]

okay. "fun" is subjective guys.

you fellas have taken it far too much into the realm of numbers and quantifiable entities.

the points are well taken. the consensus should be that the rx8 is fun to drive. we're not talking about keeping it for life or the only car for the rest of your life, but is it fun to drive?

the answer has got to be a resounding "yeah". i'm a huge torque fan and have driven the car on multiple occasions now. i still think that it's fun to drive --that is what we're discussing, right?

"Fun" is such a subjective thing that it makes no sense to try and impose one's one sensibilities on someone else, or to ridicule them for their preferences. At most, a list of 12 "fun" cars tells you that the person making the list enjoyed driving those cars--it's up to you to decide whether you value that person's opinion or not, or whether that person's idea of "fun" is in any way congruent with your own.

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy different things about a lot of different cars. I've had "fun" driving everything from a Miata to a 5 speed manual 4.0 litre Jeep Cherokee on big knobbies.

I enjoyed the hell out of a 1980ish Mustang that a friend bought--dubbed the "Rallymaster," it had a crate 302 with exhuast turn-downs installed by the P0, but still had the original 4 speed manual and (non Quadra shock) rear suspension, along with wheels that could not be said to be "balanced" in any conventional sense of that term. Almost any throttle application at almost any speed produced VIOLENT axle tramp, and the hood vibrated wildly at speeds above 45 or so. But it was a blast to drive.

As clyde is wont to tell you, my first drive in an RX-8 resulted in me muttering "this is so cool" under my breath; my first autocross in one had me literally laughing out loud. I said the same thing the first time I drove a WRX, actually, and the first time I drove a Miata I couldn't stop grinning for quite some time.

So, what's "fun?" Who knows? Is "fun" the same as "fast?" When you are looking to win a competition, sure. When you aren't, maybe not.

[Roadstergal]

...which is why I think a magazine publishing a "fun" car list is a ludicrous exercise. I can come here if I want to listen to other people go off on what they think is fun, rather than paying a magazine to. If I pay money for a magazine, I want them to tell me something I don't know that has some frame of reference to make the information useful.

[JST]

...which is why I think a magazine publishing a "fun" car list is a ludicrous exercise. I can come here if I want to listen to other people go off on what they think is fun, rather than paying a magazine to. If I pay money for a magazine, I want them to tell me something I don't know that has some frame of reference to make the information useful.

I agree, sort of. A well-written article about a car the author thinks is fun can do the same thing that watching Jeremy Clarkson flog an Atom can do--be entertaining and flat make you appreciate (as Evo puts it) the thrill of driving. Speaking of Evo, they are perhaps my favorite entertainment mag these days. The authors really do well at putting you right in the cockpit and making you feel the kick that they're feeling from driving.

There are times when I want to know facts; there are times when I want at least the appearance of objective opinion about whether Car A is better than/faster than/more efficient than/more comfortable then Car B. But there are other times when I want sheer escapism.

I haven't seen the R&T article yet, though generally R&T is my least favorite magazine of the ones I read regularly. But an article on fun cars, properly written, is a nice thing to read every now and then.

[John V]

As clyde is wont to tell you, my first drive in an RX-8 resulted in me muttering "this is so cool" under my breath; my first autocross in one had me literally laughing out loud.

Agreed 100%. Only autocrossing the Elise has come close to how fun my first autocross in an '8 was.

[lemming]

okay. "fun" is subjective guys.

you fellas have taken it far too much into the realm of numbers and quantifiable entities.

the points are well taken. the consensus should be that the rx8 is fun to drive. we're not talking about keeping it for life or the only car for the rest of your life, but is it fun to drive?

the answer has got to be a resounding "yeah". i'm a huge torque fan and have driven the car on multiple occasions now. i still think that it's fun to drive --that is what we're discussing, right?

"Fun" is such a subjective thing that it makes no sense to try and impose one's one sensibilities on someone else, or to ridicule them for their preferences. At most, a list of 12 "fun" cars tells you that the person making the list enjoyed driving those cars--it's up to you to decide whether you value that person's opinion or not, or whether that person's idea of "fun" is in any way congruent with your own.

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy different things about a lot of different cars. I've had "fun" driving everything from a Miata to a 5 speed manual 4.0 litre Jeep Cherokee on big knobbies.

I enjoyed the hell out of a 1980ish Mustang that a friend bought--dubbed the "Rallymaster," it had a crate 302 with exhuast turn-downs installed by the P0, but still had the original 4 speed manual and (non Quadra shock) rear suspension, along with wheels that could not be said to be "balanced" in any conventional sense of that term. Almost any throttle application at almost any speed produced VIOLENT axle tramp, and the hood vibrated wildly at speeds above 45 or so. But it was a blast to drive.

As clyde is wont to tell you, my first drive in an RX-8 resulted in me muttering "this is so cool" under my breath; my first autocross in one had me literally laughing out loud. I said the same thing the first time I drove a WRX, actually, and the first time I drove a Miata I couldn't stop grinning for quite some time.

So, what's "fun?" Who knows? Is "fun" the same as "fast?" When you are looking to win a competition, sure. When you aren't, maybe not.

that's the beauty of the subjective articles that R&T seems to like printing these days. remember the other one? the "best all around sports car"? and the c6 z51 won it? that was another strange one.