After reading the article 2 months back entitled "12 Best Cars under $30K", I was so shocked about the 8's absence that I sent R&T an e-mail asking about it's strange disappearance. I never heard back from them. However, I was a little shocked after flipping through this months issue to find that my comment (or part of it) was published under "Your Turn".

I know I shouldn't knock the publicity, but I was STILL a little mad that I never got an answer to my question. At any rate, I was glad to get my $0.02 in for the masses to remember...the 8's still around. Rather unchanged, but still here.

Take a look for yourself...it's the 3rd comment over from Andrew

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/stavesacre21/untitled1-1.jpg

My full comment I sent in to them read this:

I was rather surprised to find that the RX-8 was excluded from the best 12 cars under $30k in December’s issue. With other such runners as the Scion tC TRD, Mini Cooper and Volkswagen GTI, one can only help but wonder why the perfectly balanced, smooth revving RX-8 was so quickly forgotten. Torque issues aside, how does Mazda's flagstaff performance based sports car teamed with an impressive $26K price tag not appeal to a sports car enthusiasts crowd? When it comes to enthusiasts, I've found that the rotary engine has one of the most devoted followings I've ever seen.

Good letter!

S

When I read that comment in the issue, I knew it had to be someone from this board. Way to go!

Good Job!

How did R&T quote you? And did they have a response? Sorry, I don't have the mag in front of me.

That'll teach them to write articles that help them sell magazines and increase their ad revenue! Oh wait...

Kudos for writing in, but that whole article was a joke. I have never met anyone with a 350Z who has gotten it for under $30k. And as I recall the performance numbers they got were of dubious value.

^^well said ^^

A decent mag would respond to comments by the readers. Personally I could care less since I don't read crappy magazines and know for a fact I got one of the best cars for under 30K. It may not be the best but it deserved a look, along with several other cars.

sweet! I like to see that they listen.

Nice letter!
I would imagine the reason they didn't respond is because it would be awfully tough to argue with your letter. (AND Nissan pays them more for advertising)

The fact that they printed his letter means that it was well written and he had a point. What do you expect them to say in a reply. This was a passive way to say we blew it.

I've subscribed to R&T since '86 (wow... I just realized I've been reading that thing for a really, really long time)... Anyhow, they rarely respond to letters. Sometimes they do, but it's not the norm.

yeah usually when a magazine just publish a reader comment w/o replies, that means they agree with your point of view, so +1 for you!

^ right on.

You posted this letter in a thread (bitchfest, lol) when you send it, right? Kudos.

Like a few have said - they publish letters that are well written & have a valid point. Combine Al & Jedi's posts and expand a little & you get the real answer:

"We can't argue this point, we blew it, but it's only b/c we value Nissan's money over actual journalistic integrity."

:beerchug:

The fact that they printed his letter means that it was well written and he had a point. What do you expect them to say in a reply. This was a passive way to say we blew it.

No, it was a way for them to show how every person with a car that didn't make the list had a gripe.

If I'm an author of an article and it is flawed and brought to my attention, I would admit it or explain the reason why it is the way it is. Now if I write for Teen Beat or Crappy Car Mag Extreme printing your comment is good enough and you get a free sticker.

I too was wondering about why the 8 was left out, so I did a search on R&T forums and found these replies from the editor.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=13057&forumID=68&search=1&searchstring=

So what he is saying is that they left out the part that states "cars we chose to look at" to mislead the reader into thinking they were going to get a real idea of what is out there. Looks like he took the same approach for the frames on his glasses under $30.

I too was wondering about why the 8 was left out, so I did a search on R&T forums and found these replies from the editor.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=13057&forumID=68&search=1&searchstring=

I guess that makes sense, kind of. But it is still bull. If Mazda happens to have three cars in this category, then that means that Mazda is the company to go to if you want a great sports car for under 30k; simple as that. You can have your mix of three different types of 'sporty'. Good point brought up earlier that, for the most part, only the base Z is less than 30. They should have looked at comparatively equipped autos trim level wise.. That will show a more accurate 'best bang for the buck' comparison... Just my .02..

This comment should bring the resident fanbois out pretty quick:

"I would agree the RX-8 is an easier car to drive, as it has less torque, softer ride quality, and a lighter feel. The Z will hang the rear end out more easily, especialy on a bump road. That's probably how most people scare themselves. To avoid such things and go even faster get the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and drive a 4-door that will beat the $(&* out of the Z, RX-8 and even an S2000."

I too was wondering about why the 8 was left out, so I did a search on R&T forums and found these replies from the editor.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=13057&forumID=68&search=1&searchstring=

Although I agree they blew it by not including the 8 vs. over some of their lame choices, in S Bailey's defense, at least the guy was honest and didn't BS the person questioning their choices. His answer said a lot.

It's a cop out to say that we included 2 Mazdas, can't do 3, but I'll agree the consumer's have lost interest so I guess like lemmings they have as well. Bottom line, the problem is more correctly put in Mazda's lap for virtually abandoning any meaningful refresh of the car's shortcomings (power) over 4 yrs time and even excluding it from brand awareness by leaving it out of most of its commercials. Sorta the bastard child syndrome, eventually people get the message and everyone begins to shun it, regardless of it's merits. :anger:

No, it was a way for them to show how every person with a car that didn't make the list had a gripe.

:hahano:

WHOA! I got published too! ("Cadet Travis Root" is me.) I had no idea.

My RX8 started out just slightly over $30K, but now with all my mods, I'm over $40K YIKES!

(And I still don't have a blower on it...)

But, with 50,000 miles of trouble free service, I really cannot complain. Looking forward to the ride home in my beloved 8.

I too was wondering about why the 8 was left out, so I did a search on R&T forums and found these replies from the editor.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=13057&forumID=68&search=1&searchstring=


Looks like I was pretty close, he was just a little more PC. It's hard work being right all the time. ;) :cwm27:



More of our readers care about the 350Z, and Mini, and we'll keep testing them as things keep getting improved on those models. The RX-8 hasn't had a damn thing done to it in over 3 years. In other words, RX-8 owners can suck it!

Sincerly,
Road and Track

The biggest reason the RX-8 didn't make the list IMO is because it's the same car it was in 2003 when it was released. Mazda hasn't done anything to improve the car and for that reason maybe it doesn't deserve to make the list <shrugs>

How did R&T quote you? And did they have a response? Sorry, I don't have the mag in front of me.

maybe the inserted picture didn't show through your firewall, but this is what the magazine posting reads:

I was rather surprised to find the Mazda RX-8 excluded from the 12 best under $30K. One can only wonder why the perfectly balanced, smooth-revving RX-8 was so quickly forgotten. Torque issues aside, how can Mazda's flagship sports car, teamed with an impressive $26K price tag, not appeal to the sports-car crowd? Whne it comes to enthusiasts, the rotary engine as one of the most devoted followings i've ever seen.

and no, if you can't tell from others responses yet, they didn't reply to it. Others are right though, they very rarely do.

No, it was a way for them to show how every person with a car that didn't make the list had a gripe.

a gripe? I'd say it was a legitimate question, worded purposly without arrogance. You'd be surprised how much more people are willing to listen to someone who's not crying or shouting.

WHOA! I got published too! ("Cadet Travis Root" is me.) I had no idea.

congrats on that as well bro! I found most of these thoughts pretty insightful. Very well written too! :)

So to sum it up; The public has lost interest, R&T has lost interest and Mazda has lost interest in the RX8. Dont put any money down on a 2008 order, you will never see it. Too bad really because it is really a nice car. Mazda just blew it on promotion and allowing bad press.

So to sum it up; The public has lost interest, R&T has lost interest and Mazda has lost interest in the RX8. Dont put any money down on a 2008 order, you will never see it. Too bad really because it is really a nice car. Mazda just blew it on promotion and allowing bad press.

Allowing bad press? Mazda was the reason for the bad press...

So to sum it up; The public has lost interest, R&T has lost interest and Mazda has lost interest in the RX8. Dont put any money down on a 2008 order, you will never see it. Too bad really because it is really a nice car. Mazda just blew it on promotion and allowing bad press.

That would be great news.

... to think that I thought it was a good thing that the RX didn't make the list. And WOW I didn't know that the Evo was so fast. Oh wait if I all I wanted was to go fast, I would've put a V8 in my Spitfire and spanked the pants off of any Evo on the road. How many times are we going to have this circuitous discussion of RX8 vs whatever? And it seems that many times people offer opinions without even owning an RX. I don't make it a habit of going to the Evo boards and making statements like "how about we both rev our cars to 9000 rpm and hold it there until someone breaks" I think we all know how that would turn out. My point is that Evo drivers want a certain experience and RX drivers want a certain experience. Each car is going to be better than the other with respect to certain criteria. I do want to ask one question of all the AWD crowd out there. What is the point to having a spoiler on an AWD? I only ask because every (and I mean EVERY) Evo and WRX I see here in Washington seems to have one that you could sit on. And I don't buy the downforce argument. It would defeat the purpose of AWD.

Later
Corvus13

Truely a shame - especially for a car that people come up just to look at and touch it...
But then again, rarity will add value over time...

Glad you posted and if there are enough letters to the editor they may think there is still a group that buys their rag that wants to read more about 8s! When you sell yours don't sell it cheap!

... to think that I thought it was a good thing that the RX didn't make the list. And WOW I didn't know that the Evo was so fast. Oh wait if I all I wanted was to go fast, I would've put a V8 in my Spitfire and spanked the pants off of any Evo on the road. How many times are we going to have this circuitous discussion of RX8 vs whatever? And it seems that many times people offer opinions without even owning an RX. I don't make it a habit of going to the Evo boards and making statements like "how about we both rev our cars to 9000 rpm and hold it there until someone breaks" I think we all know how that would turn out. My point is that Evo drivers want a certain experience and RX drivers want a certain experience. Each car is going to be better than the other with respect to certain criteria. I do want to ask one question of all the AWD crowd out there. What is the point to having a spoiler on an AWD? I only ask because every (and I mean EVERY) Evo and WRX I see here in Washington seems to have one that you could sit on. And I don't buy the downforce argument. It would defeat the purpose of AWD.

Later
Corvus13

Yes, all the Evo can do is go fast... :Freak_ani Why does a wing defeat the purpose of AWD? Ever heard of the WRC, ever seen the cars that run in it? Yep, AWD and with wings, every last one of em. Those wings are actually used as a basis for the wings on the Evo and STI. If you don't think they provide downforce and better handling/stability at higher speeds then you're wrong.

Bottom line is, the RX-8, even though a great car for under $30, hasn't had a refresh or power increase of any kind since it's inception (not to mention poor sales and recall fiascos). If the same was true for the 350Z, it may not have made the list either. Obviously R&T likes Mazda as 2 others made the list. If the RX-8 had a face lift or more HP this year it may have knocked either the 3 or the MX-5 off the list. As it is, it's a great car, but old news and R&T isn't going to print old news. Doesn't make me love my car any less.

I don't argue with the power and restyling, unchanged design argument. I'll admit that some changes woudl definetely yield some more press. Hopefully Mazda'll consider some of this input and put it into play before signing off with the 8 permanently.

I'm sure that i'd speak for a lot of people when i say that the outcome of a more powerful and completely worked over RX-8 would be exciting to see. I wonder if it would actaully turn any heads if the 8 rolled out of the factory with about 300 horse. Im not saying that power solves everything, or that i'm not content with my car now...just wonder exactly what kinda response the 8 would get in respect to press and sales if major changes like so were made.

IMO - the 8 is the bastard child now. It will stay that way - no upgrades, no changes. But I hope that Mazda proves me wrong in 2 days . . .

Way to go!
The key phase in your letter was "Torque issues aside". But for a little more power our car would be very hard to ignore. We just got a MazdaSpeed 6 for my wife. Really stinks that my wife's sedan is more powerful than my sports car... from the same company! I truly love my RX8 but the power issue is what got us "so quickly forgotten".

:beerchug:

My point on the argument of the wings on AWD cars is this. If you are increasing down force on the REAR of the car, then by the laws of physics, you are decreasing the downforce on the FRONT of the car. If it is an AWD vehicle then you just negated the whole point of AWD...having all four wheels in as much contact as possible with the ground. But I will buy the stability at speeds argument. It is just that you are the first Evo person I've dealt with that understands that. And don't get your panties in a bunch over the fast comment. As I stated that is what the Evo does well. And that is what most Evo owners bought it for. Most RX owners buy their car for the overall experience.

Later
Corvus13

Originally Posted by Ike
No, it was a way for them to show how every person with a car that didn't make the list had a gripe.

This is exactly why so many here think you're an ass. So you lump the 8 together with everyone else who had a gripe, namely RSX, Tiburon and TSX owners. Actually the RSX should have been on the list - if it was still in production. And we all know the Tiburon has no business being on any list. And the TSX? At best a nice almost sporty family car. Hardly a group that the 8 derserves to be in.

Originally Posted by Ike
The biggest reason the RX-8 didn't make the list IMO is because it's the same car it was in 2003 when it was released. Mazda hasn't done anything to improve the car and for that reason maybe it doesn't deserve to make the list <shrugs>

The title of the article isn't the newest or most improved car under 30, it's "12 best cars under 30" right? Even you should admit that the 8 at the very freak'n least should be a top 12 car. They choose the 350 as the overall winner, even though in a previous test they clearly chose an 8 over the mechanically identical G35 coupe. So why are you defending the inexcusable...unless you really are the permanent troll that you've been labeled as.

My view? Road and Track always had the least cred of all publications, and this just confirms that. As they admitted on their site, they dropped the 8 because its sales figures have dropped off, and because two newer Mazda's are included in the test. How does this make them a publication for enthusiasts?

And wings are gay on a streetcar.

This is exactly why so many here think you're an ass. So you lump the 8 together with everyone else who had a gripe, namely RSX, Tiburon and TSX owners. Actually the RSX should have been on the list - if it was still in production. And we all know the Tiburon has no business being on any list. And the TSX? At best a nice almost sporty family car. Hardly a group that the 8 derserves to be in.

And why not? Each is a sporty car under $30K. You'd be hard pressed to convince me the Tiburon and the TSX are any less deserving than the Civic Si and Scion tC. Even though it's fallen in with the boi-racers, the Tiburon is built much along the same lines as the 8 and the Miata-- a lightweight car designed to give excellent road feel, not neck-snapping power. And the TSX, that "nice almost sporty family car," is the car that Mid-Ohio Raceway maintains a whole fleet of to use as instructor cars in their courses... so I assume the professional racing instructors who use them seem to think they can get around the track rather well. Stop with the elitist nonsense and realize that other cars can be just as good as yours.

And why not? Each is a sporty car under $30K. You'd be hard pressed to convince me the Tiburon and the TSX are any less deserving than the Civic Si and Scion tC. Even though it's fallen in with the boi-racers, the Tiburon is built much along the same lines as the 8 and the Miata-- a lightweight car designed to give excellent road feel, not neck-snapping power. And the TSX, that "nice almost sporty family car," is the car that Mid-Ohio Raceway maintains a whole fleet of to use as instructor cars in their courses... so I assume the professional racing instructors who use them seem to think they can get around the track rather well. Stop with the elitist nonsense and realize that other cars can be just as good as yours.

An elitist? For thinking my car is better than a Tiburon? Ok Rootski, why do you drive an 8 if it’s no better than a Tiburon? Or any of the 12 cars that were mentioned?

It’s not an opinion when I say the Tiburon weighs about the same as the 8, yet has 60 less horsepower from a minivan sourced V6 on a FWD platform, doesn’t even have a limited slip front diff. Yeah, that rips! Maybe I’m missing something. Oh, and your TSX argument, I said it’s a nice and somewhat sporty family sedan, that’s no insult and I bet that 95% of enthusiasts wouldn’t disagree with that assessment. And Mid-Ohio instructors would drive nearly anything that gets manufacturer support.

Jeez, this site is becoming laughable when you can’t say anything positive about your own car without being called an elitist or a fanboi. Ok, let me join in…my car sucks, I was a retard for buying it, should have bought a Hyundai!!!

Settle down. The simple fact is that those cars DO belong on a list of under 30k sports cars, simply b/c the target market is "sports car" consumers - albeit a very loose definition. To argue that they don't belong there is nonsense, since each of the cars in that category has strengths and weaknesses.

Owners of any of those cars should be a little annoyed when omitted from a "comparison list" of under 30k. Period.

R&T sux. The article should say - "cars we decided were worthy of our testing, b/c we're either too high falootin to include [insert omitted vehicle here] in the testing, or we're just too f8ckin lazy to actually drive a 1/2 dozen or so more vehicles."

that article is a piece of sh%^

My point on the argument of the wings on AWD cars is this. If you are increasing down force on the REAR of the car, then by the laws of physics, you are decreasing the downforce on the FRONT of the car. If it is an AWD vehicle then you just negated the whole point of AWD...having all four wheels in as much contact as possible with the ground. But I will buy the stability at speeds argument. It is just that you are the first Evo person I've dealt with that understands that. And don't get your panties in a bunch over the fast comment. As I stated that is what the Evo does well. And that is what most Evo owners bought it for. Most RX owners buy their car for the overall experience.

Later
Corvus13
Does that even make sense? Just because you're increasing downforce in the rear doesn't mean you're lowering it in the front. It's not a see-saw. And even if it were true you still want as much power to the rear wheels as you can to avoid understeer. Even though it's AWD, the goal is still to provide as much traction on the rear wheels as possible.

And in terms of the article -- who gives a crap? Do you guys go out and buy whatever car every magazine rates the highest? Comparisons are difficult to make on many of these cars because they're all very different. Figure out what you want, how much you want to spend, and go for it. The only reason whatsoever to care about what others say about your car is ego.

An elitist? For thinking my car is better than a Tiburon? Ok Rootski, why do you drive an 8 if it’s no better than a Tiburon? Or any of the 12 cars that were mentioned?

It’s not an opinion when I say the Tiburon weighs about the same as the 8, yet has 60 less horsepower from a minivan sourced V6 on a FWD platform, doesn’t even have a limited slip front diff. Yeah, that rips! Maybe I’m missing something. Oh, and your TSX argument, I said it’s a nice and somewhat sporty family sedan, that’s no insult and I bet that 95% of enthusiasts wouldn’t disagree with that assessment. And Mid-Ohio instructors would drive nearly anything that gets manufacturer support.

Jeez, this site is becoming laughable when you can’t say anything positive about your own car without being called an elitist or a fanboi. Ok, let me join in…my car sucks, I was a retard for buying it, should have bought a Hyundai!!!

Cool it, sister. Made up statistics ("95% of enthusiasts"... did you take a poll?) and gross generalizations (of the Mid-Ohio instructors, who have forgotten more about racing than you'll ever know) aside, you cannot seriously argue these cars do not deserve a spot on the list alongside the RX-8. My original letter to them also said they needed the RX-8 as well, but they cut that out, probably because they already had another letter about it. I should have made that clear before. I never called you a fanboi. I think it's a bit of a dumbass term because you should stand behind your own automotive purchase, as I do, but you need to stop talking like other cars carry the plague or something. That's elitism. Just because it's a Hyundai doesn't mean it can't be a good car... it looks sharp, it handles well, and it's well-priced. So what if the engine's from a minivan? Keep in mind the Ford GT uses a pickup truck engine, and the 350Z uses a Renault engine used in everything from sedans to SUVs. That argument won't get you anywhere.

And for the record, I never said you should have bought a Tiburon. Go ahead and find anywhere in my last post where I said it's better than an 8. Can't find it, can you? And telling me I should have bought one sounds a lot like the "If you love it so much why don't you marry it!?" line we all used when we were about kindergarten age.

Anyway, the article is inherently flawed in its title... "The 12 Best Cars for Under $30k" implies they tested a LOT of cars and picked the twelve best... rather than picking the single best from a field of 12. Either the title or the testing method should be different.

Hey Saturn,

I understand your point but go out and push down on the back of your car and tell me happens to the front. Or for that matter put a board on two blocks and push down on one end and tell me what happens to the other end. The result might surprise you...

later
Corvus13

90210 :) rootski is refering to that you sound elitist when you made it sound like the rsx and tsx owners 'complaints are not as valid but the rx8 owners have every right to complain. there are plenty of things that those cars does better than the rx8 and vice versa.

Hey Saturn,

I understand your point but go out and push down on the back of your car and tell me happens to the front. Or for that matter put a board on two blocks and push down on one end and tell me what happens to the other end. The result might surprise you...

later
Corvus13
That's not exactly correct though. If you have a perfect see-saw, adding 10 lbs of downforce on one end causes the other end to have 10 lbs of upforce because you have one fulcrum that is equal distances from both ends. But in a car you have two axles so pushing down on the back of the car with 10 lbs rotates the car around the rear axle which does NOT cause 10 lbs of upforce all the way up at the front wheel. It's an issue of torque.

I'm not saying it doesn't cause the front wheels to lift up a bit. It's just not equal to the amount of downforce on the rear wheels is all.

This is exactly why so many here think you're an ass. So you lump the 8 together with everyone else who had a gripe, namely RSX, Tiburon and TSX owners. Actually the RSX should have been on the list - if it was still in production. And we all know the Tiburon has no business being on any list. And the TSX? At best a nice almost sporty family car. Hardly a group that the 8 derserves to be in.



The title of the article isn't the newest or most improved car under 30, it's "12 best cars under 30" right? Even you should admit that the 8 at the very freak'n least should be a top 12 car. They choose the 350 as the overall winner, even though in a previous test they clearly chose an 8 over the mechanically identical G35 coupe. So why are you defending the inexcusable...unless you really are the permanent troll that you've been labeled as.

My view? Road and Track always had the least cred of all publications, and this just confirms that. As they admitted on their site, they dropped the 8 because its sales figures have dropped off, and because two newer Mazda's are included in the test. How does this make them a publication for enthusiasts?

I didn't say whether they were legitimate gripes or not. I'm sure they got letters from just about every pseudo performance car owner wondering why their car didn't make the list. They were just showing all the people that were whining about cars that didn't get on the list, just like all the people whining in these threads. Yes, the RX-8 based on its merits alone probably should have been on the list, at the same time I understand why they left it off.

I agree with you about the RSX, it would have and should have made the list. I also agree on the Tiburon, Hyundai has made great strides in making better cars but the Tiburon as far as driver feel and bang for the buck goes is a turd.

The Z has been improved in a lot of ways over the years, I haven't seen a direct RX-8/G35/Z comparison in a long time. The one time I saw it beating the G35 it was only by a point or two and it would have taken very little to make the votes swing in favor of the G35 or 350Z. I was never defending R&T as much as I was understanding their reason for not including it.

Hey Saturn,

I understand your point but go out and push down on the back of your car and tell me happens to the front. Or for that matter put a board on two blocks and push down on one end and tell me what happens to the other end. The result might surprise you...

later
Corvus13

The Evo and STI have plenty of downforce in the front as well, which magically increases as speeds increase just like the rear downforce... The best time attack cars in the world are Evos, Evos with huge freaking wings. I suppose they're just putting them on there to look cool.

Saturn,

We agree completely then. I agree that the amount that the front is "lifted up" would be negligible for the amount of gain you get from the downforce. But so many of these people I talk to about the issue don't have that understanding. I would be happy if they would just admit it is for looks (I have no problem with that at all), but they claim it is for downforce, aerodynamics, etc, neglecting the fact that for a wing to achieve any of those purposes, you must be traveling at a decent speed (in excess of most freeway speeds) which is why they function great on the track. At any rate, I couldn't care less what R&T has to say about the 8. It is serving the exact purpose I bought it for. I think a big difference is that this is the first rotary for many owners and they don't understand the engines upsides and downsides. Oh and by the way Saturn, nice to see someone who can use the word cromulence in a sentence.

Later
Corvus13

Ike,

Super that Evos are great time attack cars. Did you not read my post earlier that I thought they were great at what they were designed to do? My point is lost on you. You refuse to accept that some people don't like the Evo just like some people don't like the RX. Me personally, I think they are perfectly engineered to do what they were designed to do. Although I do find it ironic that Mitsubishi cruises the Evo boards trying to void warranties when they catch threads about people using the car as it was intended to be used.

Later
Corvus13

Allowing bad press? Mazda was the reason for the bad press...
Let me rephrase, Mazda should never have allowed the quality issues to get as bad as they did. It seems that some damage control could have been done to prevent such disasters as the whole mulligan thing etc...

WORD!

Although I do find it ironic that Mitsubishi cruises the Evo boards trying to void warranties when they catch threads about people using the car as it was intended to be used.

I'm really not taking any sides here, but there's already been more than a few occasions of that happening on this very site. Ask abbid for details if your a doubter. I've even heard the far-and-wide tales of Mazda going out to tracks and taking pictures of people racing their cars so that when they come if for any warranty work, they bust out the pictures.

It's not only Mitsubishi or Mazda that does it though, i'd heard of MANY makes pulling shotty crap like that.

In reply to almost the rest of this thread, I never meant for it to say others were less worthy to be on the list than an 8. It's not like a deity or something...it was just a letter I thought might get an answer. You all are really hacking limbs off left-and-right over this. All cars are not created equal, but instead tend to all have their own pros and cons. R&T should no more be a judge of that than you and I in our own personal opinions. The only difference is they have the paper to print it on...and with have a forum to post it on.

I agree with you Staveacre, and I know that it has happened to many Mazda owners. I wasn't trying to slam on the Evo owners. I admire that car for what it is. I was merely commenting on the irony of a company marketing a car for a purpose and then penalizing the owners for using it as intended.

Later
Corvus13

that's just great........ I have the bastard child and my neighbor has the WILD CHILD!

Hey, great marketing idea. You buy either.

Ike,

Super that Evos are great time attack cars. Did you not read my post earlier that I thought they were great at what they were designed to do? My point is lost on you. You refuse to accept that some people don't like the Evo just like some people don't like the RX. Me personally, I think they are perfectly engineered to do what they were designed to do. Although I do find it ironic that Mitsubishi cruises the Evo boards trying to void warranties when they catch threads about people using the car as it was intended to be used.

Later
Corvus13

You said they were great at going fast. I took that as you making them out to be a drag car like so many others on this site have tried to do.

I've said it on here many times, you just haven't been around to see it. The Evo is not for everyone and it's a pretty raw car with very few creature comforts. I've never made it out to be anything but what it is. The wing however is funtional and has rally roots behind the design.

The whole Mitsubishi voiding warranties thing has been so blown out of proportion. There was one famous case, and it wasn't even from Mitsubishi cruising the boards, it was because the guy got caught racing his car in the SCCA.

My dealer installed my turboback exhaust, they sell Buschur racing power packages with full factory warranty, and they sponsor trackdays for their customers. Don't believe everything you've heard on the internet.

Don't believe everything you've heard on the internet.

So since you're telling me that statement over the Internet I shouldn't believe it? In which case I should believe it which of course means I shouldn't believe it. Wait, what were we talking about again?

So since you're telling me that statement over the Internet I shouldn't believe it? In which case I should believe it which of course means I shouldn't believe it. Wait, what were we talking about again?

Maybe

So since you're telling me that statement over the Internet I shouldn't believe it? In which case I should believe it which of course means I shouldn't believe it. Wait, what were we talking about again?

Al Gore invented the Internet :rock:

my house is only 2 turns off the information super highway.

This thread has transformed into a caldasac on the information super highway....

....it gives you somewhere to go, but doesn't really get you anywhere.

hhmmm . . .

kind of like how R&T gives you something to do, but doesn't do anything for you.

IMO, years and decades ago, R&T was the ultimate car mag, above the rest, their words and reviews were THE coveted word on sports cars. Today, perhaps as the staff as turned over, and more staff came that just 'got a job' (perhaps because journalism majors, not true sports car enthusiasts apply?) much has changed. Seems a lot of the copy has degenerated into 'testing'/marketing pieces for SUVs and trucks, and expensive toys/exotics rather than sports car and sports-like cars. Favoring popular market opinion /high roller toys does draw readership in and increases ad revenue, which helps the bottom line, if not the mags content value.

Still beats Car & Driver's "We tested 8 sedans, compared them all to the gold standard of the Camry, and then picked the Accord again. But next year we'll still compare them all to a Camry."

Or Motortrend's: We tested 2 wagons, 3 sedans, 4 SUV's and a porsche 911 to see which is the best car. We hate the trunk space in the Porsche, think the SUV's have crappy gas mileage and think everyone should get a station wagon.

The best time attack cars in the world are Evos, Evos with huge freaking wings.
The winner of two US Time Attack events in 2006, including one victory in the Super Street Time Attack by 4 seconds over the rest of the field was neither AWD nor an Evo. It was... drumroll please... a Nissan Silvia S-15 from Hankook Tire and JIC, driven by Formula D driver Tyler McQuarrie. Another Time Attack winner in 2006 here in the US, in the race tire class was... wait for it... a 240 horsepower, 11,000 rpm redline Toyota Corolla GT-S coupe driven by Ken Gushi.

Evos may be the best in the world, but they're getting their asses waxed here in the US. BTW, an Evo stood a chance at winning the American Touge 2 event, if it hadn't blown a cylinder. Stellar reliability there, sport!

That's just plain silly hilarious PhotoMunkey:yelrotflm Corolla haa hahhh :lol: ... suck it up for the Toyota!

http://www.jtuned.com/content/templates/statics.aspx?articleid=496&zoneid=1

240 horsepower, 1.6 liters naturally-aspirated, no nitrous, no turbo, no supercharger. 1800 lbs and running on 15" Toyo RA-1s.

The engine alone cost more than an entire Evo. An Evo is a waste of sheetmetal compared to this.

BTW2- The Evo that blew up at American Touge 2 WAS the fastest 400 hp 3-cylinder at the event. That must count for something.