I go to other forums to read up about other cars like: 350z, rx8, acura TL, WRX Sti, Evo etc...

and it seems like when they compare their cars to others they would often bring up the honda s2000 as one and hardly the rx-8. I was just thinking how the rx-8 is pretty similar to the s2000. Is it just me or these people doesn't compare the rx-8 to their cars. Not that it really bothers me cause i think the rx-8 is great. I just found it interesting.

I know of course they probably bring it up sometimes to make some derogatory remarks about rx-8, but that's about it.

Perhaps it is because people discuss what they are familiar with. The s2000 has been around forever compared to the 8. Give it time.

The biggest problem the RX-8 has when comparing it with other cars is it's lackluster acceleration. I think acceleration numbers sell sportscar more than just about any other figure. On the other sites I visit I sometimes defend the 8 for it's great handling, and other times agree with others that point out it just doesn't have the guts you would want and expect from a 30K sportscar. If Mazda had been able to get acceleration numbers like the S2K, Z/G35, STi, EVO, it would get much more respect and have many more buyers. It handles great, but so do a lot of other cars, and they're faster. I think the FD has a lot to do with it as well, compared to that car for many sportscar and sportcompact enthusiasts the RX-8 was a big letdown. However the practicality of the RX-8 was a welcome addition to those people that just have to have a usable backseat. Most people on other car forums like the ones you mentioned could care less about a useable backseat.

Here's a poll from a large car site in europe.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp

And a poll someone from ClubRSX that was started.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118253&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

I really don't like the RSX boards, you really have to wade through a lot of stupid immature crap and name calling to realize there are some valuable posts and info on that board. The best thing about that board and the only reason I read and post on it occasionally is the diversity of car owners there.

Ike

Ike, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds is hardly "lackluster." Slower than a WRX perhaps, but faster than 99% of the cars on the road today.

I think Spin9k is probably right. The instances of RX-8's occuring on the road now is increasing (I saw THREE today alone in a four hour period, not including mine) and as soon as the car is out a bit longer, it'll be a bit more mainstream.

Ike, the "slow acceleration" bit doesn't hold any water. As Omicron said, the car beats the snot out of 99% of the cars out there, and it's getting great reviews pretty much across the board. The only reason people say it's "slow" is because people like you insist in perpetuating that myth.

I can't find that poll you're pointing to- what does it say? And that doesn't seem to be a very big site- only 65 cars in the database, and not a single reference to the 8 that I can find?

I thought that the s2000 and rx-8 was up to par in accelaration? Thought they were both 5.9secs in their 0-60. I think the s2000 is pretty cool but rx-8 gives you the backseats , i always thought that they handle and accelerate about the same.

Originally posted by Omicron
Ike, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds is hardly "lackluster." Slower than a WRX perhaps, but faster than 99% of the cars on the road today.


Compared to the other cars in it's segment it's lackluster to me. There a lot of sedans and some SUVs out there that are on par or faster than the RX-8 (Maxima, TL, Accord V6, Altima, Forester XT, FX45, G35, M45). The RX-8 certainly has things going for it that these other cars don't but to a lot of people acceleration rules. So when you put the car in the same segment as the EVO, STi, G35/Z, S2K, Mustang Mach 1, GT, and Cobra the car falls a bit short for some people. Before people get overly defnesive, I'm not bashing the car, simply saying to a lot of people it just isn't all that fast and that explains some of the luke warm feeling from other car people and in some cases outright bashing of the car.

I also think 5.9 is on the low side and was done with preproduction cars and a 8k clutch drop. Real world results on the current production cars (most people have been getting high 14 and low 15s) yield times that are close to cars such as the GTi and RSX type S which can be had for 10k less. And it falls short in the accelleration department to cars such as the SRT-4 and regular WRX which also come in at thousands less and are very cheap to make much faster. Speed rules for some people and and for most of those people they won't consider an RX-8.

Ike

Originally posted by Elara
I think Spin9k is probably right. The instances of RX-8's occuring on the road now is increasing (I saw THREE today alone in a four hour period, not including mine) and as soon as the car is out a bit longer, it'll be a bit more mainstream.

Ike, the "slow acceleration" bit doesn't hold any water. As Omicron said, the car beats the snot out of 99% of the cars out there, and it's getting great reviews pretty much across the board. The only reason people say it's "slow" is because people like you insist in perpetuating that myth.

I can't find that poll you're pointing to- what does it say? And that doesn't seem to be a very big site- only 65 cars in the database, and not a single reference to the 8 that I can find?

Yes I think the my acceleration argument does hold water, but you have a right to your opinion. Yes it's getting great reviews, because it's a great well balanced car.

The poll is under polls and is the second poll. The site is a database of track times for various cars, and even on a site devoted to the twisties the poll yielded acceleration as the most important thing about a car. There is no RX-8 in the database yet, but the site lists cars times around Hockenheim.


Meeh, the S2K can do the 1/4 consitently with low 14s (14.1-14.3 is pretty common with a good driver) with the new model being supposedly a little faster. 0-60 for the S2K is usually mid 5s, and the handling is very comparable with a lot of people giving a slight edge to the S2K.

thats nice and all
but f$$$ them

You can go over to the Porsche Boxster forum and tell them how much cheaper and faster the S2000 is but at the end of the day they still spent the extra $$$ because they prefered the Porsche. Thing is I don't care what other people think of the RX-8 because the only person that has to like it is me.

Originally posted by Superfan
You can go over to the Porsche Boxster forum and tell them how much cheaper and faster the S2000 is but at the end of the day they still spent the extra $$$ because they prefered the Porsche. Thing is I don't care what other people think of the RX-8 because the only person that has to like it is me.

Very true, what really matters is if it was the car for you and if you love it. I'm just trying to give the original poster an understanding of why a lot of other car sites aren't singing the praises of the RX-8 compared to other cars as much as you guys are. It's funny you mention the Boxster as well, because it's another car that doesn't get much credit. But that's proably more warranted since I can't honestly see a reason to buy a Boxster over a S2K, I can see reasons to buy an RX-8 over both however.

Ike

i would buy a boxster overa S2K and i agree i would buy an RX-8 over both of them and a Sub too. i worked at Sub headquarters for 8 years in the 1980's and 1990's and never owned one. i could have had a good deal but just never liked the look.

Originally posted by RX-GR8
i would buy a boxster overa S2K and i agree i would buy an RX-8 over both of them and a Sub too. i worked at Sub headquarters for 8 years in the 1980's and 1990's and never owned one. i could have had a good deal but just never liked the look.

I will always chose performance over looks, but back then Subarus didn't have either. Though the SVX was kind of a neat car. Out of curiosity why would you buy a Boxster over an S2K?

This argument about speed and power is comparing apples and oranges: (mostly) sports cars and hopped jobs like the WRX on one side, a sports tourer on the other. Mazda will have its own apple soon, a slightly lighter and more agile (shorter wheelbase, firmer suspension) sports car called RX-7, with more torque and hp from an extra cost supercharger or turbo. You can bet they won't release it with uncompetitive numbers.
I don't mind Mazda calling my 8 a sports car to help sell more of them, and that category is certainly flexible, but the ride, quiet and nice interior qualify it as a Gran Turismo -- to use the fancy name.

Originally posted by Mitch Strickler
This argument about speed and power is comparing apples and oranges: (mostly) sports cars and hopped jobs like the WRX on one side, a sports tourer on the other. Mazda will have its own apple soon, a slightly lighter and more agile (shorter wheelbase, firmer suspension) sports car called RX-7, with more torque and hp from an extra cost supercharger or turbo. You can bet they won't release it with uncompetitive numbers.
I don't mind Mazda calling my 8 a sports car to help sell more of them, and that category is certainly flexible, but the ride, quiet and nice interior qualify it as a Gran Turismo -- to use the fancy name.

I hope the RX-7 happens and doesn't disappoint, but that's all speculation at this point.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I hope the RX-7 happens and doesn't disappoint, but that's all speculation at this point.

If they truly want to be known for the affordable sports car company...they'll have to. Especially seeing how hard they are trying to push the Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazdaspeed Protege, RX8, and even a "sporty" MP5.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
The biggest problem the RX-8 has when comparing it with other cars is it's lackluster acceleration. I think acceleration numbers sell sportscar more than just about any other figure. On the other sites I visit I sometimes defend the 8 for it's great handling, and other times agree with others that point out it just doesn't have the guts you would want and expect from a 30K sportscar. If Mazda had been able to get acceleration numbers like the S2K, Z/G35, STi, EVO, it would get much more respect and have many more buyers.

There a lot of sedans and some SUVs out there that are on par or faster than the RX-8 (Maxima, TL, Accord V6, Altima, Forester XT, FX45, G35, M45). The RX-8 certainly has things going for it that these other cars don't but to a lot of people acceleration rules.


0-60 Numbers from Car and Driver:


Subaru WRX STi: 4.6 sec
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution: 5.0
Subaru Forester XT: 5.3
Honda S2000: 5.4
Nissan 350Z: 5.4
Infiniti M45: 5.7
MAZDA RX-8: 5.9
Honda Accord V6 Coupe: 5.9
Nissan Altima 3.5SE: 5.95
Acura TL: 6.0
Infiniti G35 Coupe: 6.0
Nissan Maxima 3.5SE: 6.4

As you can see, compared to these other cars, the acceleration of the RX-8 is hardly lackluster. It is half a second slower than the S2K and Z - yes with a dumped clutch, but the magazines do all their testing with the same methodology. Look at the street start times for all these cars, of course there's a drop-off. You can't tell me you can feel the half second difference. "Seat of the pants" is BS, its in the numbers. The Forester is an SUV so I'm not sure why you'd even compare. As for the EVO and STi, yeah they're a full second faster - they're also completely unforgiving and have no semblance of the luxury of the RX-8. In fact, since people are big into talking about how the 5.9 second 0-60 time was achieved by abusing the car, here's what Car and Driver had to say about the STi:
One word of warning to those who might try to duplicate our acceleration numbers: Don't. These are not drag racers, and what a stopwatch considers a good start a dealership service department considers a lucrative one.
So there you have it - the RX-8 is not the only car who's 0-60 numbers are achieved by methods which aren't prudent in everday use. As for "lackluster acceleration", that's just patently false.

Sorry but it's lackluster to a lot of other people out there, state it's false all you like it doesn't make it so. There's a lot of cars that C&D doesn't have listed since they didn't test them this year that are just as fast of faster (SRT-4, Mustangs, Legacy, GTO and anything LT-1, Elise, R32, JC Works Mini) . As well as a lot of cars coming out that will be just as fast or faster.

I was also thinking as I check other forums that they don't mention bmw 330 or boxster which are comparable to the 0-60 secs they put out. When i had a bmw 328 (330 came out like a couple of months later when i got mine) it never bothered me that it wasn't brought up on other forums when comparing vehicle's 0-60 perfomance like the s2000,350z, etc...

But... the thing is they don't bash on 330's or boxsters like they do on the rx-8.

Fine, there are faster cars. Happy now? :)

Let's just wait and see what happens when more 8's are run in auto-x, shall we?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Sorry but it's lackluster to a lot of other people out there, state it's false all you like it doesn't make it so.

Acceleration can't be lackluster to some and not to others - it is fact not opinion. As the numbers I posted show, the acceleration is essentially the same as the other cars you mentioned.

Originally posted by meeh
I go to other forums to read up about other cars like: 350z, rx8, acura TL, WRX Sti, Evo etc...
and it seems like when they compare their cars to others they would often bring up the honda s2000 as one and hardly the rx-8.

I was also thinking as I check other forums that they don't mention bmw 330 or boxster which are comparable to the 0-60 secs they put out.


Well apart from the TL, the car forums you mention are the 350Z, WRX STi, and EVO - these are all uncompromising sports cars with little refinement or luxury compared to the RX-8. You say they compare themselves with the S2000 - well that is a pure 2-seat roadster. The fact that the BMW 330 and Boxster are not mentioned in those forums either suggests that the reason the RX-8 is not mentioned is because it is closer to these latter 2 cars. While comparing to the others in acceleration, these 3 cars contain much more refinement and luxury, and in the case of the RX-8 and 330, practicality. I think you will find that enthusiasts of the 350Z, STi and EVO are interested almost exclusively in performance, while the RX-8 offers the best of all worlds.

BUT IF U THINK ABOUT IT 1.3 LITER IS KEEPING UP WITH 2.0 4 CYLINDERS, 3.5 V6S, ALL WHEEL DRIVE TURBOED CARS DONT FORGET ITS A 1.3 LITER ROATRY.WITH LESS THAN HALF THE CC THAN ITS COMPETION(EXCEPT S2000, WHICH IS A TWO SEATER).
ALSO U GUYS REMEMBER THE REVIEW ON THE RX-8 FROM TOPGEAR (THE BEST CVAR I HAVE DRIVEN THIS YEAR) IT ALSO BEAT TEH BMW M3 ON TEH TRACK.

OK I REST MY CASE!!!!!

P.S MY CAPS LOCK KEY BROKE SORRY ABOUT RIGHTING IN CAPS.

Originally posted by eclps0
BUT IF U THINK ABOUT IT 1.3 LITER IS KEEPING UP WITH 2.0 4 CYLINDERS, 3.5 V6S, ALL WHEEL DRIVE TURBOED CARS DONT FORGET ITS A 1.3 LITER ROATRY.WITH LESS THAN HALF THE CC THAN ITS COMPETION(EXCEPT S2000, WHICH IS A TWO SEATER).
ALSO U GUYS REMEMBER THE REVIEW ON THE RX-8 FROM TOPGEAR (THE BEST CVAR I HAVE DRIVEN THIS YEAR) IT ALSO BEAT TEH BMW M3 ON TEH TRACK.

OK I REST MY CASE!!!!!

P.S MY CAPS LOCK KEY BROKE SORRY ABOUT RIGHTING IN CAPS.



OK BUT THE 1.3 IS ACTUALLY 2.6 BY CONVENTIONAL ENGINE STANDARDS AN WE'RE TALKING ABOUNT ACCELERATION :p Exactly how do you write numbers so well with your caps lock being broken?

Far as I'm concerned they all can have 800hp and go 250mph...because in the end, they'll zip by and no one will see or know what the hell it was. Me, on the other hand, they'll see clear as day, and revel in the magnificent lines and beauty of the 8, and all the speed that just whizzed by will soon be forgotten!

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Exactly how do you write numbers so well with your caps lock being broken?
The clue is in the name, the "CAPS LOCK" locks capitals for letters - it's got nowt to do with numbers or other characters.

Originally posted by JohnnyCumLately
The clue is in the name, the "CAPS LOCK" locks capitals for letters - it's got nowt to do with numbers or other characters.

How the hell have I never realized that til just now... I always thought it was basicly a shift lock and they just called it caps lock for kicks :p

I used to be bothered by debates like this, and to some degree I still am, but I can probably bet that most people who diss the RX8 have proably never driven one. All they see are the numbers. In my opinion numbers are great if people realize they are just numbers. On paper numbers can make a car look great (mustang, SRT-4, etc.), but they only tell part of a story. I am by no means saying the mustang isn't a fun car, but the numbers make it apear better than it really is.

So I say take all the doubters out for a test drive on some curvy roads and then they are free to form their own opinions.

Let';s not forget that most car magazines in comparison tests , road tests and other evaluations rank the RX-8 best or near the top of its segment.

The real issue is that buyers of "pure" sportscars (two-seat roadsters) don't yet know what to make of the RX-8 -- is it a real sportscar or a sporty coupe? Mazda's marketing doesn't help - should focus on power and performance to build credibility. The TV spot that showed the guy hugging his RX-8 is cute but doesn't really say anything important to sportscar considerers!

Originally posted by Superfan
You can go over to the Porsche Boxster forum and tell them how much cheaper and faster the S2000 is but at the end of the day they still spent the extra $$$ because they prefered the Porsche. Thing is I don't care what other people think of the RX-8 because the only person that has to like it is me.

Yes. I also don't care what others think. When I'm driving, I'm concentrating on the great driving experience the 8 provides, while my daughter is looking around and telling me about all the people checking out the car. The difference is she's in HS and I'm way past post-grad (doctoral). I have to admit the attention getting value is huge, but I've always been a behind the seens kind of guy. I don't really like being in the spotlight. I bought the 8 because I love the total package. If I didn't have a wife and kids, I probably would have bought something different. But maybe not, it's just I didn't even look at the two seaters, so I don't know.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
The biggest problem the RX-8 has when comparing it with other cars is it's lackluster acceleration. I think acceleration numbers sell sportscar more than just about any other figure. On the other sites I visit I sometimes defend the 8 for it's great handling, and other times agree with others that point out it just doesn't have the guts you would want and expect from a 30K sportscar. If Mazda had been able to get acceleration numbers like the S2K, Z/G35, STi, EVO, it would get much more respect and have many more buyers. It handles great, but so do a lot of other cars, and they're faster. I think the FD has a lot to do with it as well, compared to that car for many sportscar and sportcompact enthusiasts the RX-8 was a big letdown. However the practicality of the RX-8 was a welcome addition to those people that just have to have a usable backseat. Most people on other car forums like the ones you mentioned could care less about a useable backseat.

Here's a poll from a large car site in europe.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp

And a poll someone from ClubRSX that was started.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118253&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

I really don't like the RSX boards, you really have to wade through a lot of stupid immature crap and name calling to realize there are some valuable posts and info on that board. The best thing about that board and the only reason I read and post on it occasionally is the diversity of car owners there.

Ike

What, a one week ban was not enough??? I give you 5 days till you are gone again.

Originally posted by Omicron
Ike, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds is hardly "lackluster." Slower than a WRX perhaps, but faster than 99% of the cars on the road today.

Alright, I believe we settled before that it IS UNUSUAL for OUR 8s to accelerate from 0-60 in under 6 secs. Pick up the last C&D with their 10BestCars, and read through it (or was it Road & Track) They rated the 8 as taking 6~7 seconds to go from a stop to 60 mph. Maybe 5.9 was the best they achieved, but it doesn't appear to be the norm. Who cares!!

Originally posted by klegg
What, a one week ban was not enough??? I give you 5 days till you are gone again.

Ehhh, Klegg, anything constructive to add?

Like I would really be interested in a poll at ClubRSX. Did any of you read any of that domestic vs. import debate on that link Ike gave? Please, moderators, don't let that happen here.

I deleted this post.

Originally posted by RX8-TX
Ehhh, Klegg, anything constructive to add?

\yes, and I said it!:)

Originally posted by Ioman
IKE, I think you are getting the wrong picture bro. Speed alone doesn't make a good sports car. Looks, speed, handling, and the way it makes you feel do.

The WRX is a KIDS car. No one that is serious about a REAL sportscar would buy the WRX. Sportscar does not always = racecar. The WRX is a racecar only.

Kids Cars:
Subaru WRX
Mitsubishi EVO
Honda Civic Si

Mens' cars:
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX8
BMW M3
Porsche Boxter

The RX8 has style, the WRX is a damn brute, sure its fast, but its ugly, rides hard, ugly, cheap and did I mention ugly?

The BMW's, Porsches, have nice interior, great handling, great looks and an attention to detail and design the WRX can never achieve. All the WRX will be is a cheap sedan with aftermarket suspension and a Turbo, just like every other rice burner under $25K.

Once you can afford and appreciate a car like the RX8 or BMW M3 then you can talk.

You get the picture.

Pwned? GG NT.

Wow, what an enlightened response!:confused: Don't most sports cars "ride hard"? Believe it or not, some of us actually like to go fast in addition to portraying that image! :D

Originally posted by revhappy
Wow, what an enlightened response!:confused: Don't most sports cars "ride hard"? Believe it or not, some of us actually like to go fast in addition to portraying that image! :D

Cool have fun in the mud with your Evo.

Sorry for the flame, IKE just wears me out all the time. He does not seem to appreciate any car other than the one he owns. :confused:

Ike can be ok, and contribute very nicely around here. What I don't get is what he continues to use inflamatory word like "lackluster."

Guys, keep it calm. It's not worth getting pissed at someone you don't know on the internet.

Originally posted by Elara
Guys, keep it calm. It's not worth getting pissed at someone you don't know on the internet.

Agreed. I deletec my original post. Sorry IKE.

Originally posted by Ioman
Agreed. I deletec my original post. Sorry IKE.

No worries, though I think you have the wrong impression of me. I may wear you down (though it's not my intent) but I appreciate many many cars (including the RX-8), and if you look back at a lot of my past posts I defend a lot of cars that people tend to bash on this site. I was disappointed with the acceleration in the RX-8, it just didn't give me that push you back in your seat feeling that I like. It's a great package and handles really well, I was really just trying to show the original poster why the RX-8 doesn't get a lot of respect on non RX-8 boards.

It may not be fast enough for me, but obviously it is for those of you that bought it which is what really matters. I just find it unimpressive that Mazda comes up with a "sportscar" that's barely faster than an RX-7 turbo from 15 years ago, and the DSM I was driving 12 years ago. There's a HP war going on right now, there's 26k SUVs running high 13 sec 1/4 miles, and hohum Accord V6s running mid 14 sec 1/4 miles. I though Mazda would have stepped up with something really impressive in the acceleration department. They always make great handling cars, but they are also are always a step behind the competition in the acceleration department. I was really hoping that wouldn't be the case with the RX-8.

Before you start thinking I'm some 1/4 mile junkie I'm really not. My car will be in a lot more track events and autoxs than it ever will runs at the dragstrip over the course of my owning it. However the majority of my driving is on highways and in cities, and for that I want something that pins me back in my seat. Hell, even my stock WRX wasn't enough, but it takes very well to mods which helped make my decision to buy it much easier. By the way, I'll be sure to tell my Subaru friends that we don't drive a mans car :p

Very mature Noah, shouldn't you be out gay bashing or at a militia meeting or something?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Very mature Noah, shouldn't you be out gay bashing or at a militia meeting or something?

No, I don't have any problem with gays. What makes you think I do?

the fact you drive an rx8? :D

;) my best IkeWRX impression; couldn't resist.

I don't plan on ever racing someone from a stop light. I doubt I will ever do side by side racing on a mountain road. My point is, why would I ever care if my car is half a second slower than someone elses car. It may be, or it may not be. I'll never know or care.

I test drove a TON of cars. The RX-8 was by far the most fun. I drove the Impreza WRX. The acceleration was fun, but I just couldn't live with the cheapness of the car. Wind noise, plastic, boxiness, etc.

Of all the cars I drove, the RX-8 was by far the best as a combination of refined interior, gorgeous exterior, and unbelievably fun to drive. It was such an easy choice. The fact that is was a first year model was the ONLY thin that gave me any reservations whatsoever.

I would guess for some people, the WRX-SI was an easy choice. They don't care about the interior or exterior looks. They love the shove you in your seat acceleration and the fact that it hanldes great too.

It bothers me when some people on this board say you could have got a better car than the RX8 for $10,000 less. Thats crazy. If you didn't know the sticker price and assumed they were the same price, would you honestly take an RSX type S over an RX8? Give me a break.

Originally posted by IwantONE2
would you honestly take an RSX type S over an RX8? Give me a break.

When I was shopping, I didn't. I picked the 8.

When i was shopping I checked the RSX-S, very nice car, though, not enough there for the money they want was what i thought. But if I didn't have the money for the 8, I probably would have gotten the RSX, if anything, for it's reliability.

The RSX-S i think is a nice car. I used to have an Integara GSR and I didn't have one single problem. I chose the RX-8 cause it had more features, like audio control from the stearing wheel. There are still alot I wish that RX-8 have that my old car that was replaced (traded-in for an rx-8) but for the money rx-8 wins. Although I don't understand why, the rx-8 didn't come with a 6 cd changer while rsx-s has this. I think rsx-s might even have automatic climate , which USA version of rx-8 doesn't.

Originally posted by meeh
The RSX-S i think is a nice car. I used to have an Integara GSR and I didn't have one single problem. I chose the RX-8 cause it had more features, like audio control from the stearing wheel. There are still alot I wish that RX-8 have that my old car that was replaced (traded-in for an rx-8) but for the money rx-8 wins. Although I don't understand why, the rx-8 didn't come with a 6 cd changer while rsx-s has this. I think rsx-s might even have automatic climate , which USA version of rx-8 doesn't.

Actually a 6 cd changer is an option..

Originally posted by klegg
Actually a 6 cd changer is an option..

I don't think it is in the Type S, I think the Type S comes fully loaded standard. Iwantone2, I don't think the word better was ever used, I and others were talking about acceleration.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I don't think it is in the Type S, I think the Type S comes fully loaded standard. Iwantone2, I don't think the word better was ever used, I and others were talking about acceleration.

I think he said he wanted it in the 8, but reading it again, I am not so sure...I do know it is an option in the 8.

I just test drove the RX-8 and it's great! I have a 2K Celica GT right now, and I just can't compare. I asked the dealer what it was comparable to, and he said the S2K and the 350Z. I'm thinking about trading my Celi for an 8.

obviously something besides numbers draws us to this car, and that should be enough. A majority of us knew that the rx8 wasn't going to be at the front of the line in the speed/acceleration category; especially with the STI and EVO out there. But performance is definately not what this car is all about, more like the overall package that attracts us to this car.

G35 coupe is also an overall package, and its faster. So it got to be more than an overall package.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
The biggest problem the RX-8 has when comparing it with other cars is it's lackluster acceleration. I think acceleration numbers sell sportscar more than just about any other figure. On the other sites I visit I sometimes defend the 8 for it's great handling, and other times agree with others that point out it just doesn't have the guts you would want and expect from a 30K sportscar. If Mazda had been able to get acceleration numbers like the S2K, Z/G35, STi, EVO, it would get much more respect and have many more buyers. It handles great, but so do a lot of other cars, and they're faster. I think the FD has a lot to do with it as well, compared to that car for many sportscar and sportcompact enthusiasts the RX-8 was a big letdown. However the practicality of the RX-8 was a welcome addition to those people that just have to have a usable backseat. Most people on other car forums like the ones you mentioned could care less about a useable backseat.

Here's a poll from a large car site in europe.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp

And a poll someone from ClubRSX that was started.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118253&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

I really don't like the RSX boards, you really have to wade through a lot of stupid immature crap and name calling to realize there are some valuable posts and info on that board. The best thing about that board and the only reason I read and post on it occasionally is the diversity of car owners there.

Ike

sure the 350Z is faster. But there is more to a car than that. Anyone that is not blind can see the quality of the interior and fit and finish of the rx8 (as well as the luxury aspect) is leap years ahead of the 350Z. The S2000 while just as refined as the Rx-8 has no luxury or practicality to it. Now mind you I realize that S2000 owners dont care about luxury they want a pure sportscar. I have no problem with that, im just pointing out that with the Rx-8 you give up acceleration but you really get a nice car with the most comforitable ride in its class, that is also hell of fun to drive.

And the rx8 is not exactly a dog, either. its very quick.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by IkeWRX
The biggest problem the RX-8 has when comparing it with other cars is it's lackluster acceleration. I think acceleration numbers sell sportscar more than just about any other figure. On the other sites I visit I sometimes defend the 8 for it's great handling, and other times agree with others that point out it just doesn't have the guts you would want and expect from a 30K sportscar. If Mazda had been able to get acceleration numbers like the S2K, Z/G35, STi, EVO, it would get much more respect and have many more buyers. It handles great, but so do a lot of other cars, and they're faster. I think the FD has a lot to do with it as well, compared to that car for many sportscar and sportcompact enthusiasts the RX-8 was a big letdown. However the practicality of the RX-8 was a welcome addition to those people that just have to have a usable backseat. Most people on other car forums like the ones you mentioned could care less about a useable backseat.

Here's a poll from a large car site in europe.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp

And a poll someone from ClubRSX that was started.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthrea...mp;pagenumber=4

I really don't like the RSX boards, you really have to wade through a lot of stupid immature crap and name calling to realize there are some valuable posts and info on that board. The best thing about that board and the only reason I read and post on it occasionally is the diversity of car owners there.

Ike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sure the 350Z is faster. But there is more to a car than that. Anyone that is not blind can see the quality of the interior and fit and finish of the rx8 (as well as the luxury aspect) is leap years ahead of the 350Z. The S2000 while just as refined as the Rx-8 has no luxury or practicality to it. Now mind you I realize that S2000 owners dont care about luxury they want a pure sportscar. I have no problem with that, im just pointing out that with the Rx-8 you give up acceleration but you really get a nice car with the most comforitable ride in its class, that is also hell of fun to drive.

And the rx8 is not exactly a dog, either. its very quick.

Ike has a WRX. Ike thinks the WRX is God's gift to mankind and is superior than the 8 because it is quicker and for that reason only. Ike will quietly diss the 8. Any attempt to praise the 8 will be met by Ike trying to bring it down.

my friend has a RSX fully loaded type - s what not...its OKAY..but the style is shit. I thought it was cool for awhile..now its just boring..

I have a 2k3 cobra. 390 bhp. And that thing TEARS The road..BUT...i love the 8, the interior..the RIDE..the HIGH REV..the design. ITs simply beautiful... and well the 350z i like that car as well..but I found it to be LESS comfortable.and not AS fancy..and nice as the 8...

thats my Opinion...but hey..thats me.

The NEW vette 05....c6...is what im talken about. AND I HATE VETTES..but that ONE is the $#%$#% simple. 400 hp 180 mph...mmm mm good. haha and american...sure its not THAT special inside..but..mmm gotta love that power..u CANT BEAT That..for the money.

and thats how i view the 8, for the money. its got a nice package.

CM

Originally posted by RX-GR8


Ike has a WRX. Ike thinks the WRX is God's gift to mankind and is superior than the 8 because it is quicker and for that reason only. Ike will quietly diss the 8. Any attempt to praise the 8 will be met by Ike trying to bring it down.


Find me one place where I've ever said the WRX is gods gift or anything close to it. I was simply pointing out some things related to the original topic, however you just seem to troll this old played out thread with your old played out insults that I've heard a hundred times. If you're going to insult me at least come up with something new...

There have been so many threads comparing the 8 to other sporty cars. All of this is so pointless. True car lovers should be able to appreciate the qualities of each car.

Some people buy cars solely for their performance.
Some people buy cars for the looks.
Some buy cars for the comfort and refinement they provide.
Some people buy cars for their practicalities.
It's not the best car in any of theses criterias but most RX8 owners bought the car because it provides one of the best, if not the best overall package for its price.

IkeWRX was quite rightly pointing out that many people base their assessment of a car solely on performance figures. We, RX8 owners know better how to appreciate a car and we should not be so touchy and react so defensively when someone comments on the performance of our beloved 8. And I don't think IkeWRX was trying to bring down the 8.

P.S. Why do they make the Sti so damn ugly? It would have been such an awesome car if it was designed by Mazda. But this is just my opinion.

Well, I'm new to this board and can't speak to history, but I didn't think this Ike guy was trying to flame or troll. He was pretty respectful and objective in stating an unpopular opinion.

Personally, I wouldn't use the word "lackluster" in describing the RX-8 but speed junkies who don't appreciate everything the RX-8 has to offer probably would when comparing unrealistic 0-60 acceleration times.

I don't have an RX-8 but I do think it is an excellent car. It reminds me of the mid60s Mustangs in that it is sporty but practical for guys with kids (yeah, sexist, I know). Of course it is quite a bit sporiter than mid60s Mustangs, but times have changed.

The acceleration of the RX-8 was very impressive to me, but I was also impressed with everthing about the car (except the fuel economy). I love its lightness and its handling. I love its lines. I love it's interior (except don't want the sunroof). It is one of the few 4-seaters that I would consider calling a sports car. It seems like an excellent value for the price.

Originally posted by CriticalMass
my friend has a RSX fully loaded type - s what not...its OKAY..but the style is shit. I thought it was cool for awhile..now its just boring..

I have a 2k3 cobra. 390 bhp. And that thing TEARS The road..BUT...i love the 8, the interior..the RIDE..the HIGH REV..the design. ITs simply beautiful... and well the 350z i like that car as well..but I found it to be LESS comfortable.and not AS fancy..and nice as the 8...

thats my Opinion...but hey..thats me.

The NEW vette 05....c6...is what im talken about. AND I HATE VETTES..but that ONE is the $#%$#% simple. 400 hp 180 mph...mmm mm good. haha and american...sure its not THAT special inside..but..mmm gotta love that power..u CANT BEAT That..for the money.

and thats how i view the 8, for the money. its got a nice package.

CM

OMG did you get stung by a wasp? You are all swollen up....

Originally posted by robrecht
Well, I'm new to this board and can't speak to history, but I didn't think this Ike guy was trying to flame or troll. He was pretty respectful and objective in stating an unpopular opinion.



We all have a love/hate relationship with Ike. Half the the time he acts like he hates the 8, and the other half he's a really interesting guy. So you'll see weirdness with him involved a lot.

Originally posted by Elara
We all have a love/hate relationship with Ike. Half the the time he acts like he hates the 8, and the other half he's a really interesting guy. So you'll see weirdness with him involved a lot.

i think he has a love/hate relationship with the 8. ;)

Yeah. He loves to hate the 8 and we love to hate him. :D Simple.

( JK:) )

Originally posted by hotpot
There have been so many threads comparing the 8 to other sporty cars. All of this is so pointless. True car lovers should be able to appreciate the qualities of each car.

Some people buy cars solely for their performance.
Some people buy cars for the looks.
Some buy cars for the comfort and refinement they provide.
Some people buy cars for their practicalities.
It's not the best car in any of theses criterias but most RX8 owners bought the car because it provides one of the best, if not the best overall package for its price.

IkeWRX was quite rightly pointing out that many people base their assessment of a car solely on performance figures. We, RX8 owners know better how to appreciate a car and we should not be so touchy and react so defensively when someone comments on the performance of our beloved 8. And I don't think IkeWRX was trying to bring down the 8.

P.S. Why do they make the Sti so damn ugly? It would have been such an awesome car if it was designed by Mazda. But this is just my opinion.

I think there's some unwritten rule that rally cars have to be odd looking :p Even though I like the styling of the WRX, looks will always be way down my list, whereas it's #1 on many peoples lists. I bought my WRX first and foremost because I love AWD turbo cars. Secondly because of the modability since I get bored rather easily. I'm a huge rally fan so that certainly played a part as well.

Oh, and Elara, I'm interesting at least 60% of the time :D

And the other 40% is spent here. :D

Originally posted by Racer X-8
And the other 40% is spent here. :D

Bastard! :p

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I think there's some unwritten rule that rally cars have to be odd looking :p Even though I like the styling of the WRX, looks will always be way down my list, whereas it's #1 on many peoples lists. :D

My opinion is that there is no unwritten rule that rally cars have to be odd looking. I think there is an unwritten rule within Subaru that all Subarus have to look weird. And I'm being completely serious.

I also agree with Hotpot. There is no doubt in my mind that the WRX Sti would have been better if Mazda had made it.

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
My opinion is that there is no unwritten rule that rally cars have to be odd looking. I think there is an unwritten rule within Subaru that all Subarus have to look weird. And I'm being completely serious.

I also agree with Hotpot. There is no doubt in my mind that the WRX Sti would have been better if Mazda had made it.

Name one rally car that's been particularly good looking...
While I agree Subaru does purposely seem to make odd looking cars, I don't see how you can say if Mazda would have made it it would have been better. Mazda does not have a proven AWD system that I'm aware of, not do they seem to be capable of making anything that isn't underpowered besides the FD.

For a very long time Subaru's US cars were underpowered as well, but times have changed and it's benefited Subaru greatly, and the auto industry for that matter. Subaru has made other automakers step things up a bit in order to compete with the WRX in it's category, and that's a very good thing. It means more sporty, fast cars to chose from. However it seems someone needs to send Mazda a memo that there's a HP war going on, and they are losing badly.

Ike

Name one rally car that's been particularly good looking...
While I agree Subaru does purposely seem to make odd looking cars, I don't see how you can say if Mazda would have made it it would have been better. Mazda does not have a proven AWD system that I'm aware of, not do they seem to be capable of making anything that isn't underpowered besides the FD.

I find that the Citroen Xsara Coupé was a decent-looking car although it now looks dated, and the Xsara WRC looks absolutely gorgeous, while the Impreza still looks crap in WRC form.

Had the Sti been even half as good-looking as the RX8 and had a decent interior, it would have been on my shortlist. I'm sure many other car buyers are put off by the Impreza's looks. But I have to concede that Subaru has come a long way and makes awesome engines. They only need to get new design and marketing teams.

Subaru also HAS to go the way of the turbo in order to compete.

Mazda isn't in such a dire position (not anymore, thanks to their current wave of fun new cars). Seems to me there's another car maker who shuns turbos who's doing pretty well: Honda.

One car? The original Audi Quattro rally car.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Name one rally car that's been particularly good looking...
While I agree Subaru does purposely seem to make odd looking cars, I don't see how you can say if Mazda would have made it it would have been better. Mazda does not have a proven AWD system that I'm aware of, not do they seem to be capable of making anything that isn't underpowered besides the FD.

For a very long time Subaru's US cars were underpowered as well, but times have changed and it's benefited Subaru greatly, and the auto industry for that matter. Subaru has made other automakers step things up a bit in order to compete with the WRX in it's category, and that's a very good thing. It means more sporty, fast cars to chose from. However it seems someone needs to send Mazda a memo that there's a HP war going on, and they are losing badly.

Ike

I'll bite! The lancia stratos HF. A good looking car, all green and white, with those big ass lights..

And I have to say, mazda does not have the track record of mitsu or sub when it comes to AWD. the tribute is thier only model that I can recall having it, and ford designed that.

It must be a new year, I just agreed with IKE! Someone shoot me!:)

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Subaru also HAS to go the way of the turbo in order to compete.

Mazda isn't in such a dire position (not anymore, thanks to their current wave of fun new cars). Seems to me there's another car maker who shuns turbos who's doing pretty well: Honda.

One car? The original Audi Quattro rally car.

Subaru doesn't have to, they choose to, and it's a large part of the appeal of their cars. You seem to forget Mazda has a turbo car, and it's not even close to being best in it's class. The other recent turbo Mazda cars have been a reliability nightmare, so it seems Mazda HAD to drop the turbo from the rotary.

Also, Honda is known for reliability and making a turbo car would not go along with their image which I'm sure they don't want to tamper with much. Mazda on the other hand doesn't have near the reputation for reliablity that Honda has, nor most other Japanese automakers for that matter.

Klegg, I'll agree with you on the Stratos, great looking car. The Audi I don't really go along with...

you trolls and bitch and whine all you want about the rx8, mazda will have no problem selling the 30,000 per year they estimated.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Subaru doesn't have to, they choose to, and it's a large part of the appeal of their cars. You seem to forget Mazda has a turbo car, and it's not even close to being best in it's class. The other recent turbo Mazda cars have been a reliability nightmare, so it seems Mazda HAD to drop the turbo from the rotary.

Also, Honda is known for reliability and making a turbo car would not go along with their image which I'm sure they don't want to tamper with much. Mazda on the other hand doesn't have near the reputation for reliablity that Honda has, nor most other Japanese automakers for that matter.

Klegg, I'll agree with you on the Stratos, great looking car. The Audi I don't really go along with...

Is that the original Quattro? If so, then I was wrong in citing the ORIGINAL one. There is one that looked pretty awesome when it first came out. Seemed the pics were all red and blue trim on white, no yellow-orange at all. Of course you were too young to remember.

Subaru chooses to do turbos probably in part because a turbo is uncommon and is consistent with Subaru's brand image of things that are uncommon (as well as uncommonly ugly).

In addition, Subaru can not compete in the area of NA engines. Honda is the standard for four and six cylinders (yes, six cylinders ALSO, as will be more and more apparent in the coming years). Subaru is in the same cylinder category and simply can not compete. Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota can, at least for now.

A turbo isn't an ideal situation for most competitive high volume car makers. There's always a qualification there: We build turbos BECAUSE we can't win buyers with other engine features and capabilities. Or we build turbos BECAUSE we can't seem to get enough HP out of our NA engines to stay competitive. Competitive high volume car makers do not say "We build turbos because a turbo-charged engine is the obvious best way to go." If it were, virtually every competitive car maker would have been into turbo-charged engines a long time ago.

So you really think Honda stays away from turbos because of Honda's reputation for NA reliability? If Honda were solely focused on "easy" reliability, why would they put so much energy into R&D of new technologies that are complex, such as variable valve timing and the incorporation of new materials to allow piston engines to rev higher without breaking? These Honda technologies actually present reliability challenges. Why go this route instead of the turbo route?

God knows that if Honda had CHOSEN to do turbos, they would have the world's best turbo-charged engines, period. So why would Honda pass up on a challenge? Because a GREATER challenge existed that no other company could master. The more difficult, more challenging, more complex, and more impressive route, if even a single car company in the world could possibly accomplish it, would be to do the "impossible" with NA engines rather than turbochargers. Honda has done that and continues to do that. Indeed, Honda has "tampered" with EVERYTHING that has to do with NA engines, and if and when Honda chooses to "tamper" with turbos, they will develop the world's most reliable turbo-charged engines producing the most HP with the highest MPG.

No flame, Ike, but your bias is obvious. You just have to acknowledge it. Allow me to provide you another great example of your bias.

In another thread, you were talking about lightweight engines that have high HP output. In the beginning, if I remember correctly, you were intent on criticizing the renesis, initially remaining silent on the issue of including turbocharged engines in the comparison (LOL). As I expected, you eventually brought up the WRX Sti engine as superior, even arguing in response to others that of course a turbocharged engine can be validly included in the comparison as long as it was lightweight or comparable in weight (BIAS ALERT, BIAS ALERT)!!

Come on, Ike, you know you can't do that, you know you can't WANT TO PUSH (read: have bias) for focus on weight as the only controlling factor. You have to control for other confounds, namely turbocharging or not. As an exercise, let's remove rotaries from your comparison for now and ONLY INCLUDE piston engines that are close in weight. Obviously, no person in his/her right mind would or could compare, on equal terms, an NA piston engine to a turbocharged piston engine, even if both are similar in weight.

There are maybe two hypothetical comparisons that could be made. One is to imagine what the numbers might be if an NA engine were to have a turbo engineered and added and then compare it to an actually existing turbocharged engine. For many reasons, this kind of virtual comparison should not be made for reasons that Ike, of course, would be ready to pounce on with.

The other, less compromising proposal would be to UN-turbo the turbocharged engine (because a non-turbocharged version might actually exist) and compare it to the NA engines. Here, an un-turbocharged 2.5 liter WRX Sti would not fare so well (the Subaru website indicates Subaru's most powerful NA 2.5 liter engine produces 165 HP, which is more comparable to the Mazda 3's 2.3 liter with 160 HP).

Did anyone else notice Ike's blunder? This was perhaps Ike's MOST GLARING BLUNDER that I've observed so far.

Ike, you really slipped up BIG on that one. This BLUNDER you CAN NOT wriggle and wiggle out of (but you'll try, and I and others will respond). This one's A TOUGHIE. You REALLY MESSED UP this time. YOUR BIAS has INDISPUTABLY BEEN CAUGHT.

Hey bias is fine, Ike, you just need to learn to acknowledge it.:)

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Is that the original Quattro? If so, then I was wrong in citing the ORIGINAL one. There is one that looked pretty awesome when it first came out. Seemed the pics were all red and blue trim on white, no yellow-orange at all. Of course you were too young to remember.

Subaru chooses to do turbos probably in part because a turbo is uncommon and is consistent with Subaru's brand image of things that are uncommon (as well as uncommonly ugly).

In addition, Subaru can not compete in the area of NA engines. Honda is the standard for four and six cylinders (yes, six cylinders ALSO, as will be more and more apparent in the coming years). Subaru is in the same cylinder category and simply can not compete. Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota can, at least for now.

A turbo isn't an ideal situation for most competitive high volume car makers. There's always a qualification there: We build turbos BECAUSE we can't win buyers with other engine features and capabilities. Or we build turbos BECAUSE we can't seem to get enough HP out of our NA engines to stay competitive. Competitive high volume car makers do not say "We build turbos because a turbo-charged engine is the obvious best way to go." If it were, virtually every competitive car maker would have been into turbo-charged engines a long time ago.

So you really think Honda stays away from turbos because of Honda's reputation for NA reliability? If Honda were solely focused on "easy" reliability, why would they put so much energy into R&D of new technologies that are complex, such as variable valve timing and the incorporation of new materials to allow piston engines to rev higher without breaking? These Honda technologies actually present reliability challenges. Why go this route instead of the turbo route?

God knows that if Honda had CHOSEN to do turbos, they would have the world's best turbo-charged engines, period. So why would Honda pass up on a challenge? Because a GREATER challenge existed that no other company could master. The more difficult, more challenging, more complex, and more impressive route, if even a single car company in the world could possibly accomplish it, would be to do the "impossible" with NA engines rather than turbochargers. Honda has done that and continues to do that. Indeed, Honda has "tampered" with EVERYTHING that has to do with NA engines, and if and when Honda chooses to "tamper" with turbos, they will develop the world's most reliable turbo-charged engines producing the most HP with the highest MPG.

No flame, Ike, but your bias is obvious. You just have to acknowledge it. Allow me to provide you another great example of your bias.

In another thread, you were talking about lightweight engines that have high HP output. In the beginning, if I remember correctly, you were intent on criticizing the renesis, initially remaining silent on the issue of including turbocharged engines in the comparison (LOL). As I expected, you eventually brought up the WRX Sti engine as superior, even arguing in response to others that of course a turbocharged engine can be validly included in the comparison as long as it was lightweight or comparable in weight (BIAS ALERT, BIAS ALERT)!!

Come on, Ike, you know you can't do that, you know you can't WANT TO PUSH (read: have bias) for focus on weight as the only controlling factor. You have to control for other confounds, namely turbocharging or not. As an exercise, let's remove rotaries from your comparison for now and ONLY INCLUDE piston engines that are close in weight. Obviously, no person in his/her right mind would or could compare, on equal terms, an NA piston engine to a turbocharged piston engine, even if both are similar in weight.

There are maybe two hypothetical comparisons that could be made. One is to imagine what the numbers might be if an NA engine were to have a turbo engineered and added and then compare it to an actually existing turbocharged engine. For many reasons, this kind of virtual comparison should not be made for reasons that Ike, of course, would be ready to pounce on with.

The other, less compromising proposal would be to UN-turbo the turbocharged engine (because a non-turbocharged version might actually exist) and compare it to the NA engines. Here, an un-turbocharged 2.5 liter WRX Sti would not fare so well (the Subaru website indicates Subaru's most powerful NA 2.5 liter engine produces 165 HP, which is more comparable to the Mazda 3's 2.3 liter with 160 HP).

Did anyone else notice Ike's blunder? This was perhaps Ike's MOST GLARING BLUNDER that I've observed so far.

Ike, you really slipped up BIG on that one. This BLUNDER you CAN NOT wriggle and wiggle out of (but you'll try, and I and others will respond). This one's A TOUGHIE. You REALLY MESSED UP this time. YOUR BIAS has INDISPUTABLY BEEN CAUGHT.

Hey bias is fine, Ike, you just need to learn to acknowledge it.:)

Sorry I missed the memo that I can't compare NA engines to FI engines, you better send every single car publication in the world the same memo because they didn't seem to get it either.



In addition, Subaru can not compete in the area of NA engines. Honda is the standard for four and six cylinders (yes, six cylinders ALSO, as will be more and more apparent in the coming years). Subaru is in the same cylinder category and simply can not compete. Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota can, at least for now.

Honda makes incredible engines, I've never said otherwise, but putting Mazda in that category, give me a break. They make great handling peppy cars, great cylinder engines isn't exactly their forte. By the way, variable valve timing/VVT and VTEC are very very different things. Go learn something before you pretend to actually know what you're talking about.

Ike

The Lancia Delta Integrale was a stunning rally car that won everything (6 world championships and 46 races from 1986-1993 in GroupA) - I almost bought one in early 1990s (200hp Integrale 16v) until I found out the insurance cost. It was the first car to have a Torsen rear differential. They also made a version that was both turbocharged and supercharged but it never raced I think (changes to rules?). See here (http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/Lancia/Integrale2.html) for more details on the Integrale.

Also the Peugeot 205 turbo 16 rally car from the (1984-1986, 2 championships and 21 wins in GroupB) and the more recent 206 WRC are very nice looking too. OTOH the Metro 6 R4 was the ugliest vehicle ever to turn a wheel on gravel and would make any Subaru look beautiful.

While they were great rally cars I don't think either of them were particularly handsome ( are you sure you're not thinking of the Lancia 037?), though to prove myself wrong yet again that all rally cars are ugly... The Ford RS200 was a pretty good looking rally car, especially considering the time period, as well was the 037. Let me rephrase my original statement, there is an unwritten rule that all WRC cars are supposed to be odd looking :p

I remember my grandfather had a subaru. He always drove those old AMC station wagons...

One day he bought an old white subaru station wagon and used a paint roller to paint it. Thats what I think of when I think of subaru.

awe..memories.

Hey! Something just dawned on me, that RS200 was raced by Stig Blomqvist at one point. Stig from Topgear is not Stig Blomqvist is it, tell me he hasn't sunken that low :(

Shift-zoom8, your logic on FI engines and NA engines and comparisons and Honda and Subaru and Mazda and technical genius is truly dizzying.
People compare rotaries to piston engines all the time, why can't they compare NA to FI. Shouldn't price of the car, vehicle class and features be compared also. Engines aren't the only factor that go into a these cars (when it comes to the importance of horsepower to performance). How about power to weight, how about a trans that effectively gets the power to wheels, etc

All I know, my son just told me he likes the "dancing bannanas"!!!!

My whole world is turning upside down!!!

Originally posted by klegg
All I know, my son just told me he likes the "dancing bannanas"!!!!

My whole world is turning upside down!!!

Did you explain to him the bananas aren't exactly dancing, after all this time you'd think they would take a smoke break... :D

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Did you explain to him the bananas aren't exactly dancing, after all this time you'd think they would take a smoke break... :D

He is 5, so no.....and yes, why don't they ever get tired?

One thing I know, those bananas sure are not married, they have been humping for what, 8 months now?

Originally posted by klegg
He is 5, so no.....and yes, why don't they ever get tired?

One thing I know, those bananas sure are not married, they have been humping for what, 8 months now?

Just tell him they're making baby bananas...

Society does not approve of that kind of conduct......

Never mind. :)

What, those bananas aren't dancing? Well what are they doing then?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Just tell him they're making baby bananas... I am soooooooooo glad they're not 2 guy bananas!!! :cool:

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Sorry I missed the memo that I can't compare NA engines to FI engines, you better send every single car publication in the world the same memo because they didn't seem to get it either.





Honda makes incredible engines, I've never said otherwise, but putting Mazda in that category, give me a break. They make great handling peppy cars, great cylinder engines isn't exactly their forte. By the way, variable valve timing/VVT and VTEC are very very different things. Go learn something before you pretend to actually know what you're talking about.

Ike

Thanks for the SHORT response, Ike, as there was not much room for a counter-attack because I didn't give you one.

Of course you can TRY to compare any car to any other car, any engine to any other engine. People try to compare the rotary to piston engines BECAUSE it is the only engine of its type, but those comparisons are difficult to do on equal terms, as we and the auto industry all know. They have to be done because anything in the minority is always judged by a majority STANDARD, whether it's intelligence, beauty, language, or whether eating grasshoppers or something as mundane as skin on your chicken is weird.

Obviously, turbocharged engines are in the minority, One compares them to whatever else is out there, namely NA engines. It is not however a comparison on equal terms and that's always qualified in magazines, that's why there's so many FACTORS that magazine articles discuss about the ENGINES ALONE (nevermind the other, non-engine characteristics and attributes) in their reviews.

Let me go about this in another way, a way that only experienced scientists know how to utilize to CUT THROUGH THE CRAP. To give you some background, let me bring up a social philosophical topic that I'm interested in. Many people like to espouse the merits and "absolute necessity" of strong leadership, that it's a good good thing. This actually seems obvious and common sense when one looks at it from a detached, third-person sort of way. We do so because it's a foggy, complex, and abstract issue, and the human brain doesn't like to expend energy unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless it's required to get your ph.d.). This also explains why so many high school AND college grads have difficulty staying away from plagiarism (i.e., they haven't spent energy training to think deeply about and state ideas in their own words).

However, if we focus on actual real-life "leaders" at the individual experiential level, if we PICTURE actual people we ourselves know closely and their everyday lives, and try to characterize them, the issue becomes much more concrete and personal. Like I've said before, the brain is designed to be egocentric, but in this case, the brain phenomenon can be a positive by allowing us to think more clearly at the CONCRETE, FIRSTHAND, and PERSONAL level (this is where the brain is designed to invest its energy). Invariably, adjectives such as domineering, self-promoting, inflexible, undermining, assertive, and aggressive come up, which are NOT positive traits. In my entire life, after talking to numerous people over the years about this issue (people seem to love this topic as well as the topic of the nature of intelligence), I have only met ONE other person who got the right answer right off the bat. It took 50 years for the business world and PSYCHOLOGISTS to collect the data and revise our thinking and the way companies are structured.

No one expects you to get the right answer, Ike. I certainly don't. But here's the spiel nonetheless. Instead of focusing on the thread TITLE or the CONCEPTS and TOPICS within, we can focus on opening a window into YOUR MIND and MOTIVE, which you yourself may or may not consciously be aware of (I doubt it, though). From your extensive ramblings, which comprise my data/schema on you, I picture you sitting at your chair thinking up a cool topic for the forum. I see you paring topics down that might put the WRX Sti in a poor light. One obvious topic where the WRX Sti is undeniably way up there is HP. It is however turbocharged. But wait, since it's a four-banger, it's pretty light. Horsepower to displacement (and indirectly engine weight) comparisons are common. So if you focus on the engine weight factor, then the turbo issue can effectively be swept under the rug.

I agree that some buyers will overlook all that and buy a turbocharged WRX Sti based only on the HP. That's fine. This is the psychology that car makers MUST play because it indeed successfully affects the brain. Nevertheless, it's not a valid comparison on equal terms. And you know that. The problem isn't the topic itself. You didn't present the topic with an honest, unbiased motive; you resorted to subtle manipulation. At least, QUALIFY your comparison. Know what I mean?

So in laymen's terms, it is clear that Ike created, consciously selected, a thread topic that would put the WRX Sti in good light while weeding out others. Moreover, he kept initial focus generally on HP and weight, without specific mention of turbos or Subaru WRX Sti (LOL), which was a sleight-of-hand maneuver. He baited us and many took his bait.

I never said Mazda is awesome with the piston engine. Reread what I wrote. What I said is that Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota are still able to compete (as in staying afloat as a company) with Honda without going into turbos. FOR NOW. Many years down the line, I can imagine a day where only Toyota can stay afloat while competing with Honda in NA engines. Sorry but no dice here, Ike.

Thanks for correcting me on VTEC and variable-valve timing. I read a lot but I wish I could have gone firsthand into the automotive industry in some way (more formally or like Canzoomer does or you do). My general assertion is still true, that Honda is responsible for many incredible and incredibly difficult NA engine technologies. Furthermore, the VVT-VTECH thing also does not weaken my main argument IN THE LEAST, does it? My argument, my objective, was to show you and anyone else that YOU ARE BIASED for the WRX Sti in so many things that you say. I accomplished my objective.

This is easy stuff for me, Ike. You like to match wits, as your posts over the months clearly show. I, however, do not. You may think I do, but matching wits constantly is the norm in my professional domain. I got tired of it years ago.

Nothing beats a good mind. I would have to say that you, Ike, have far more to acquire in the area of general critical thinking and strong inference than I do in hands-on auto punditry.

Ike, again thanks for the short response. It's really quite a flattering compliment.

P.S. "Go learn something before you pretend to actually know what you're talking about." Someone in this forum once wrote those words. I would strongly advise you to heed those words asap because you have a long road ahead.

Fix thyself first, guru.

Originally posted by Senseny
Shift-zoom8, your logic on FI engines and NA engines and comparisons and Honda and Subaru and Mazda and technical genius is truly dizzying.
People compare rotaries to piston engines all the time, why can't they compare NA to FI. Shouldn't price of the car, vehicle class and features be compared also. Engines aren't the only factor that go into a these cars (when it comes to the importance of horsepower to performance). How about power to weight, how about a trans that effectively gets the power to wheels, etc

Senseny, I have to disagree with you. Maybe you're just confused with the language, which is a pretty common thing. A catch phrase that I repeat is "on equal terms." I would focus on that. Another one is "as the only CONTROLLING FACTOR," which is a more technical word.

I wrote my "dissertation" with a logical structure in mind, a sort of structure that would be expected of a scientist. I addressed each issue that Ike brought up and used logical structures, some hypothetical, to cover all bases.

I'm sure Ike understood my dizzying response, which was met by an expectedly short reply.

Senseny, I had a focused objective to show that Ike is biased FOR THE SUBARU WRX Sti. My comments should be taken within that context and not beyond.

Please see my post to Ike (just before this one). It might provide further context.

Wow, that really is two bananas. I always thought it was just ONE GOOFY BANANA, which would be more representative.

Just joking, Ike.

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Thanks for the SHORT response, Ike, as there was not much room for a counter-attack because I didn't give you one.

The more meaningless drivel, the less I post in response.


So here's another flattering compliment for you, AKA my response to the body of your last post...

Seek professional help!

Seek myself?

I believe it's spelled drivel.

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Seek myself?

I believe it's spelled drivel.

So you're in the mental health industry? Things make much more sense now...

P.S. Sorry for typing so quickly... you may want to check your own posts for spelling

Quit it- no more bashing Ike, and no more baiting shift_zoom8.

Shift_Zoom8, just so you know, I kept up with your "dissertation". And regardless of what you say about its construction, I felt it was convuluted.
BTW, that comment about seeking yourself for professional help was a little conceited, don't you think? All of the mental health care pros I have broached the subject with (I worked at WPIC in college, and my step father is a family therapist) have told me that their own therapy and sessions with other therapists has been a valuable part of their professional and personal life. Something about self improvement via critical response from other professionals.
Don't treat me like I can't keep up. I just don't think I want to keep up with you.

There's a couple of very uncool people in here.
Chill Out!

Shift-zoom8, if I flamed you, I apologize. My points still stand, but if they were worded in any way that you may find offensive I apologize. I do not like to argue in any forum I am a member of and after thinking about my last post decided to write this.

Originally posted by Senseny
Shift_Zoom8, just so you know, I kept up with your "dissertation". And regardless of what you say about its construction, I felt it was convuluted.
BTW, that comment about seeking yourself for professional help was a little conceited, don't you think? All of the mental health care pros I have broached the subject with (I worked at WPIC in college, and my step father is a family therapist) have told me that their own therapy and sessions with other therapists has been a valuable part of their professional and personal life. Something about self improvement via critical response from other professionals.
Don't treat me like I can't keep up. I just don't think I want to keep up with you.

I respond to others, just like everyone else does. In response to Ike's posts, I had an objective to show that he is biased for the WRX STi. In response to my posts, what was your objective? To show that I'm arrogant? If I'm really arrogant, if that is a core aspect of my personality, then how come most of my posts have a neutral, friendly, and even self-effacing tone?

You're not the only person here who wants to think I'm conceited. I can tell you that I'm not. I never explicitly or directly stated anything about my intelligence. I put some of my mind into SOME (not all) of my posts. And what I write and how I write is bound to instill fear and hate in some people. You think I don't know this?

Aside from the childish (where I used out-of-bounds humor) flame wars I've had before with Ike, I've taken the task of making a point pretty seriously and straightforwardly. And I still don't dislike Ike. Have you seen me curse or threaten him? Of course not, because it's not even close to that at all, despite what some people might think.

Like I've responded to Ike, you've responded to me. I tried to respond to you civilly, while disagreeing with your statements about what I wrote. Just like I don't have the auto technical background (as Ike is fond to tell me), you may not have the "science process" way of thinking down.

It's tough to interpret tone with writing, I agree, but I think you got me wrong. Still, yeah, I bet you're not the only one who thinks I was subtly implying that you're dumb or that I'm smart.

So we not only have misunderstanding of the explicit written word, we also have misunderstanding of indirect tone. That's why I have alluded to "the problem of language" in more than one post.

Talk about a catch-22. First, people think I'm anti-gay from the flame wars with Ike. Then people see me respond to the emergency room doctor in the other thread and think I might actually be gay.

I'm no enigma. From my point of view, it's much simpler and less confusing. I simply respond, in as consistently valid of a way as I can. Even with the doctor, I was civil about it. Yes, it appeared to be on the edge, but that's quite common in science and medical science. What's important is that the doctor and I reached an understanding, a middle point, where we could focus on the things we said rather than turning it into ego (there really wasn't any ego). I responded because I felt that the non-science people NEEDED to see an opposite viewpoint that is scientifically just as valid as what the doctor proposed.

So the role that I played in that case is unexpectedly good (a total surprise to some), but some people here can't fully accept it because I'm perceived to be an arrogant asshole?

Hell, I can't even give a genuine compliment to Canzoomer and get away with it. It seemed that he didn't know if he should take my compliment at face value or take it as subtly sarcastic and acerbic! Now when I'm ready for his Stage 1, I got to fricking pretend I'm not from this forum!!!!

Time is on our side. Time is what got Ike from shit list to lovable forum goof. Time is what got Ike to the point where he not only got his own Merry Christmas thread but also listed as one of the very most beautiful Star Trek women of all time.

Time changes perception. But, even with time, I'm not expecting too much. Hopefully, eventually, I will be able to at least beat out Uhuru.

raced in the night budupump shhhaaaaaaa
could have been the number one
driving like Dean in budupump shhhaaaaaaa
should have taken the american way
raged and twisting budupump shhhaaaaaaa
mountain pass smaller than the man
torqeing now spinning budupump shhhaaaaaaa
smoking a cig and taking a swig
smashcrashsmashcrash budupump shhhaaaaaaa
A speck falls from the mountain
speck drifts to it's resting spot budupump shhhaaaaaaa
the country mourns for the speck
But the speck knew they would all along.

<whispering> budupump shhhaaaaaaa

Hurray for pain pills and beer!

Originally posted by Senseny
Shift-zoom8, if I flamed you, I apologize. My points still stand, but if they were worded in any way that you may find offensive I apologize. I do not like to argue in any forum I am a member of and after thinking about my last post decided to write this.

Hey, I accept. Don't worry about it.

I even got a Yale law grad who, in private message, taught me a new word: Blunderbuss.

Dictionary says it means short gun with wide bore. Hmm. Whatever the metaphor, it can't be good. Wouldn't such a gun be inaccurate and spray all over the place?

And Elara would be proud of me to know that I responded to that guy in private message in a very cordial way even though I never spoke to him in my public posts and he was hating on me really bad.:)

I thought hating on Zoom was only my job...

Off to be, we shall continue this conversation tomorrow, Enjoy my lovely poem :)

Ike is biased; So what?
Just read the reactions of some of the RX8 owners in this forum, and you'll realise that many (most) RX8 owners are biased towards their car too.
Defending one's property is human nature. The majority of Americans support GW's policies, don't they? They're biased too.

So Ike is gay? No wonder he can be such a pain in the ass sometimes (pun intended). He sure seems to enjoy poking at RX8 owners. And I never thought of the Sti as a gay car (the VW beetle maybe), or maybe Ike is the Village People type.

Let it be.

Exactly. So what.

But people are getting pissed at me, not (in my opinion) totally based on WHAT I write but HOW I write and their perception of my attitude.

Keep in mind that Subarus in general seem to be the car of choice for many lesbians.

That was some weird crap Ike wrote with the poem and the pain pills and alcohol. Do you think he drove his WRX STi off the mountain cliff?

shift_zoom8, You might think I would be offended by the Subaru being a car of choice for lesbos, but as my tastes in genetalia are the same as lesbians, I will take it as a compliment. My wife, she may or may not be offended, you never know.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Off to be, we shall continue this conversation tomorrow, Enjoy my lovely poem :)

My god, I think you are stoned!!!!!! I like it! Good night....

If Ike is gay, then I don't think there are going to be any baby bananas from that avatar.......

That is the coolest avatar of all though. Which gives me an idea for a poll....How about whose avatar is the best? I don't know how to create a poll, so I'll let someone else if interested.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
If Ike is gay, then I don't think there are going to be any baby bananas from that avatar.......

That is the coolest avatar of all though. Which gives me an idea for a poll....How about whose avatar is the best? I don't know how to create a poll, so I'll let someone else if interested.

Much to Shift_zoom's chagrin I am straight. Maybe my 'nanas are just impotent :(

Much to my chagrin, you did not drive off the cliff.

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Much to my chagrin, you did not drive off the cliff.


Classy, calling me gay is one thing. But wishing death upon me is an all time low, even for you.

That is kind of harsh, shift_zoom. Maybe YOU need to have a couple of beers and a pain pill. Or apologize. At least add a smily.

So we not only have misunderstanding of the explicit written word, we also have misunderstanding of indirect tone. That's why I have alluded to "the problem of language" in more than one post.

This CAN be a problem with writing, and the lack of nonverbal cues we use to interpret meaning (body language).

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Keep in mind that Subarus in general seem to be the car of choice for many lesbians.

I was going to let this one pass, but you went on for pages criticizing my other hypothesis (I won't mention it again specifically Elara) but now you come up with this.

I suppose you have some reference for this.......

Never mind, this will be closed before you can reply.

Edit- Oh, I did a Google search and you are right! But those studies are probably not "scientific enough" for someone like you..... :D

http://www.warroom.com/gaysubaru.htm

So Ike is not gay after all? Where does that rumour come from then?

Going back on topic: Is the RX8 popular in the gay community? Gays are usually very design-conscious. What do they think of the 8?

Originally posted by hotpot
So Ike is not gay after all? Where does that rumour come from then?

Not sure if yer just playing dumb... but it was Shiftzoom that started it all, and a young kid or two jumped in to help with the littie smear campaign.

Okay, one more time. Ike is not gay. And he does not deserve to be personally attacked. If I see *one* more comment attacking him, the offender will get a permanent ban. There is no reason to continually harass and abuse another member. I'm also not sure why anyone's bringing up stupid gay stereotypes but you can quit with those too. If you want to continue this conversation take it to pms, otherwise, drop it. Closing.